question

[Robert]

Okay, it may be the Yuengling I have been consuming this evening, but beyond what anybody here has posted to the survey on the AOPA site, what do you want to see in a forum?
Rules? What ones?
Dedicated login linked to the AOPA membership?
A server that works? That can be cured on the AOPA site.
New style interface?
limited login capability?
Robert, from AOPA.

 

[sshekels]

Civility?

I rarely posted there because I did not want to be "flamed" for some misunderstood comment. Why bother?

(It remains to be seen whether this site can maintain the delicate balance between civility and open, free discussion.)

 

[judypilot]

Okay, it may be the Yuengling I have been consuming this evening, but beyond what anybody here has posted to the survey on the AOPA site, what do you want to see in a forum?
Rules? What ones?
Dedicated login linked to the AOPA membership?
A server that works? That can be cured on the AOPA site.
New style interface?
limited login capability?
Robert, from AOPA.

I'm not sure what you mean by "beyond what anybody has posted". That survey was as comprehensive as you wanted to make it, it seemed to me, and you got answers to the questions that most concerned you. The rules are kind of the whole point of this website. Calm, congenial communications not overdominated by single individuals. You seem to be concerned that this will compete with the AOPA forum, but that's not the intention at all. The intention is to provide a different choice, not supplant AOPA's (or anyone else's) forum. Perhaps you would get more useful answers if you would tell us the motivation for your post.

Judy

 

[EdFred]

Dedicated login linked to the AOPA membership?

YES!, along with civility, and moderators. Sometimes just the presence of an "authority figure" can make people think a little more about what they say. Then again, 5 people with a Napoleon Complex all in the same forum is never good.

 

[gkainz]

I just got so tired of post after post after post of predictable shrill screechings from both the left and the right that I just quit reading HT. Then the same thing started happening in the Never Again and Medical Matters - those areas that were, until recently, treated as somewhat hallowed ground. I wouldn't stick around a real hangar with that level of discourtesy. I honestly can't believe that folks would treat each other with so little respect. I sincerely hope it doesn't happen here, and with moderated posts, I suspect it won't.
Robert, I haven't given up on AOPA Webboard completely - I still hang out there as well. Don't give up on it, either. I think logins need to be tied to AOPA membership numbers backed up with legitimate email addresses and folks need to be held responsible for their words. Does that mean moderators? Probably. But now you've got a lot of extra work cut out for you for little or no thanks.
Regards,
Greg

 

[sshekels]

I hate the concept of moderators, and I did not want that at AOPA.

I think the idea of a self-moderated community (like slashdot) works very well. I am hopeful that the idea of "karma" points here will keep folks civil, without the moderators stepping in.

They certainly have a use, but only in the most extreme circumstances.

S.

 

[wsuffa]

Hi, Robert!!!!

Thanks for dropping by!

I liked the AOPA board because of the direct link, and the consequent ability to draw new blood into the board.

The single biggest issue I have is the incivility. That means creating rules that "guide" the users to civil conduct.

This medium (online posting) loses the invaluable face-to-face contact. There are statistics that indicate over 93% of communication/understanding is NONverbal. That means we lose a huge ability to communicate effectively in this medium. If you don't have to face another person, then it's easier to insult them (among other things, you lose the visual clues that you're insulting).

So, I don't like full moderation, but I do think there needs to be a set of rules that discourages personal attacks, insults, baiting, and general incivility. Even ideaology is OK as long as the incumbents don't use it to bash people who don't agree.

Here's what I like to see: rules that discourage "incivil" behavior with teeth to back them up, the ability to "ban" folks that wholly don't comply with the rules, and a "plonk" filter to delete posters or strings that one doesn't want to see. There will always be folks that scream "freedom of speech"... there needs to be willpower to stand up to them if that speech is harmful to the sponsoring organization).

I think AOPA's in a different situation because it's a membership organization devoted to promoting aviation. It has to be a bit more careful that the opinions and statements there are complementary to lobbying efforts....

(Chuck & management team, sorry for mentioning AOPA directly, most of my points are meant to be very general to this medium.... having been around since 300 baud dialup days... member of CIS & AvSig since about 1983)...

 

[bbchien]

Robert, I don't like particularly the concept of a moderated board, or worse yet, being a moderator....that which I am here. But I even more strongly think that AOPA is going to lose its proverbial shirt the moment a real attorney services AOPA with notice. My own estate will get named, too. They name everybody and "let the courts sort 'em out"....at my expense. I think the Association needs to take notice that one of the inflammatory "bully" posters, unrestrained, had a keyboard in bringing down Avweb. Yup, it looks like it might be the same guy.

