FLPD Message Board Here To Stay!

[chipdeblock]

Greetings,

First, I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to post and send emails to me about whether or not to keep this Message Board online. It was obvious that there is a real need for this site at FLPD and I intend to meet the need by keeping it online for the troops. I'm not sure how many of you know this, but LEOAFFAIRS.COM will not even put a Message Board online for an agency unless someone from that agency asks and then provides a moderator for it. As you guessed, someone from FLPD approached us a long time ago about putting your Message Board online.

As most of you know, this Message Board was down for about 12 days. Your FOP president, Jack Lokeinsky, has made his opposition to this website no secret. During the downtime I solicited input from you, the FLPD troops, to see if there was still a viable need for this site despite the claims to the contrary by Jack Lokeinsky. In short, there overwhelmingly was. I received private emails from you and online postings asking for the site to be put back online. In case some of you are confused because the Poll I had setup appeared heavily weighted towards keeping the Message Board down, please allow me to explain. What most of you do not know is that a large portion of the votes came from proxy servers in order to get around built in security measures to restrict IP addresses from voting more than once. I decided to keep the Poll online anyway because I don't have anything to hide and deleting it certainly would have given that appearance. Personally, I only need one person in need of this site to justify keeping it online. Thankfully there were many more.

During the downtime I approached your agency and the local FOP lodge about a new Monitor System of moderation. Basically your agency and the FOP would have had the ability to appoint Monitors to help with moderating the Message Board. Before you get excited, Monitor identities and contact numbers are known to everyone and anything they delete is only temporary. A Moderator goes behind them and makes sure anything they delete actually violated our Terms of Use. If it did not, the Moderator would put it back online and the Monitor could be replaced. So, LEOAFFAIRS.COM would ultimately maintain control over whether or not a message stayed online. The main advantage to this is the more timely deletion of violations. In any case, both your agency (FLPD) and the FOP (via Jack Lokeinsky) turned me down. So, the site is back online with our regular system of moderation which has been recognized as one of the best in the business.

What I'd like to leave you with is this: LEOAFFAIRS.COM isn't just online because you have a First Amendment right to free speech, but because we want to help you effect change. I can tell you countless stories of the good LEOAFFAIRS.COM has been able to do all over the country through this website. We even helped guarantee your right to free speech in 2006 when we went to court against a sheriff on behalf of his deputies and won in the 2nd District Court of Appeal...now there is case law. Unfortunately some departments and local unions prefer to put their heads in the sand and pretend LEOAFFAIRS.COM does not exist. Instead of using it as a tool like so many progressive agencies and unions out there do, they choose to try to ignore it and hope it just goes away. I'm sorry, but that's part of the problem and a reason why there can be so much turmoil within an agency or on a Message Board. Remember, LEOAFFAIRS.COM does not create the content on the site, the troops do. The agencies and unions who use this site to their advantage constantly research it to find out what the pulse and morale of the troops is. They even assign employees underneath them to monitor the site. That's smart! They can head off problems before they start and end rumors before they get any traction. Some even have department command staff or union executive staff that communicate to the troops by posting on the site...now imagine that! If there is something positive about your agency or union, then I encourage you to post it. If all the comments are negative, I assure you there is a reason.

I've had a couple of conversations with Jack Lokeinsky and have given him every courtesy while making my decision on whether or not to put the Message Board back online. I even held off on putting the site back online after I made my decision until we had the opportunity to talk one more time. His outspoken concern about the Message Board centered around timely moderation of the content. This was easily answered with my offer of a new Monitor system of moderation which was rejected. In addition, Jack Lokeinsky told me that any of his FOP members who became a Monitor (for deleting content) would be kicked out of the lodge, my membership with the FOP as a member in good standing was threatened, this website was characterized as a "garbage filled site" and I was called a "coward". It's obvious to me now that there was an agenda.

An agenda in our department and the FOP,,,,, Which one?????


Greetings,

First, I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to post and send emails to me about whether or not to keep this Message Board online. It was obvious that there is a real need for this site at FLPD and I intend to meet the need by keeping it online for the troops. I'm not sure how many of you know this, but LEOAFFAIRS.COM will not even put a Message Board online for an agency unless someone from that agency asks and then provides a moderator for it. As you guessed, someone from FLPD approached us a long time ago about putting your Message Board online.

