IBTL

Moderating name calling and vulgarity is needed. And like everyone, I sometimes need to be reminded of decorum.

You ******* AoA Indicator Lover! ****! ;)

(For the record those are real typed stars and no, that's not the profanity filter working overtime. LOL!)

You made me laugh so hard after I hung up the phone the other day, dude. I was dying...
 
If you read through the threads, we actually allow various references to politics (because, as you say, it is intertwined with aviation). The line for where it crosses into political discussions can sometimes be blurry, but usually happens when people start arguing or making statements that are purely 100% political rather than actually non political.
I agree with you Ted. All I was saying is I think we could allow conversations to drop a little deeper into that blurry part you referred to. Also want to reiterate I'm not complaining, just discussing and sharing my opinion. I think it's important to talk about this kind of stuff so you guys get feedback from the peanut gallery.
 
I find it ironic that a forum that was started by Chuck to escape the heavy handed moderation (on what is now the Red board) has become so heavy handed. This 'place' has become a laughing stock among those that frequent multiple forums/groups. SMH...

Here's the deal. The job of moderators is, well, to moderate. You can think of us like an HOA. Don't want rules? Go someplace without them. I don't (and won't) live in a neighborhood with an HOA. However, I participate in internet forums because I enjoy the conversation and am here to learn. I stop enjoying the conversation (or learning) when the signal to noise ratio gets such that I have a hard time seeing the relevant content through the bickering and arguments. I'm here because I like to talk about airplanes and non-airplane things with other pilots (the amount of knowledge we have here about almost any subject is incredible). That is the balance that PoA tries to achieve. You can talk about airplanes, you can talk about your house, tractors, boats, off-grid living, books, plumbing, flying careers, and a hose of other things. But we have rules that govern what we don't want you to do. We don't want you to talk about politics. We want you to be nice to eachother. We don't want you posting stuff that is outright disgusting.

PoA has had a number of periods over the years since I joined where the signal to noise ratio has been really, really bad. Some folks liked it that way, but we lost a lot of good contributors permanently because of it. People who actually knew a lot about airplanes and flying, and made useful contributions to the forum. One can argue that they were thin-skinned, but I know many of them and they were anything but. Most of them were just sick of the fact they couldn't come here to talk about airplanes and other stuff in a civil manner with other adults. Going back to the neighborhood analogy, it's hard for you to sit on the back porch and enjoy a glass of wine when your neighbors are out front yelling at eachother and throwing glass bottles in the middle of the street arguing.

Folks want to laugh about us and say that it's a bad place to be a member because the moderation is too heavy handed? No skin off my back.

I agree with you Ted. All I was saying is I think we could allow conversations to drop a little deeper into that blurry part you referred to. Also want to reiterate I'm not complaining, just discussing and sharing my opinion. I think it's important to talk about this kind of stuff so you guys get feedback from the peanut gallery.

I agree, and appreciate the feedback. To let you know how things work from our side, we tend to let conversations continue until they are going visibly downhill either at or towards the point of getting into political bickering or blatantly political posts. A lot of times you don't see how that progression happens, because unfortunately folks have a tendency of not keeping civil, and at that point there's an amputation that occurs of all related posts. This doesn't just extend for politics, but for basically any other issue (personal attacks being another big one).
 
You see, most who complained the loudest both on and off the board, were simply the worst at defending their positions. They didn't post anything deeper than [insert favorite political website's editorial links here].

My response back then, off site and on, was simple. I said I would have no problem at all if the personal attack rule was evenly and consistently enforced. That... was definitely not happening back then. It was the perfect rule, but wasn't implemented too well. No offense to the mods, but some had simply given up on doing it.

I also pitched an alternative in person, off site, that got little traction in person or online... a "three strikes" add on to that rule.

THIS is why, I believe, if they lobbied any of the management present, they did it when I wasn't around.

That obviously wasn't their ultimate goal, so I was carefully avoided, after I showed little interest in their witch hunt.

That stage of it was hilariously "cloak and dagger"... I'm not kidding when I say that individuals actually pulled me away from others and lowered their voices almost to a whisper when they pitched their little scheme. I thought it was harmless and would be ignored amongst adults tasked with evaluating such silliness. It wasn't.

This off site lobbying was short lived. And before it ever became a discussion online with the community here, it was implemented. Along with a rule that it wouldn't be discussed.

I think THAT was a biggest mistake, but water long under the bridge.