I think the very threat of moderation, which is present here, deters the c_ap and gar_age at the Association site. Pilots really need an exchange/education/social site for all things beyond the PTS. You will note that all the moderators are the most even tempered long fused sorts, from the association's roster.

Hey, and Scott, how are things up at the U. of M? Is Ed Stanbrook still coaching the Ice Squad? (Former Bangorian).

 

[sshekels]

LOL - I _think_ that might be the WRONG U of M - I am in chilly Minnesota with Lance, and co.

Funny we have an Orono as well!

S.

 

[Diana]

LOL - I _think_ that might be the WRONG U of M - I am in chilly Minnesota with Lance, and co.

Funny we have an Orono as well!

S.

Hey Scott, are you coming to Gaston's again this year? Hope so!

 

[bbchien]

Oh. My geographic challenged-ness. Sigh.

 

[sshekels]

You bet! Maybe in my own plane, eventhough sucking twin time in Lance's was WAY cool!

If I get down, can I stop by your grass strip? Where is it exactly?

S.

 

[Diana]

You bet! Maybe in my own plane, eventhough sucking twin time in Lance's was WAY cool!

If I get down, can I stop by your grass strip? Where is it exactly?

S.

Hey Scott, you bet! You can even stay here if you want. Toby will be here, too.

We're in SW MO.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/08MO

Here's a map of your route.

 

[sshekels]

OOH! COOL! We are going on a flyabout for spring break, hopefully ending up in the islands off FL - Assuming the weather gods like me.

If we get in your neck of the woods, we'll swing by and say hi! The girls would love it!

THANKS!
S.

 

[Brian Austin]

(It remains to be seen whether this site can maintain the delicate balance between civility and open, free discussion.)

With the Management Team that's in place, acting as a checks and balance even amongst ourselves, I think I speak for all of us when I say that we sincerely believe that even a passionate debate can be handled with civility and politeness. None of us would be here if we didn't think it was possible.

The additional features of the software, including reputations, thread ratings, and immediate bad post reporting that is sent to ALL of the management team (and an impromptu test gave a few of us a minor heart attack a little while ago), extends the enforcement tools of good behavior to anyone here. If someone is getting a bad reputation, we'll see it and question it, PLUS you'll see it next to their name. If a thread is being rated poorly, everyone sees it...not only the readers but the poster, too. Even the proverbial "board bully" will start to realize that he or she is not appreciated by his or her peers and change their habits, leave the forum or push it until the Management Team asks him or her to leave. Our goal is to not allow it to get that far to begin with.

 

[Tom-D]

Robert, I do not believe there is much wrong with the web page at AOPA as far as the software is concerned, It does get slow then you fix that, and it is fast for a few days, I would like that repaired.

I agree with the suggestions that have been given by the others here. I do not believe we need moderation as much as we need to have rules of behavior. and with that inforcement actions on those who will not comply.

I do not know how much can be accomplished with the software that you are using, but you already have my suggestions as to what needs to be done.

 

[Greebo]

(Chuck & management team, sorry for mentioning AOPA directly, most of my points are meant to be very general to this medium.... having been around since 300 baud dialup days... member of CIS & AvSig since about 1983)...

Bill et. al:

Robert invited your comments. If anyone has a right to bring up AOPA in a way to discuss the challenges their forum faces right now, it's him. There is no need to apologize.

 

[Greebo]

I agree with the suggestions that have been given by the others here. I do not believe we need moderation as much as we need to have rules of behavior. and with that inforcement actions on those who will not comply.

I will only add that I share the sentiment that an online community should be able to police itself to the point that direct intervention by moderators should not be required very often at all.

A forum community is just that - a community - a living organism. We suffer from a disability, if you will, because we can not express body language or see said body language to interpret it. Four words like "You look good today" can mean vastly different things based on how it is said, but on a forum, how it is said is limited to text.

But still it is a community. As a whole, a community should be able to regulate itself and nurture itself, and grow, healthy and hardy, without much intervention. Moderators should be more like an immune system - working to keep the sickness out of the community by containing it when it appears.

That can be simply saying, "Tone it down please" in a thread that's getting a little heated, to saying, "You are endangering the community and need to change your behavior" by issuing warnings, and if as a last resort it can mean, "You are unhealthy for this community and are not welcome anymore." If a foreign invader appears to spread damage and decay, the moderators become the police force, defending the community from attack.

The largest problem, in my view, at the AOPA site is that the community which has been growing there for a long time without an immune system has become infected. It has developed a cancer, and that cancer has spread. That cancer isn't an individual poster, or even a cadre of posters. It's not the "fab 5", and it's not the "Board Bully", to use some recent nicknames assigned to both sides of the ongoing ugliness.