As most of you know, this Message Board was down for about 12 days. Your FOP president, Jack Lokeinsky, has made his opposition to this website no secret. During the downtime I solicited input from you, the FLPD troops, to see if there was still a viable need for this site despite the claims to the contrary by Jack Lokeinsky. In short, there overwhelmingly was. I received private emails from you and online postings asking for the site to be put back online. In case some of you are confused because the Poll I had setup appeared heavily weighted towards keeping the Message Board down, please allow me to explain. What most of you do not know is that a large portion of the votes came from proxy servers in order to get around built in security measures to restrict IP addresses from voting more than once. I decided to keep the Poll online anyway because I don't have anything to hide and deleting it certainly would have given that appearance. Personally, I only need one person in need of this site to justify keeping it online. Thankfully there were many more.

During the downtime I approached your agency and the local FOP lodge about a new Monitor System of moderation. Basically your agency and the FOP would have had the ability to appoint Monitors to help with moderating the Message Board. Before you get excited, Monitor identities and contact numbers are known to everyone and anything they delete is only temporary. A Moderator goes behind them and makes sure anything they delete actually violated our Terms of Use. If it did not, the Moderator would put it back online and the Monitor could be replaced. So, LEOAFFAIRS.COM would ultimately maintain control over whether or not a message stayed online. The main advantage to this is the more timely deletion of violations. In any case, both your agency (FLPD) and the FOP (via Jack Lokeinsky) turned me down. So, the site is back online with our regular system of moderation which has been recognized as one of the best in the business.

What I'd like to leave you with is this: LEOAFFAIRS.COM isn't just online because you have a First Amendment right to free speech, but because we want to help you effect change. I can tell you countless stories of the good LEOAFFAIRS.COM has been able to do all over the country through this website. We even helped guarantee your right to free speech in 2006 when we went to court against a sheriff on behalf of his deputies and won in the 2nd District Court of Appeal...now there is case law. Unfortunately some departments and local unions prefer to put their heads in the sand and pretend LEOAFFAIRS.COM does not exist. Instead of using it as a tool like so many progressive agencies and unions out there do, they choose to try to ignore it and hope it just goes away. I'm sorry, but that's part of the problem and a reason why there can be so much turmoil within an agency or on a Message Board. Remember, LEOAFFAIRS.COM does not create the content on the site, the troops do. The agencies and unions who use this site to their advantage constantly research it to find out what the pulse and morale of the troops is. They even assign employees underneath them to monitor the site. That's smart! They can head off problems before they start and end rumors before they get any traction. Some even have department command staff or union executive staff that communicate to the troops by posting on the site...now imagine that! If there is something positive about your agency or union, then I encourage you to post it. If all the comments are negative, I assure you there is a reason.

I've had a couple of conversations with Jack Lokeinsky and have given him every courtesy while making my decision on whether or not to put the Message Board back online. I even held off on putting the site back online after I made my decision until we had the opportunity to talk one more time. His outspoken concern about the Message Board centered around timely moderation of the content. This was easily answered with my offer of a new Monitor system of moderation which was rejected. In addition, Jack Lokeinsky told me that any of his FOP members who became a Monitor (for deleting content) would be kicked out of the lodge, my membership with the FOP as a member in good standing was threatened, this website was characterized as a "garbage filled site" and I was called a "coward". It's obvious to me now that there was an agenda.

It doesn't surprise me that they tried to bully you.... if they only put half that energy into actually working for us, they might actually get something accomplished...especially M.T.

Jack don't want anyone talking, really?

Jack
Went over to the dark side a while ago boys. Thats why he is now Sgt Jack.


Jack don't want anyone talking, really?

While the message board may be here to stay-- but it is being inappropriately censored. Get off your high horse guys-- who are you to tell me what I can talk about and what is relevant and what is not. Just because it is not of interest to you-- does not make it not of interest to someone else. The solution is simple: If you don't like the entry-- behave in a manner so as not to create negative postings about you; draft a reasonable and responsible response or simply don't read the blog-- but censorship is never the answer.

If you don't believe the blog is being censored look at the heading on censorship-- the Moderator locked it down. Proving my point.