Anyone who actually knew the personalities, knew who the weak debaters were, it was blatantly obvious, who stirred the pot.

The people that really took it hard, were those who could actually muster up real information and interesting points. They got their butts handed to them by the mods because "the decisions have already been made".

Having been personally lobbied (and then dismissed as not useful to the cause) off site, I knew that was going to be their fate. They had no idea they were up against an in-person movement that was never discussed here openly. Dead before they even hit the ground.

Funny thing is, most of these lobbyists aren't here anymore and bailed not long after the changes. They debated poorly, caused problems for everyone else, ran off the good debaters by getting the rules changed, and never were seen again.

As soon as they got their wish, they left never to provide a single line of content again, aviation or otherwise.

They had no long term interest in this place as a community, and even LESS interest in it being a place for real honest discussion. As soon as they had nobody to be their archnemesis, they disappeared for good. Ironic perhaps.

Now we are quite a ways past those days, and normal attrition has caused the loss of a number of others, and we've picked up some new who never really saw any of this go down. Many who once had time for online discussions and contributed greatly now have real jobs, and houses, and spouses, and life changes, and simply faded away. That part is normal.

We've picked up new people who never saw it and get told repeatedly about the "bad old days", so they believe it. I can't say I blame them for that. It's just the usual rewrite of history by the "victors" that happens in any history book.

We essentially once had people who were passionate about providing a very open environment for discussion of all things in pilot's lives once... they specifically built the place to leave a place that went too far into moderation.

Then their passion waned, and they slowly handed off to new folks who honestly don't have that passion.

The new crew's passion is maintaining status quo, and they were actively lobbied by a vocal group of folks who really didn't have the skill set to even be in the SZ, reading it, let alone posting in there, who complained very loudly.

We had some folks back then who really knew their history and their facts who'd hand a standard Internet political "expert" their ass in ten pieces. And THOSE people kept it inside SZ for the most part. Then they'd wander out to the non-SZ area and be as intelligent as they were in SZ about aviation topics. Those people are missed.

The whiners who didn't like them? Long gone. Pulled up stakes and found something new somewhere else to whine about, I'm certain.

The destruction of a place for those smart folks to hang out, basically dumbed down the site considerably. There's really no other way to put it. I couldn't really hang in with that crowd but I loved reading their stuff. Best I could do was make a few observations from time to time.

The perennially offended who aren't even around anymore, were just the folks who couldn't keep up. They were passionate about their opinions, that they didn't come up with themselves... might be a good way of putting it. No depth to their convictions. No interest in discussion.

On a discussion board. A very key piece of information. Posting here naturally means you're here for a discussion. It also naturally means not everyone will agree with you.

Adults can usually handle this. They couldn't.

I'll happily state for the record that my response to the lobbyists was, "No, that's dumb. We're adults. You don't have to argue with that person, or change the rules because of them."

But the schoolyard mob wanted more. And got it. Even managed to get the entire history of it removed from the site so they can make up bigger and bigger tales about how bad it all was, without a smartass like me quoting a bunch of posts where they were just constantly getting their butts handed to them in debates.

I've said it since this all started. Either it's a discussion board or it's not. Aviation and everything else in life are hopelessly entwined in politics.

PBOR, regulations and regulators, FAA, BasicMed, voting for a politician who makes sure the lights stay on at Cessna, Garmin, whoever... tort reform, insurance, government loaning money to Boeing, you name it... it's all political.

The rules now are that such things must not be discussed with any passion. One may only meekly attempt an opinion, and if it bothers anyone, thread closed.

That's the legacy of the off site lobbyists. They aren't here anymore, haven't participated in a discussion here in years, but we all have to live with it now.

Everyone is being carefully taught that those were the bad old days.

I guess the moral of the story is that if you find a place where adults of differing opinions and political bents and backgrounds can have a real discussion about real life, and you enjoy it, don't assume you can just pat people who whine about not being able to handle it on the head and continue to enjoy the place.

Those who can't keep up will stop at absolutely nothing until they have hall monitors and crossing guards at every possible corner and location making sure nobody's feelings are ever hurt.

Then they'll leave as fast as they started whining about it all.

And they'll ALWAYS outnumber the intelligent debaters and discussion topic makers. That's just the bell curve in action.