The cancer is simply that you can go there and say pretty much what you want, as meanly as you want, and get as muddy and as covered in slime as you want, and nothing will be done about it. Living organisims without immune systems get sick, they die, and then they fester and rot. Cells which once were healthy and contributed to the organism become infected and just as destructive as the outside cells which are invading until the body can't tell what cells are good and what cells are bad.

AOPA WebBoard will face some very painful operations and chemotherapy before it can become healthy again. I for one hope that the management at AOPA is willing to back you in taking those steps.

Thanks for dropping by, Robert. We're honored to have you here.

 

[Brian Austin]

I will only add that I share the sentiment that an online community should be able to police itself to the point that direct intervention by moderators should not be required very often at all....

I had a long, eloquent speech written in prose that would make hallowed authors and writers everywhere jealous with envy....

Then Chuck stole it. Sheesh.

Uhm...me, too.

 

[Dan Smith]

Would a daily post limit be a possible solution for AOPA's board?

I am wandering away from the AOPA board since there is just so much mean, pointless junk there now. The moderator concept doesn't seem to have many supporters, however if users were limited to some arbitrary number of posts per day it might it make them think twice about what they post. The spiteful reply that prolongs a garbage thread might cost them a more thoughtful post they'd like to make somewhere else. I'm not sure if the WebBoard software supports this feature, however.

Dan

 

[Brian Austin]

Would a daily post limit be a possible solution for AOPA's board?

The bulk of the posts made at AOPA are civil, polite and informative. I don't think a limit would be a solution here. A few posts by some just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth for the rest of the board.

Moderation can be done quietly and without much obviousness about it. Setting the rules ahead of time, adhering to a strict set of standards (regardless of personal bias), and putting checks and balances in place so even the moderators are fair, is the key to making it work correctly. A simple "one person per forum" will end up getting a dictator-like moderator if the wrong person is selected or the format noted above is not in place.

 

[sshekels]

One thing that _may_ work at AOPA, that is in place at another board I frequent is just "locking" a thread when it spirals out of control.

Unfortunately most people do not have the sense to just walk away from a fight, and must have the last word. If the webmaster (or whoever) just locks the thread with some statement about why it was done, most people cool off pretty quickly. Its just TOO easy to rap out a hot reply to some faceless person on the other side of the country that you will probably never see anyway...

S.

 

[judypilot]

A couple of people on this thread have said that they don't like moderated forums and impled that they hoped this forum isn't moderated. I'm here because I hope it is. Going back to my comment about choice, I have a choice of an unmoderated forum. I don't particularly like what's happened there, but it's still a choice, and if I don't like moderation, I can go back there. I would like also to have a choice of a moderated one, and I sincerely hope the administrators here really do have the will to ban people who are uncivil and/or who feel they have to dominate every thread.

As much as the incivility on the AOPA web forum, I'm also tired of seeing posts by the same people over and over and over again, especially when their behavior is predictable, they always say the same things over and over, they will not admit to the fact that if other people feel different than they do those other people aren't necessarily immoral and stupid, and when they don't even show a modicum of cleverness (there are some people over there who post quite a lot and who are quite firm in their views but who are quite creative in their posts--I enjoy reading those, partly because as firm as they are in their views, they understand that not everyone's going to agree and that's OK with them, they enjoy the repartee). I just got tired of having to scroll through post after post after predictable post looking for the gems.

I just want a choice.

Judy

 

[Brian Austin]

I would like also to have a choice of a moderated one, and I sincerely hope the administrators here really do have the will to ban people who are uncivil and/or who feel they have to dominate every thread.

We have the will and the structure in place to insure civil, polite behavior here. You can even participate by rating threads, adding/subtracting to reputations and notifying us of what you feel are violations of the Rules of Conduct by clicking on the Bad Post link (triangle) next to each post.

 

[judypilot]

We have the will and the structure in place to insure civil, polite behavior here. You can even participate by rating threads, adding/subtracting to reputations and notifying us of what you feel are violations of the Rules of Conduct by clicking on the Bad Post link (triangle) next to each post.

Thank you, Brian. I just found the thread explaining "reputation", although I notice that it is post-specific, not person specific. But I think I know how it works. Do you have to make a comment, or can you just put "I approve" or "I disapprove"? I can see why you would want comments (for context), but that seems like a lot of work. Have you thought about automating it by giving more button options? Just brainstorming, I might like to see options like "This post is uncivil", "This post just repeats something already said", "This post is intolerant of other ideas" (although that's one that could be easily misinterpreted, since some people think that if you disagree with them you're being intolerant). I don't know. I see problems with these suggestions, but it might lighten your workload a bit if you had an automatic menu of reasons for disapproving.