Get over yourself,,,, no one cares


While the message board may be here to stay-- but it is being inappropriately censored. Get off your high horse guys-- who are you to tell me what I can talk about and what is relevant and what is not. Just because it is not of interest to you-- does not make it not of interest to someone else. The solution is simple: If you don't like the entry-- behave in a manner so as not to create negative postings about you; draft a reasonable and responsible response or simply don't read the blog-- but censorship is never the answer.

If you don't believe the blog is being censored look at the heading on censorship-- the Moderator locked it down. Proving my point.

Chip, why don't you tell people how weak you are, and how you filed several law suits for defamaiton, and then you created this website that endorses the same.

Dale B. “Chip” DeBlock, a Tampa police detective, sued Ober last year for defamation after the state attorney publicly questioned the truthfulness of the former vice investigator. DeBlock had accused an assistant state attorney of tipping off lingerie shop owners he was investigating as fronts for prostitution.
DeBlock sued the city in 2001 when he was reassigned to a less prestigious job. City lawyers sought to depose Fuson. On a Web site DeBlock maintains for law enforcement personnel, he invites visitors to sign a cyber-petition calling on the local police union to endorse Fuson for state attorney.

Hey mister censor-- what does this irrelevant jibberish have to do with FLPD?


Chip, why don't you tell people how weak you are, and how you filed several law suits for defamaiton, and then you created this website that endorses the same.

Dale B. “Chip” DeBlock, a Tampa police detective, sued Ober last year for defamation after the state attorney publicly questioned the truthfulness of the former vice investigator. DeBlock had accused an assistant state attorney of tipping off lingerie shop owners he was investigating as fronts for prostitution.
DeBlock sued the city in 2001 when he was reassigned to a less prestigious job. City lawyers sought to depose Fuson. On a Web site DeBlock maintains for law enforcement personnel, he invites visitors to sign a cyber-petition calling on the local police union to endorse Fuson for state attorney.

Well, I don't know if I'd go as far as calling the moderator a "Commie", but I do agree that the post has nothing to do with FLPD. But it's obvious, isn't it, that the poster (I suspect his first name is Jack) is attempting to impeach the credibility of the site's co-founder, Chip DeBlock. It would have helped if he at least knew how to spell the words "hypocrite" and "defamation" correctly, especially since there's a built in spell check...oh well.

I did some checking online and the original poster should know all about defamation because he's committing the act of libel by not telling the truth. Chip DeBlock filed only one lawsuit (not several) for Defamation of Character and it was against the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office and State Attorney Mark Ober on 05/08/03. Since he put leoaffairs online on 10/01/02 and not after the lawsuit, you screwed up again.

If you're going to take potshots at someone anonymously, at least get your facts straight. Heck, I was already aware that most of what you wrote was wrong and it only took me about 5 minutes to verify it online. It makes you look like a liar and only adds credibility to the person you were seeking to damage. It wasn't too hard to see through this crap!


Hey mister censor-- what does this irrelevant jibberish have to do with FLPD?


Chip, why don't you tell people how weak you are, and how you filed several law suits for defamaiton, and then you created this website that endorses the same.

Dale B. “Chip” DeBlock, a Tampa police detective, sued Ober last year for defamation after the state attorney publicly questioned the truthfulness of the former vice investigator. DeBlock had accused an assistant state attorney of tipping off lingerie shop owners he was investigating as fronts for prostitution.
DeBlock sued the city in 2001 when he was reassigned to a less prestigious job. City lawyers sought to depose Fuson. On a Web site DeBlock maintains for law enforcement personnel, he invites visitors to sign a cyber-petition calling on the local police union to endorse Fuson for state attorney.

I appolgize if there was some confusion. My comment is not in anyway directed at the Tampa Officer that hosts this website. I think Jack's efforts to go after him personally was uncalled for and unprofessional. My comment is directed at the person or persons (lIkely FLPD employee(s)) that are editing and censoring blog postings. Who are they to edit or censor what someone else writes. Who are you to take down posting from other people, that don't violate the terms of use. Who are they to control what people speak about. Who are you to decide what people can inquiry about. Who are they to decide what threads get locked down because they don't like the content. It is obvious, the Staff Moderator is trying to cover things up. To create spin through un-american censorship. Voltaire once said "I may no believe in what you say-- but I will defend to my death your right to say it." (If you are not educated enough to know who Voltaire is -- you may want to look it up.)