I've hung out with partisans of both persuasions in person from this site. The really intelligent and interesting ones never were a part of the major movement to dumb down the place. To evoke a couple of names from ancient history, Steingar could go toe to toe with JeffDG and neither would go running to mommy afterward. Not too often anyway. Not that I saw.

It was the mediocre debaters and weak discussion skill set crowd who demanded and got the place lowered to discussions about airliner baggage bins.

The mediocre even ran off the FAR experts who weren't engaged in the political stuff.

There you go. You asked so I answered. Others probably feel differently and disagree with me, which has always been fine with me, but if they voice it, it'll look like an argument -- and the thread lock will hit before anyone has a chance to talk about it much.

Some people can't go back and forth between debating ketchup on hot dogs, airplanes on treadmills, cole slaw, and who to vote for every four Novembers, and not get butt hurt and have to start little whispering movements at picnics to make sure they're never bothered by their inability to scroll past a topic they have no depth in.

I, for one, enjoyed the wildly opinionated and varying opinions back then. It was a real discussion board. Many enjoy the utterly boring place it has become.

Who am I to complain? I don't. I just point out the history and chuckle. It's free after all. Whoever pays the bills can make the place whatever they like. Milquetoast is the Uniform of the Day. The people who made sure it became a dull brown instead of vibrant with color and interesting people, aren't even here anymore.

But no, they weren't really particularly single-minded partisans, more than they just sucked at debate and discussion. They made sure to forever change the site on their way to whatever they're doing now.

The ability to debate politics is not something everyone strives to excel at. It is not an indicator of maturity or adulthood. One's personal political beliefs have value to that person and your personal agreement or disagreement do not affect that value. As noted, this is a pilot board and not a political discussion board. Personal beliefs are also not indicative of intelligence. The unwillingness or unskillfulness to debate a topic does not make someone "weak", nor should it lessen his/her's contribution to society or this board. I respectfully disagree with your diatribe.
 
This 'place' has become a laughing stock among those that frequent multiple forums/groups. SMH...

Your sampling is skewed. Those who do not object have no reason to make that known elsewhere.
 
it's hard for you to sit on the back porch and enjoy a glass of wine when your neighbors are out front yelling at eachother and throwing glass bottles in the middle of the street arguing.

I KNEW IT! You joined that damned AOPA Wine Club! :)

I'm the sort that takes my Coke Zero and the smartphone out front and starts videoing the fun. Hahaha. I gave up on humans being sane a long time ago.

Probably why I think heavy moderation is so funny. The more you moderate, the crazier they get trying to get around it.

All you end up is tired, and they're still crazy at the end. LOL.
 
I have a hard time seeing the relevant content through the bickering and arguments.
Thanks be to Jesus the Resurrected Savior the moderators keep out politics and religion. Otherwise we might have bickering and arguments on PoA.:)
 
To let you know how things work from our side, we tend to let conversations continue until they are going visibly downhill either at or towards the point of getting into political bickering or blatantly political posts. A lot of times you don't see how that progression happens, because unfortunately folks have a tendency of not keeping civil, and at that point there's an amputation that occurs of all related posts. This doesn't just extend for politics, but for basically any other issue (personal attacks being another big one).
To add to what Ted wrote, the problem with politics is not with the people who can debate it reasonably, but someone always ends up throwing in a snarky comment, and it either turns into a slugfest between sides or one side high-fiving each other. Also, some are very emotionally invested in their political and other beliefs, and can't debate without becoming angry at the other side.

Since we are talking about moderation, the other subject that the MC has discussed looking at more closely is the locker room atmosphere that turns off many posters, especially women. Since some here were talking about the "good old days", I'll say that back then, someone would post a photo of a woman and others would decide whether or not they wanted to "hit it". I'm sure this was fun for some, but not exactly welcoming to women. Mild joking around is fine but there is another fuzzy line where it turns misogynistic.
 
The ability to debate politics is not something everyone strives to excel at. It is not an indicator of maturity or adulthood. One's personal political beliefs have value to that person and your personal agreement or disagreement do not affect that value. As noted, this is a pilot board and not a political discussion board. Personal beliefs are also not indicative of intelligence. The unwillingness or unskillfulness to debate a topic does not make someone "weak", nor should it lessen his/her's contribution to society or this board. I respectfully disagree with your diatribe.

Hmmm how to put this nicely...

I said none of the above. So, since you've made up what you *think* I said in my "diatribe" , we see the exact problem I described... folks who have a very difficult time discussing things.

