Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I hate to jump in on this discussion, but I have to say one thing to defend Dan...he is not the person responsible for how Merchandise has become so bad the past couple of years. He has been in the GM of Merchandise role very briefly. He inherited those problems (which, by the way, stem from higher executives than the GM. So gripes about Merch. should be directed to higher ups from years back.)>> No doubt. But Dan was the man in charge when merchandise decided to turn the left side of Main Street into one giant World of Disney Superstore with meaningless facades outside. Was this decision made over hie head? I doubt that. Dan also was in charge when many of the things in prior posts took place. <<Dan is so new, in fact, to his role as the GM of Merch. that he admits to using a "cheat" sheet of facts when he talks to Cast about that department. So in short, he is not responsible for the downfall of Merchandise (I agree with all of you on its downfall!) It started many years ago when he had nothing to do with Merch.>> Again. No one, or at least not I, am blaming him for that. But he did nothing but continue the WalMarting trend. I do believe that visionary, creative leaders can bring about positive change in their business departments. I've witnessed it. And I've seen the other side as well. <<And yes, he is a very nice person, and I feel that he is a great leader.>> Never said he wasn't. But that point is really not important to the discussion at hand. Plenty of wonderful people do lousy jobs or are placed in ill-suited positions (Paul Pressler would be one that comes to mind ... yes, I knew him and yes, I found him to be a very nice man unlike the witch who replaced him at DL). Plenty of terrible people do great jobs as well. I don't know what kind of person Dan is, but if he's like his father he probably is a good guy, but that isn't the point at all.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And what exactly have I said about the man other than he was promoted into this position ... something that regularly gets reported on on this very site?" I'm just saying you need to be very careful. "To know someone's name or work phone number at a public hospitality company is stalking." If it's not a public number, and you had to investigate to find it, yes, it can be considered that. "Oh come now, Jon, you must realize that these sites are complete jokes and no one inside Disney or in any serious position in the REAL world takes them seriously in the least." I've heard it both ways. I would tend to agree with you that the comments on these sites are jokes. But then we hear that Disney thinks that the fan community submarined DCA. So, I'm not entirely sure anymore. "Oh come now, Jon, you must realize that these sites are complete jokes and no one inside Disney or in any serious position in the REAL world takes them seriously in the least." Then no, probably not. On the other hand, I've been quoted in the paper, but I'm still a private individual. "But I do so because why would I want to discuss some low level employee by name? What would the purpose be?" Since you mentioned him, you can ask Al about that one. He once posted a tirade about a kitchen lead (posted her picture too) because the drain backed up. Said she didn't care if the public was made ill by her actions, or words to that effect. It's been a while. Know why he did this? Because her ex-boyfriend wanted revenge on her, and told Al this story, and he ran with it, regardless of the truthfullness of the story or who it hurt. This is the sort of thing that is really a very bad choice for someone to make. You need to simply be careful about the statements you make regarding people who are not in the public eye. I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying you are doing a terrible thing, or any other such thing. I don't really know who these people are you are talking about, or their positions. I'm just suggesting that such things can become problematic. And you should be very careful about it. "Friday nights he throws all his old fetish porm mags out and I really want to get my hands on them!" Just download it from the net. My god, things have changed from when I was a kid. When I was a kid, we didn't have total access to porn like we do now. You kids today have all the luck.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But Dan was the man in charge when merchandise decided to turn the left side of Main Street into one giant World of Disney Superstore with meaningless facades outside. Was this decision made over hie head? I doubt that." What time period did this happen? Because the exact same thing happened in Anaheim. All the stores went from having cool individual themed merchandise to shlock. If it happened at both coasts at the same time, then my guess is that it was not a local decision, and the local people were only implementing the edicts from on high.
Originally Posted By danyoung If I can make a rude attempt at putting this public figure thing into perspective - 74's naming of an executive level position at the MK is no different than talking about the same type of position at another company. Joe Schmenke is now executive VP in charge of shoe laces at Nike. He came from Reebok, where their shoelaces took a downturn in quality over the last year, so I'm afraid of what he'll do at Nike. See? No stalking, nothing inappropriate - just a discussion of an executive changing jobs, and what that will mean for the product. (Of course Joe Schmenke ain't real - just a silly illustration.)