[chipdeblock]

I appolgize if there was some confusion. My comment is not in anyway directed at the Tampa Officer that hosts this website. I think Jack's efforts to go after him personally was uncalled for and unprofessional. My comment is directed at the person or persons (lIkely FLPD employee(s)) that are editing and censoring blog postings. Who are they to edit or censor what someone else writes. Who are you to take down posting from other people, that don't violate the terms of use. Who are they to control what people speak about. Who are you to decide what people can inquiry about. Who are they to decide what threads get locked down because they don't like the content. It is obvious, the Staff Moderator is trying to cover things up. To create spin through un-american censorship. Voltaire once said "I may no believe in what you say-- but I will defend to my death your right to say it." (If you are not educated enough to know who Voltaire is -- you may want to look it up.)

I read your post and appreciate everyone's support for both me and this website. As a matter of fact, I just got back from Ft. Lauderdale this past Sunday and you guys have a beautiful city.

As for the moderation (a.k.a. censorship) issue, perhaps I can shed some light on the subject. Yes, you are correct in that we do not have to moderate any content on the Message Boards. In fact, as a Content Provider, we are protected by The Communications Act of 1934 and subsequent Telecommunications Act of 1996. This federal legislation protects LEOAFFAIRS.COM, its Users and other Content Providers by providing immunity from liability of publishing information provided by others.

Most people might take that protection and run with it, deciding not to spend the time, money and resources to implement a system of moderation for over 500 agency message boards. I, however, feel differently. Although I was motivated to start this site because of an experience I went through, I didn't want to do it unless we could effect change. Let's face it, cops have plenty of gripes and issues to talk about, but I didn't see the benefit of creating a forum like that (other than perhaps therapeutic) unless it could be used to change things. There are other sites like that, they have a horrible reputation, nothing gets accomplished and even good content on them is not considered credible. Thus, we have Mod 1, Staff Moderators and 400 or so Moderators to get the job done. It's a huge operation. To stay on point with your question and/or complaint about controlling content, I can easily explain. I don't want anyone to get investigated by IA because of something someone wrote in here, whether the accused officer did something wrong or not. That's not the purpose of this website, as we are an Officer Rights website first. Also, if a poster libels someone they can be held civilly or criminally liable for what they wrote. LEOAFFAIRS.COM may be protected as a Content Provider, but posters are responsible for what they write (even if its true). So, deleting inappropriate content helps keep us credible and also protects our users. If a topic is started that will not be productive or will lead to libeling people, it might be removed or locked. Examples of areas of concern are postings about officers sleeping with each other or having affairs and talking about open IA investigations. If an officer starts a post about who the hottest females cops are, it would be allowed to stay...but a string about who the ugliest were would be removed. Talking about officers who have been investigated, disciplined, fired, etc. can get some air time, especially if its been covered in the media, but it doesn't need to be beat to death. For example, a supervisor who gets arrested for DUI and demoted or fired has paid his price and hopefully learned from it. The same with others who have been investigated. Bringing up this baggage over time and making them re-live it is not something I want this site to be associated with...mainly because I don't view it as constructive and I don't see what good can come from it. None of us are perfect and we ALL make mistakes, let's learn from them and move on.

Anyhow, hopefully you'll have a new appreciation for how we do things and why. It's one of the main reasons why we've been in The Washington Post, on MSNBC and on television, newspapers and radio across the country. If we did not have that kind of media coverage, we would never be able to effect change the way we have. Of course, most of this is not possible without Moderators and our users helping out by reporting bad posts.

Thanks for your support!

Translation: Keep those advertising dollars rolling in!!!



I appolgize if there was some confusion. My comment is not in anyway directed at the Tampa Officer that hosts this website. I think Jack's efforts to go after him personally was uncalled for and unprofessional. My comment is directed at the person or persons (lIkely FLPD employee(s)) that are editing and censoring blog postings. Who are they to edit or censor what someone else writes. Who are you to take down posting from other people, that don't violate the terms of use. Who are they to control what people speak about. Who are you to decide what people can inquiry about. Who are they to decide what threads get locked down because they don't like the content. It is obvious, the Staff Moderator is trying to cover things up. To create spin through un-american censorship. Voltaire once said "I may no believe in what you say-- but I will defend to my death your right to say it." (If you are not educated enough to know who Voltaire is -- you may want to look it up.)