(Technically your post is also a personal attack, but I'll assume it's because you didn't quite read the words posted. Plus I don't care, never have.)

Even funnier, I wasn't debating, but simply replaying events as they occurred... as I saw them, for those who weren't here back then.

I just checked. There's not a single sentence of your response that I said, anywhere in my post.

You seem quite agitated by me recounting this history.

Making up a long list of stuff I didn't say, seems to be a defensive reaction... hmm. What's up with that?

What scared John221us in that post? Why would he respond and make up things I didn't say?

That question now has me quite curious.

If you'd like to read again and have any concerns with things I actually *said*, let me know. I'm cool with that.
 
Here's the deal. The job of moderators is, well, to moderate. You can think of us like an HOA. Don't want rules? Go someplace without them. I don't (and won't) live in a neighborhood with an HOA. However, I participate in internet forums because I enjoy the conversation and am here to learn. I stop enjoying the conversation (or learning) when the signal to noise ratio gets such that I have a hard time seeing the relevant content through the bickering and arguments. I'm here because I like to talk about airplanes and non-airplane things with other pilots (the amount of knowledge we have here about almost any subject is incredible). That is the balance that PoA tries to achieve. You can talk about airplanes, you can talk about your house, tractors, boats, off-grid living, books, plumbing, flying careers, and a hose of other things. But we have rules that govern what we don't want you to do. We don't want you to talk about politics. We want you to be nice to eachother. We don't want you posting stuff that is outright disgusting.

PoA has had a number of periods over the years since I joined where the signal to noise ratio has been really, really bad. Some folks liked it that way, but we lost a lot of good contributors permanently because of it. People who actually knew a lot about airplanes and flying, and made useful contributions to the forum. One can argue that they were thin-skinned, but I know many of them and they were anything but. Most of them were just sick of the fact they couldn't come here to talk about airplanes and other stuff in a civil manner with other adults. Going back to the neighborhood analogy, it's hard for you to sit on the back porch and enjoy a glass of wine when your neighbors are out front yelling at eachother and throwing glass bottles in the middle of the street arguing.

Folks want to laugh about us and say that it's a bad place to be a member because the moderation is too heavy handed? No skin off my back.



I agree, and appreciate the feedback. To let you know how things work from our side, we tend to let conversations continue until they are going visibly downhill either at or towards the point of getting into political bickering or blatantly political posts. A lot of times you don't see how that progression happens, because unfortunately folks have a tendency of not keeping civil, and at that point there's an amputation that occurs of all related posts. This doesn't just extend for politics, but for basically any other issue (personal attacks being another big one).

Don't want to belabor anything, but it is worth mentioning that those experts that decided this place was too difficult usually made those decisions after having their "thousands of hours and respect of many" brought into question when they were wrong about a salient fact that was proven such. Then it turned into "well, if you're not just going to take my word for it, I'm out."

I'll save dropping names, but I can think of at least 5 solid examples of that happening. And in one very public occasion, I can honestly say that POA wound up in a much, much better place when that individual decided that we weren't to be honored with his experience.

That's where this gets tough - you know that I am a huge fan of backing up statements with references or other proof. Once someone gains "expert" notoriety, sometimes they feel that their background is proof enough. And it is, until they're wrong. Then they get embarrassed. That, in my opinion, is the definition of "thin-skin."

But I can't blame you or any of the moderators for not caring if people laugh at them - I certainly couldn't care less what people think of me, especially on an internet forum. If the intention of this iteration of the MC is to be heavy handed and reminiscent of the very forum that caused the creation of this forum in the first place, then own it (as you have) - people will either leave or stay, depending on whether they can accept the new norm. The only time I take exception is when anyone from the MC tries to blame the membership for their decision to go heavy-handed. We were all here, and we all saw exactly what happened - the makeup of the MC changed, and suddenly the exact same behaviors that had been there for years became "too much work to handle." The Spin Zone was the initial scapegoat, but eliminating that did not serve the magic bean to solve the problem (which was non-existent to begin with), so the natural evolution was to go to the hilt on moderating the entire board. It was a natural, and predicable path.

And if that's POA now, so be it. Just own it for what it is.
 
Since we are talking about moderation, the other subject that the MC has discussed looking at more closely is the locker room atmosphere that turns off many posters, especially women. Since some here were talking about the "good old days", I'll say that back then, someone would post a photo of a woman and others would decide whether or not they wanted to "hit it". I'm sure this was fun for some, but not exactly welcoming to women. Mild joking around is fine but there is another fuzzy line where it turns misogynistic.

