IBTL

Beechtalk doesn't allow politics and they seem to be doing just fine. As a matter of fact they have more members than any other GA board that I'm aware of.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Wow I sure don't envy being a part of the MC.

I'm glad you guys do it and put up with this... I'm not sure I could do it on a volunteer basis.
Click to expand...

No kidding! What a lot of whining and crying about nothing! Why does this back and forth with the Mods come up again and again?? Why does it always go on for so many pages? It's always the same people bitching too. I have to admit, I'm drawn to watch this goofy drama go on too. I need to get a life.
 
Dav8or said:
No kidding! What a lot of whining and crying about nothing! Why does this back and forth with the Mods come up again and again?? Why does it always go on for so many pages? It's always the same people bitching too. I have to admit, I'm drawn to watch this goofy drama go on too. I need to get a life.
Click to expand...

You have one. We're it.

My condolences. ;)
 
I think there are some who see conspiracies all around, including within the MC of POA. This particularly applies to the closure of the Spin Zone. For some reason there are those that cannot accept we voted to close it for our own individual and collective reasons. It's pretty funny to see the same people bring it up over and over again whenever moderation is discussed.

Oh the drama! LOL.
 
paflyer said:
And... 104 posts in, we arrive at the root of the matter. Would have been nice if the MC just said that the SZ was killed because they worried about their own reps.
Click to expand...

Please don't put words in my mouth. I was not an MC member when this went down (even though I would have supported the decision), and the comment reflects only my opinion, not that of PoA or the MC.

I will further add that it is my opinion that the board's reputation <> that of the moderators. It could be, depending on the board, but in the case of PoA the Management Council is composed of multiple people, with different backgrounds and different political views.

It is my opinion, knowing the folks involved, that personal reputation had nothing to do with it.
 
wsuffa said:
Please don't put words in my mouth. I was not an MC member when this went down (even though I would have supported the decision), and the comment reflects only my opinion, not that of PoA or the MC.

I will further add that it is my opinion that the board's reputation <> that of the moderators. It could be, depending on the board, but in the case of PoA the Management Council is composed of multiple people, with different backgrounds and different political views.

It is my opinion, knowing the folks involved, that personal reputation had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
I didn't put words in your mouth, I only emphasized the salient points in your own text, as I read it. I didn't know you weren't involved, but reading your post at face value it can be interpreted that you were. I stand corrected on that point.
 
Political discussions tend to uncover the 'stupid' in people, even smart people. I'm happy to not have to read those discussion here.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Some of us have seen firsthand the results of unfettered keyboard diarrhea back in the heyday of USENET and ended up here.

You will not here me complain about the moderators - they deserve our thanks, even if sometimes we disagree with the details.

Where is mxsmanic when you need him? (Would you believe that his youtube channel has about 4 million views, and not one video of him watching the "autopilot" fly his "airplane" on his computer?)
Click to expand...

mxsmanic. That's a name I haven't heard in...

A youtube channel? How does he argue with everybody?

John
 
Due to various reasons I have not responded until now.

In the beginning, POA had a motto of being the "Back Porch of Aviation." A back porch is where friends can gather and discuss various things. As with any rather large group of people, sub-groups form and have their own conversations. That is fine, and to be expected.

When I was growing up, and truth told, even still, some topics were never really discussed because they caused dissention animosity among people. It was always best to leave politics and religion alone.

However, since some people just have to have those discussions, and since we wanted to be as inclusive as possible, we built a separate porch for the people that wanted to have those discussions. The only thing that was asked was that those discussions not be brought over to the main porch.

Problem is, those discussions got loud and raucous and spilled over onto the main porch. Those people were asked by those on the main poach to tone it down and for awhile all was well. But eventually the discussions got so loud and contentious that the folks on the main porch asked them to leave to preserve the feeling of the back porch for the rest.

We never tried to moderate Spin. The problems started when the Spin discussions spilled over onto the rest of the forum. The moderators were still spending 90% of their time dealing with fallout from Spin. It was a collective decision among the moderators to shut down Spin for the good of the rest of the board.

Now, those that were diehard Spin Zoners went and formed their own forum. They built their own porch. Fine. More power to them. Funny thing is, most of them had no interest in participating in the main POA board anyway.

The owner of the porch has the right to make up some rules for their own porch. If one of those rules is no politics and no religion, so be it. Bottom line? Be adult enough to abide by the rules set forth by the owner of the porch.
 
I think the mods are doing a fine job. I occasionally checked out the Spin Zone but it was mostly attacks and regurgitating of alternative facts by all factions, and then when I tried to remove myself from it I also noticed that the worst offenders just brought it over here into Hangar Talk. I like BS'ing and talking politics as much as the next guy but not mixing it in with other interests and forcing others who DON'T want to hear it to hear it. This place has become a lot more civilized in the last year or so.
 
Everskyward said:
I think there are some who see conspiracies all around, including within the MC of POA. This particularly applies to the closure of the Spin Zone. For some reason there are those that cannot accept we voted to close it for our own individual and collective reasons. It's pretty funny to see the same people bring it up over and over again whenever moderation is discussed.

Oh the drama! LOL.
Click to expand...