Originally Posted By CMDad I have been reading this thread without saying anything because it has just gotten silly. 1) WDW is owned by the Walt Disney Company - a public corporation. 2) As consumers, guests have every right to be concerned about and discuss those factors which affect the value they receive for their money. 3) Many of us - myself included - are stock holders, making the internal running of the company an appropriate issue for us. 4) No one is attacking Dan personally and in fact everyone I know who has met him says he is as nice as his Dad (who I had met). There is nothing even remotely inappropriate about discussing his professional actions and their imapct on the company/and WDW. Lighten up!!!
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << There is nothing even remotely inappropriate about discussing his professional actions and their imapct on the company/and WDW. >> If there was a discussion based on a specific public event or a specific series of events tied to a specific person, I might agree. However, if you look at the discussion post history of some posters on this board, you find a lengthy trend of identifying every possible person in WDW leadership by name regardless of any need for them to be idenitified that way, taking note of their internal job moves in the organization, encouraging other posters to contact them by phone or e-mail, and rampant speculation on the actions that these people have taken/might take/will take. You may not realize it, but these sorts of "fan" postings result in personal uneasiness and fear for safety of the WDW employees and families of those who are constantly being named and followed around. It only takes one mentally unstable person to grasp onto the fantasy that they can have some sort of personal relationship with a Disney company leader and you end up with tragic consequences. The Disney company spends untold millions of dollars to investigate and defend against stalking actions against its employees -- some of them beginning as seemingly benign postings on the web. If this were a single discussion based on some specific event or action by a person in WDW leadership, I wouldn't be typing these posts. What we have, however, is a pattern of behavior that goes beyond the scope of being described as benign or simply in the arena of being a "fan." The nature of these posts also matches up almost perfectly with well established clinical and criminal definitions of online stalking behavior that is considered to be a growing problem in our increasingly internet-based world.
Originally Posted By danyoung >The Disney company spends untold millions of dollars to investigate and defend against stalking actions against its employees -- some of them beginning as seemingly benign postings on the web.< I simply don't believe that this is true, or that you would be privy to any knowledge about this one way or the other - pure hyperbole. And everything else you said in the previous post is just drivel, IMO. You're projecting some type of stalking fear that you have onto a discussion about a person's position in a company that we all love, know a lot about, and care deeply about. Sure, there are mentally sick folks out there, but we can't set our own actions based on what they might do. To say that a discussion about a company executive is going to end up with a stalking incident or millions of dollars being spent to defend the executive is pure paranoid lunacy. Sorry, Goof - that's how I feel.
Originally Posted By jonvn "See? No stalking, nothing inappropriate " Actually, if the person is not a public figure, then yes, it is inappropriate. "just a discussion of an executive changing jobs" If there isn't a press release on it, then they are not public figures in the company. "1) WDW is owned by the Walt Disney Company - a public corporation." I'm sorry, but this is simply irrelevant, as is your being a stockholder.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Actually, if the person is not a public figure, then yes, it is inappropriate.< No, it's not.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I'm with Danny boy on this one. I take a great interest in the execs of my company. A company I invest in. And indeed the Disney company. Just like people who are interested in Baseball managers and the like. These people are leaders, and if they are leading something I care about, I want to know what their ethos, vision, approach and methodologies are like. And if I don't like it, I will do my best to remedy it. Kind of like if I go to a restaurant and like the ambience and food, but dislike one particular server, I will ask for someone different. Same thing really.
Originally Posted By jonvn "No, it's not." Actually, yes, it really is. In fact the law really differentiates the two different sorts of people I am talking about. A public figure has a much higher burden in proving slander than someone who is a private person. You don't go prying into private people's lives. If you take an unhealthy interest in someone, it's going to not be considered a very normal behavior. Most of the people at these mid to low level management positions are simply there to implement policy. They are not like baseball managers who are public figures, but just average people doing a job. A public exec? That's a different thing. But not private individuals.
Originally Posted By CMDad <<"1) WDW is owned by the Walt Disney Company - a public corporation." I'm sorry, but this is simply irrelevant>> Fortunately - the only thing irrelevant here is your take on this. Your saying it is irrelevant does not make it so.