As I said before - college-esque safezones and trigger warnings are the future. And this pretty much confirms it. PC culture is annoying, and the reason it is annoying is because anything can either be offensive or accepted by anyone, and the only way to ensure that there's no offense possible is to ensure that no joke or opinion be shared period.

Remember, one of the first aviation jokes that went mainstream was the box-office joke - that can either be seen as tremendously offensive or insanely hilarious (or trite, as its been told about a million times by now), but there's no way to know for sure unless you just say "Don't tell jokes - someone might take offense."
 
The ability to debate politics is not something everyone strives to excel at. It is not an indicator of maturity or adulthood. One's personal political beliefs have value to that person and your personal agreement or disagreement do not affect that value. As noted, this is a pilot board and not a political discussion board. Personal beliefs are also not indicative of intelligence. The unwillingness or unskillfulness to debate a topic does not make someone "weak", nor should it lessen his/her's contribution to society or this board. I respectfully disagree with your diatribe.
I agree that the ability to debate well is not a requirement. However reasonable debate requires facts, not specious or arbitrary invention. There can be, and usually are, facts on multiple sides of an argument, but they are still facts that can be referenced, be justified, be proven.

My personal opinion? Politics is the only game just for adults.
 
I agree that the ability to debate well is not a requirement. However reasonable debate requires facts, not specious or arbitrary invention. There can be, and usually are, facts on multiple sides of an argument, but they are still facts that can be referenced, be justified, be proven.

My personal opinion? Politics is the only game just for adults.

I am not looking for a fight. I just didn't care for the partisan politics, chest thumping and what appeared to be boilerplate responses. It is pretty easy to dismiss someone's opinion (not accusing you of this) and respond with a standard platform based response and think you have won the debate. It would appear that one's own perspective was the best indicator of whether or not a response was considered thoughtful and intelligent (I realize that Denver indicated that he thought Steingar was a good debater), but for the most part, that is not what I saw. What I saw was partisan chest thumping. I agree with the moderators that it doesn't have a place in this forum. While some will call me a "snowflake" I think the fact that I have stuck around in spite of this is indicative that I am not. Again, no disrespect intended.
 
I'll save dropping names, but I can think of at least 5 solid examples of that happening.

...

And if that's POA now, so be it. Just own it for what it is.

LOL. I counted four. :) I must have missed one. We'll have to discuss over coffee sometime. Hahaha.

I think you're asking them to do something they're already doing. They do "own" that it's heavily moderated now. I mean, it's wrapped in nice words, but ultimately you say the wrong thing here and not only will it be stopped, but it'll be swept away like it never happened. That's openly admitted.

That's pretty much "owning" not only moderation, but censorship. You can't "own" it any harder than that, can you?

That's why I joke that PoA is "Sanitized for your Protection". The bad stuff disappears now before anyone ever knows.

I am not looking for a fight. I just didn't care for the partisan politics, chest thumping and what appeared to be boilerplate responses.

The boilerplaters were the loudest complainers. A cut and paste daily from HuffPo or RedState (pick any two partisan sources, there're just examples here for the sentence) was all they ever really offered up by way of "discussion".

You might find that you and I are in "violent agreement" in this. Some probably thought it was honestly new or interesting information. They weren't really bright enough to notice it was the same old stuff from the same old websites feeding their brains full of mush every day. Haha.

THOSE are the very people I've said were really bad at debate. Because they are. Regurgitating party lines isn't discussion.

Now those who could speak their party line and then defend it and make salient points about them? That's discussion. And it was fascinating.

I loved watching even the partisans who could actually write and speak discuss their stuff. It was cool knowing they were all pilots and we all shared a common hobby or job.

The boilerplaters? Nah. I just scrolled on by. But some of them really couldn't take it, that their cut and paste world was challenged, daily. LOL. That was their "weakness". They couldn't even handle a cut and paste from their rivals and not take it personally. That's definitely "weak". For every definition of the word "adult" I've ever known, anyway. Only kiddies go crying to their momma (or site management of a discussion board) about something they read that they don't agree with on the Internet. LOL.

You seemed surprised that I thought Steingar was good at debate? Not sure why. I've told him so in person many times. I didn't always agree with him but I also didn't always agree with his opponents either. He could hold his own. He's also fun to drink with.