Just be careful not to pretend "we" includes the entire community here. "We" in this context was what, five people or so?

The decision was already made by the time anyone in the community was asked their opinion. And it was "asked" framed a certain way.

That "framing" of subtle hints that political discussions are always "bad" continues. Like Ted's little picturesque story of the poor people on their porch who couldn't enjoy their wine. Awwww. Paints a picture.

There's nothing inherently bad about political topics -- the bad is certain individual's behavior while partaking. Always was, always is.

Not saying these things like it being a handful of people deciding are bad or good, but just a point of order. It was a "vote" of management not a vote of the community at large.

The HOA analogy falls apart at that point also, since the community doesn't vote on the MC members. I don't think there was a single active SZ participant on the MC at the time the decision was made, was there?

Honestly, I didn't intend this as a debate of SZ, I just posted that there was a lot of weirdness offline away from the online community going down, back then. That stuff was driven by a very small (but statistically larger than MC) group of people.

They wanted to emotionally manipulate the need for the decision to be made that ultimately was made. They succeeded.

(Technically a political strategy. Haha. Gasp! Politics!)

But the discussion has clarified a lot of the back story for me in understanding why the MC "went there" and why the active SZ participants weren't really involved in the process. That is always the MC's prerogative here, that's how the place is set up.

Better and funnier analogy than the poor wine drinkers story would be that it was kinda like having a low wing group stirring the pot to kick the high wingers out and a Board who only flies low wings... heh.

Those of us who did participate and didn't cause any of the "spill over" problem were a bit surprised the minority of troublemakers couldn't be dealt with and the swiftness and magnitude of the change.

Anywhoo... the whole "reputation" thing is funny.

Considering that the place still has the reputation it always had... argumentative.

I'll freely admit to having participated in that, but I try to at least have salient discussion points when debating stuff and admit when I'm wrong.

It is a discussion board after all.

I always crack up when I see folks say, essentially, "Why are you people DISCUSSING things!? OMGBBQ! Shush!!!" LOL.

My goodness man. Discussing things. Can you imagine? On a discussion board? Who knew? :)
 
Ravioli said:
It's always so nice to see a contrary opinion expressed and responded to without any value judgments.
Click to expand...

Ah, the irony in this post... so Rob, after this statement, how do you explain your behavior on the VAF board last week in the "N number scam" thread? Most people there were of the opinion that the dude selling short N numbers at a large profit was a sleazy scam artist. You and one other guy were of the opinion that it was not an issue. You then proceeded to call the rest of the crowd "mental" for their opinion of it being sleazy.

So it's okay to for you to use value judgements over there, but here, not so much? In case you forgot what you posted, let me refresh your memory...

"An alternative solution is that if you actually think this is a problem you should be subjected to a HIMS evaluation.... because you're mental.

Normally I don't get all argumentative here on VAF and I spew it out on Pilots of America, but this topic is so dumb at it's core that I broke my own rule."

Nice. Your insulting attitude on that thread is what shut it down.
 
jbDC9 said:
Nice. Your insulting attitude on that thread is what shut it down.
Click to expand...

Full text of post number 89 in the thread you referenced:
\\START of Quote
Okay.. okay.. okay...
Now that I understand the desperate situation that nobody is in, trying to tackle this problem that does not exist, I can provide a PERFECT solution:
Anyone who can afford to BUILD an aircraft and cannot afford to REGISTER it must receive a taxpayer subsidy to buy one of these fleeting registration numbers.
An alternative solution is that if you actually think this is a problem you should be subjected to a HIMS evaluation.... because you're mental.
Normally I don't get all argumentative here on VAF and I spew it out on Pilots of America, but this topic is so dumb at it's core that I broke my own rule.
I've also reported my own post!
\\END of Quote

All of my other comments in that very long thread were that there was no "SCAM" because the business being discussed does provide a legal service and should not have been singled out as a SCAM because there have been no aggrieved individuals who gave money without receiving what they paid for. My opinion remains that people can choose not to avail themselves of any service they want, but choosing not to avail yourself of a service does not render it a scam.

But you are correct. Post 89 did include the single line of your quote. But, I don't think it caused the closing of thread because the final post by the moderator who closed it said:

103 posts so there has been ample opportunity to present various positions concerning this situation. We are on the cusp of getting personal/political with some of the responses......thread is closed.

I would expect that if my post was the reason for the closure, I would have heard it on that forum, and at that time.

Edit: Here's the link to the whole thread for anyone who is interested. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=145859&highlight=scam+action+needed
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
One thing I've heard is that people think the MC is tolerant of personal attacks, misogyny, etc. but not tolerant of various other items which are viewed as less severe. My response is that no, we aren't tolerant of personal attacks or misogynistic posts at all. However, we don't read every single post on the forum. The MC is made up of members who like being here too, so we read the threads that interest us.

If you see a personal attack (or are personally attacked), report it. I haven't seen any bad post get reported twice, so assuming someone else will or assuming that a MC member will read it is not correct.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's ever been true. Personal attacks have always been frowned upon and I myself was once probated for calling someone a name (which, do this day I swear meant something other than I thought).

As for misogyny? If you can find a way to determine misogynistic intent in text only then you're a better man than I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top