Originally Posted By CMDad <<You don't go prying into private people's lives. If you take an unhealthy interest in someone, it's going to not be considered a very normal behavior.>> I don't remember this discussion being about anyone's private life. I do remember an on-topic conversation regarding an officer of a public corporation.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Fortunately - the only thing irrelevant here is your take on this. " My take on this is based on libel laws. There is a difference between a public and private person. There are also anti harassment and stalking laws. And my saying it is irrelevant is because it is. By your statement, any employee of any public company is open to public scrutiny because they are an employee of a publiclly held company is false. "I do remember an on-topic conversation regarding an officer of a public corporation." If someone is an officer of a public corporation, that is one thing. But the guy who runs merchandising at the MK in WDW is not a corporate officer. You need to figure out that part, first.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Actually, yes, it really is.< No, it's not. Hey, we could do this for WEEKS!!!
Originally Posted By jonvn I explained why it is. Here. Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages. The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures. A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure". From: <a href="http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html" target="_blank">http://www.expertlaw.com/libra ry/personal_injury/defamation.html</a> You can't just pull these people up and say they are public figures. They aren't, and the law says they are treated differently. Aside from the morality of discussing someone as if you knew them and as if they were public figures when they are not, you can much more easily step over the boundaries of what can and can not be said, and get yourself in trouble.
Originally Posted By danyoung >As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure". < So a case could be made that this Dan guy had something to do with the merchandise in the Disney parks, and as such any comments on his performance with regard to said merchandise is indeed within the bounds of his status as a "limited public figure". No one here is camping out on the guy's doorstep and checking up on his eating habits and going through his trash. And the day that a member comment on Laughingplace holds the same weight as an article in the New York Times or Time Magazine, that's the day I'll capitulate that you have a leg to stand on.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 This thread likely will go on for weeks. But I don't have a whole lot left to say except I really take exception to the accusations of one poster here, and he knows this and continues to accuse me of things that could well ...be slanderous. I don't hold any malice to the man in question, Dan Cockerell, but I also know his job is fair game to be discussed here. It is truly laughable that anyone with any brain matter left would ever believe that his career could be harmed by this kind of talk. If anyone ever had such a claim in the Disney World it would have been Paul Pressler, and even he didn't. A judge would laugh you out of court if you ever brought a claim against a fan blog, as a Disney exec, and claimed that posts from strangers resulted in you not being promoted. Absurd. The absurdity of thoughts like this ... I just don't get. Oh, and I was being facetious Jon, many people from Disney troll here ... some execs too. And I do know this as fact. One thing Jon asked about, though, was the WalMarting of Main Street ... and while DL has suffered, it is to a much, much, much lesser extent. DL still has a magic shop, a cinema, a Disneyana shop, a children's shop, a crystal shop etc ... I know you've got a trip coming up to WDW (because I am stalking you too and I know what hotel you're staying at because it is abbreviated WL ... so watch out or Mr. Wannebe a MK Exec will get you!!!!!!) you'll see just what I mean about the MK. The entire Emporium side of Main Street has become ONE single shop that runs the entire length of the street with signs signifying 'Children's' ... 'Men's' ... etc ... just like a Macy's (just selling Disney crap instead). The facades outside may say things like 'Main Street Athletics' and such, but they have no meaning once you are inside. Also, the fact you can now walk with your purchases through what once were individual shops (that helped tell a story and set a time period) has resulted in skyrocketing shoplifting, but apparently not enough to match the profit margins of just selling loads of crap to the masses. DL (and DLP) are in NO way, shape or form the same on Main Street, and both of those have been dumbed down significantly too.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<And the day that a member comment on Laughingplace holds the same weight as an article in the New York Times or Time Magazine, that's the day I'll capitulate that you have a leg to stand on.>> Well, Dan, considering that journalism is at an all-time low in the USA, this may happen sooner than you'd think ;-)
Originally Posted By jonvn "So a case could be made that this Dan guy had something to do with the merchandise in the Disney parks" Not really. No. She placed herself in the limelight. Someone just going about their business has done no such thing. "And the day that a member comment on Laughingplace holds the same weight..." That doesn't matter. But it really means very little to me. Just something people should consider.