Don't even get me started on what 40+ year old women talk about in my own house. Haha. The "would you hit it?" game used as an example is tame. Both the guys AND the girls have been playing that game since Jr. High.

Whether someone wants it on PoA is debatable, but mysogeny? Not even close. It's a bit much to claim that. Another good example of the loudest complainers not even being here anymore, on that one...

Big stink, world coming to an end, needed to save the place, all that stuff.

Not here contributing anymore. As usual.

I even miss the anti-Catholic guy. He was a hoot. Total lunatic in the end, claiming the MC was spying on him, but until then, quite entertaining for a crazy person. Haha.
 
I KNEW IT! You joined that damned AOPA Wine Club! :)

I'm the sort that takes my Coke Zero and the smartphone out front and starts videoing the fun. Hahaha. I gave up on humans being sane a long time ago.

Probably why I think heavy moderation is so funny. The more you moderate, the crazier they get trying to get around it.

All you end up is tired, and they're still crazy at the end. LOL.

Well, a lot of participants here disagree with you. I think it's a lot nicer here than it was 10 years ago, or even 1 year ago. You do get some folks who try harder to get around the regs, but mostly the ones causing trouble either go away on their own or by force, and that's fine. As for your recount of history, I'll just say I view it a whole lot differently than you do.

Don't want to belabor anything, but it is worth mentioning that those experts that decided this place was too difficult usually made those decisions after having their "thousands of hours and respect of many" brought into question when they were wrong about a salient fact that was proven such. Then it turned into "well, if you're not just going to take my word for it, I'm out."

I'll save dropping names, but I can think of at least 5 solid examples of that happening. And in one very public occasion, I can honestly say that POA wound up in a much, much better place when that individual decided that we weren't to be honored with his experience.

I pointed out good posters. You are correct - there are some very experienced folks who were known for causing problems and hurting the atmosphere, and I'll agree that PoA is better without them. But we also lost a lot of experienced posters who were good for the community because they got sick of the BS.
 
Wow...

When I post on here I try to follow my basic social media rule: I pretend like my mother is standing over my shoulder watching me type. It seems to serve me well -- on any topic -- when I follow it. On occasion I get riled up and forget it, and retribution is always swift and just, and I remember why I made that rule for myself.
 
If I ever get to a place where I think I should whine about how the moderators of POA run the show, PLEASE remind me how much it costs me each year to participate.

Oh, wait. I just checked. The entry fee is $0000.00, always has been.

Same goes for moderators' income. They earn the same amount. I think they deserve some thanks, not bitching.
 
To add to what Ted wrote, the problem with politics is not with the people who can debate it reasonably, but someone always ends up throwing in a snarky comment, and it either turns into a slugfest between sides or one side high-fiving each other. Also, some are very emotionally invested in their political and other beliefs, and can't debate without becoming angry at the other side.

Since we are talking about moderation, the other subject that the MC has discussed looking at more closely is the locker room atmosphere that turns off many posters, especially women. Since some here were talking about the "good old days", I'll say that back then, someone would post a photo of a woman and others would decide whether or not they wanted to "hit it". I'm sure this was fun for some, but not exactly welcoming to women. Mild joking around is fine but there is another fuzzy line where it turns misogynistic.
Ever thought about dropping the ban hammer on all the partisan snowflakes and letting the remaining members that are mature adults enjoy more open dialogue? It feels like we're all held back to accommodate a few people incapable of adult life.
 
Don't even get me started on what 40+ year old women talk about in my own house. Haha. The "would you hit it?" game used as an example is tame. Both the guys AND the girls have been playing that game since Jr. High.
What I say in my house or among people I know will not be offended is different than what I might say in public, in a space where we are trying to appeal to a large group of people.

And Nate, I'm obviously the mod who lives within 100 miles of you and I have never been lobbied privately by anyone around here about moderation on this board.
 
And Nate, I'm obviously the mod who lives within 100 miles of you and I have never been lobbied privately by anyone around here about moderation on this board.

Hmmm, although you probably didn't mean it this way this seems a little weaseley to me. So is Nate's characterization that there was a group of malcontents lobbying incorrect?
 
Oh, wait. I just checked. The entry fee is $0000.00, always has been.

What's the cost of a blue "PoA Supporter" banner? Some, not most or all, of the recipients behave as if that is their ban-hammer proof vest.