I read your post and appreciate everyone's support for both me and this website. As a matter of fact, I just got back from Ft. Lauderdale this past Sunday and you guys have a beautiful city.

As for the moderation (a.k.a. censorship) issue, perhaps I can shed some light on the subject. Yes, you are correct in that we do not have to moderate any content on the Message Boards. In fact, as a Content Provider, we are protected by The Communications Act of 1934 and subsequent Telecommunications Act of 1996. This federal legislation protects LEOAFFAIRS.COM, its Users and other Content Providers by providing immunity from liability of publishing information provided by others.

Most people might take that protection and run with it, deciding not to spend the time, money and resources to implement a system of moderation for over 500 agency message boards. I, however, feel differently. Although I was motivated to start this site because of an experience I went through, I didn't want to do it unless we could effect change. Let's face it, cops have plenty of gripes and issues to talk about, but I didn't see the benefit of creating a forum like that (other than perhaps therapeutic) unless it could be used to change things. There are other sites like that, they have a horrible reputation, nothing gets accomplished and even good content on them is not considered credible. Thus, we have Mod 1, Staff Moderators and 400 or so Moderators to get the job done. It's a huge operation. To stay on point with your question and/or complaint about controlling content, I can easily explain. I don't want anyone to get investigated by IA because of something someone wrote in here, whether the accused officer did something wrong or not. That's not the purpose of this website, as we are an Officer Rights website first. Also, if a poster libels someone they can be held civilly or criminally liable for what they wrote. LEOAFFAIRS.COM may be protected as a Content Provider, but posters are responsible for what they write (even if its true). So, deleting inappropriate content helps keep us credible and also protects our users. If a topic is started that will not be productive or will lead to libeling people, it might be removed or locked. Examples of areas of concern are postings about officers sleeping with each other or having affairs and talking about open IA investigations. If an officer starts a post about who the hottest females cops are, it would be allowed to stay...but a string about who the ugliest were would be removed. Talking about officers who have been investigated, disciplined, fired, etc. can get some air time, especially if its been covered in the media, but it doesn't need to be beat to death. For example, a supervisor who gets arrested for DUI and demoted or fired has paid his price and hopefully learned from it. The same with others who have been investigated. Bringing up this baggage over time and making them re-live it is not something I want this site to be associated with...mainly because I don't view it as constructive and I don't see what good can come from it. None of us are perfect and we ALL make mistakes, let's learn from them and move on.

Anyhow, hopefully you'll have a new appreciation for how we do things and why. It's one of the main reasons why we've been in The Washington Post, on MSNBC and on television, newspapers and radio across the country. If we did not have that kind of media coverage, we would never be able to effect change the way we have. Of course, most of this is not possible without Moderators and our users helping out by reporting bad posts.

Thanks for your support!

Translation: Keep those advertising dollars rolling in!!!

I find it amazing that there are some naive souls out there like the poster RC who find fault with the owners of this site making a profit. What on earth is wrong with that? They had the idea, they implemented it, it had never been done before and they are obviously doing something right because it appears to be very successful. There is no charge to access this site, so it's FREE to everyone, and they seem to pay for it with advertising money. Have you even read RC how large this site is or noticed, say, how many moderators there are? Do you think it's cheap to run the site or that everyone should volunteer their time to do so? 20, 30 or 40 hours a week maybe? Stick with your day job RC because you wouldn't stand a chance of running a business.

If someone cries freedom of speech then delets posts that they personally dont like but are in no way a violation of the terms of use (your own terms at that) are they the pot or the kettle?

If someone cries freedom of speech then delets posts that they personally dont like but are in no way a violation of the terms of use (your own terms at that) are they the pot or the kettle?

When you delete this one dont forget to get the one off the Tampa site as well. Just a hunch.

Is this our board or do you and this guy need a room ?


If someone cries freedom of speech then delets posts that they personally dont like but are in no way a violation of the terms of use (your own terms at that) are they the pot or the kettle?

so wich was it...pot or kettle? or just delete posts because you cant handle the truth

wow!!!

wow is right but true

wow!!!