Ever thought about dropping the ban hammer on all the partisan snowflakes and letting the remaining members that are mature adults enjoy more open dialogue? It feels like we're all held back to accommodate a few people incapable of adult life.

Can we ban the term "Snowflake"? If not wanting to read locker room humor or profane name calling makes one a snowflake, I guess that is what I am. Maybe there should be a blue banner for us as well.
 
Ever thought about dropping the ban hammer on all the partisan snowflakes and letting the remaining members that are mature adults enjoy more open dialogue? It feels like we're all held back to accommodate a few people incapable of adult life.
We tried that during the last election. I remember giving the group gentle, and sometimes not so gentle, hints in the thread. People might back off for a while then start up again. People did get formal warnings and temporary bans but they would come back with the same behavior. Those who did it know who they are. It takes a long time to work up to a permanent ban, except in exceptional cases.

It's too much work to keep an eye on threads to see they don't spin out of control. None of the mods likes the drama, and there are plenty of other places where you can discuss politics.
 
Hmmm, although you probably didn't mean it this way this seems a little weaseley to me. So is Nate's characterization that there was a group of malcontents lobbying incorrect?
If he was talking about people lobbying ME he is incorrect.
 
Can we ban the term "Snowflake"? If not wanting to read locker room humor or profane name calling makes one a snowflake, I guess that is what I am. Maybe there should be a blue banner for us as well.

I'm not referring to name calling or mysoginistic "jokes". That **** can go somewhere else. Not tolerating that sort of behavior doesn't make someone a snowflake. It's when some engages in debate, doesn't win and then cries about it. Or worse yet just observes some get the KO that they agree with and then cries about it.
 
We tried that during the last election. I remember giving the group gentle, and sometimes not so gentle, hints in the thread. People might back off for a while then start up again. People did get formal warnings and temporary bans but they would come back with the same behavior. Those who did it know who they are. It takes a long time to work up to a permanent ban, except in exceptional cases.

It's too much work to keep an eye on threads to see they don't spin out of control. None of the mods likes the drama, and there are plenty of other places where you can discuss politics.
I know it's a difficult cat to herd. I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents considering it seemed on topic for this thread.

Still not complaining. Thanks for the responses.
 
Well, a lot of participants here disagree with you. I think it's a lot nicer here than it was 10 years ago, or even 1 year ago. You do get some folks who try harder to get around the regs, but mostly the ones causing trouble either go away on their own or by force, and that's fine. As for your recount of history, I'll just say I view it a whole lot differently than you do.

As far as the historical record goes, it was torched. Quite deliberately. So, it's impossible to refute your claims of historical inaccuracy.
 
As far as the historical record goes, it was torched. Quite deliberately. So, it's impossible to refute your claims of historical inaccuracy.
What are you even talking about? You act like there's some kind of conspiracy. There is not.
 
What are you even talking about? You act like there's some kind of conspiracy. There is not.

SZ. Couldn't look up a post there and give an example of a good discussion there if I wanted to. It was not retained as an archive or otherwise, even as historical record of what the place was.

If this is the front porch, a portion of the porch was torched. prior to the remodeling and fresh paint.

No conspiracy, just no respect for what it was, or the content people provided for it that attracted many here back then, and the people who were NOT part of the mostly made up problems that were fixed by removing it.
 
Your sampling is skewed. Those who do not object have no reason to make that known elsewhere.
Not necessarily so. I have also seen POA mentioned elsewhere many times that contained language that was not bashing the group. my comment was based on what I have seen in the recent past.
 
My .02:

I would prefer the "neighborhood covenant" version rather than the "HOA" version. It's a bit of a minor distinction, but it's definitely a real-life example of why I will NEVER live in a neighborhood with an HOA (no offense to those who do, for whatever reason).'

The covenant prevents people from doing things that are overtly-detrimental to their neighbors (building a 1,200sq ft house in a neighborhood full of 2,500sq ft houses), which is an easily justified injury. The HOA-approach seeks to dictate what fence style you have, what paint color you use, or whether your landscaping is overgrown.

I would prefer the moderation be less about the subject matter, and more about the specific conduct (injury) between thread participants. Unfortunately, it's a much more difficult thing to moderate because perception is involved more than pure "you broke the politics-ban rule 8, section c of the POA (HOA) by laws."

At least with the spin zone, which I never participated in, it kept that area mostly contained and it only occasionally spilled into the regular forums.

Take that for what it's worth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SZ. Couldn't look up a post there and give an example of a good discussion there if I wanted to. It was not retained as an archive or otherwise, even as historical record of what the place was.

If this is the front porch, a portion of the porch was torched. prior to the remodeling and fresh paint.

No conspiracy, just no respect for what it was, or the content people provided for it that attracted many here back then, and the people who were NOT part of the mostly made up problems that were fixed by removing it.
Yup, we removed SZ from view when we closed it. But I would not have called it "part of the front porch". It was in the basement, hidden from view. To set the record straight, it was not visible to the general public, so it was not what attracted members here. You had to both join and opt in to see it.
 
To set the record straight, it was not visible to the general public, so it was not what attracted members here. You had to both join and opt in to see it.

I opted in SZ when I first joined POA. Looked at it a few times and saw all the urine contests going on and didn't read it anymore. Seemed kinda nutso to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
I think the rule most broken is defeating the profanity filter. Hard to tell if any sanctions are being handed out.

Here are some profanities, typed correctly, so you can see what is filtered:
ass, asshat, dick, **** you, mother-****er, ****head. you get the point.

Now I'm going to hit Post Reply, and then I will edit the post to add the common work around versions I see so frequently.

For some reason ass gets self censored often, though it is an allowed word. But the "F" word and it's variants get abused, along with the "S" word.

Snowflake Out!
 
What I say in my house or among people I know will not be offended is different than what I might say in public, in a space where we are trying to appeal to a large group of people.

And Nate, I'm obviously the mod who lives within 100 miles of you and I have never been lobbied privately by anyone around here about moderation on this board.

Ummm... many of us don't play that two faced "I say different things when I'm home than when I'm out" game, really. I know that might be weird to someone who does, but nope. But I'm not sure what you're responding to with that, anyway?

You misread the post. I said there was ONE mod within 100 miles of the place I was lobbied at. I was lobbied at a very public aviation event and it wasn't at my home.
 
Ummm... many of us don't play that two faced "I say different things when I'm home than when I'm out" game, really.

I think what she (see I know she's a woman now) is saying Nate is she is discrete in public. I am too, or try to be most of the time.
 
I think what she (see I know she's a woman now) is saying Nate is she is discrete in public. I am too, or try to be most of the time.

The difficulty in the "act like your mom is looking over your shoulder" method, is, like most things in life, very subjective. What my mother finds acceptable is not what your mother finds acceptable. My grandmother never balked if racial slurs were thrown around by my grandfather or others, but would snap if someone was cursing. My mother would definitely balk at racism, but is more tolerant of swearing as long as young children are not within earshot. So, whose mother has the better standards?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ummm... many of us don't play that two faced "I say different things when I'm home than when I'm out" game, really. I know that might be weird to someone who does, but nope. But I'm not sure what you're responding to with that, anyway?
I don't think applying rules of social decorum when in public is being "two faced". In any case, certain standards may apply here that members don't apply in their own home or with their own group.

You misread the post. I said there was ONE mod within 100 miles of the place I was lobbied at. I was lobbied at a very public aviation event and it wasn't at my home.
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
 
Here a HUGE interwebs problem........



Lacking a voice behind the post, there is rarely any inflection. Enter emojis. But even then it can be hard. When I'm kidding, it offends someone. When I'm serious, it offends someone. When it's playful banter, someone gets a wedgie.

In person, it's very easy to have the same exchange and nobody feels wronged. But behind the shadow puppet screen, the certain anonymity can propagate a significantly more aggressive position knowing you can either defend it, marinate it or simply ignore and responses. Very hard to do in person.

And really, nobody can figure out WTF is really going on.

Pilots are generally type A personalities. Control is what we do! Some are more A than others, leaving this subset feeling less A than that guy, fostering submissive positions while trying to be on top at the same time. These are the ones generally thin skinned. They prefer the center road and are not comfortable going left or right of centerline. Feelings hurt, unable to participate and not understanding why, they become more recluse. Typically they do not understand why someone would oppose their view as they consider themselves an expert in the topic.

I could go on of course, but I'll post so another Alpha type A can tell me how wrong I am. I will then dig my heals in, show some teeth, spew venom and profess how wrong they are. In a few days, the thread will die, we will forget about it and banter back and fourth about LOP and when to drop gear before flaps.
 
Back
Top