I'm trying to think of why I might ever check "I approve". I'm not going to have the time to check "I approve" for every post that I don't have a problem with. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'd use "I approve" to counter negative comments by others, but how would I know about those negative comments? This means that the input you get will be kind of one-sided. However, that's not necessarily a problem, since the really egregious posts will draw a lot of negative input, whereas the ones that only rub a couple of people the wrong way won't. "I approve" may not even be a necessary option. Like I said, I wouldn't bother to check it unless I thought someone was being unfairly disapproved of, but since there's no way to know that, the "I approve" option is kind of useless.

I'm sort of rambling here, but I'm trying to think this through operationally and to understand how you see all of this playing out (partly so I can get with your program).

Best,
Judy

 

[RobertGerace]

Personally, I believe that as with so many things in life, it is necessary to 'become your own expert' (or in this case service provider.) I want to express a heartfelt THANK YOU to those who have done just that here on this new board.

Like others have stated in other threads, I would be happy to support this board financially.

To the person who said AOPA has an advantage in bringing new people to their board, I agree, and would be willing to pay a little more to help create an advertising budget for this board.

Thanks to the management of this new board!

 

[Brian Austin]

Thank you, Brian. I just found the thread explaining "reputation", although I notice that it is post-specific, not person specific. But I think I know how it works. Do you have to make a comment, or can you just put "I approve" or "I disapprove"? I can see why you would want comments (for context), but that seems like a lot of work.

While the reputation 'button' is post-specific, it's culumative toward a user. Several people have clicked "I approve" on some of my posts, all of which show up under the User Control Panel for me. You can see your own, too.

No, no comment is necessary.

Have you thought about automating it by giving more button options? Just brainstorming, I might like to see options like "This post is uncivil", "This post just repeats something already said", "This post is intolerant of other ideas" (although that's one that could be easily misinterpreted, since some people think that if you disagree with them you're being intolerant). I don't know. I see problems with these suggestions, but it might lighten your workload a bit if you had an automatic menu of reasons for disapproving.

Let's see how it works for now. I'm still new at this, too.

I'm trying to think of why I might ever check "I approve". I'm not going to have the time to check "I approve" for every post that I don't have a problem with. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'd use "I approve" to counter negative comments by others, but how would I know about those negative comments? This means that the input you get will be kind of one-sided. However, that's not necessarily a problem, since the really egregious posts will draw a lot of negative input, whereas the ones that only rub a couple of people the wrong way won't. "I approve" may not even be a necessary option. Like I said, I wouldn't bother to check it unless I thought someone was being unfairly disapproved of, but since there's no way to know that, the "I approve" option is kind of useless.

I use the "I approve" as a way to say, "Hey, nice thought provoking post. Thanks for participating!" I would use the "I disapprove" possibly as a way to say "While you're not technically violating the Rules of Conduct, your post's tone isn't in the spirit of PoA."

I don't think the approve/disapprove option is really a poll for the content but more for the user's intent of the post. My take on it, at least.

I'm sort of rambling here, but I'm trying to think this through operationally and to understand how you see all of this playing out (partly so I can get with your program).

Best,
Judy

We're all still learning here. Welcome to the club!

 

[woodstock]

Robert, I don't like particularly the concept of a moderated board, or worse yet, being a moderator....that which I am here. But I even more strongly think that AOPA is going to lose its proverbial shirt the moment a real attorney services AOPA with notice. My own estate will get named, too. They name everybody and "let the courts sort 'em out"....at my expense. I think the Association needs to take notice that one of the inflammatory "bully" posters, unrestrained, had a keyboard in bringing down Avweb. Yup, it looks like it might be the same guy.

SNIP

it's 99% certain it was one and the same guy. he admitted it online, then edited the post. plus his actions made it clear. I've been watching over there for quite some time now, and it became pretty clear about 6 months ago that if it kept going at its current rate it would end up in either a fistfight for real, or a fistfight moderated by the courts.

I agree with the general consensus here - there should be rules, and those rules should have teeth, up to and including banning folks. I have absolutely no problems with political posts - either side - it's when the posters start calling everyone who doesn't march in lockstep with them mindless morons and worse that it gets offensive and bullying. and that DOES stifle debate, for as much as the main culprits hotly scream that it doesn't.

I also wanted to add that I think many folks *were* trying to self-police over there... we should be able to self police.. but there are a few people who stubbornly simply will not listen to reason. as in all their other posts, they are right, all others are wrong, that's that. they loudly proclaim that others should follow rules that they thumb their noses at (i.e. ignore posts, etc.)

Robert, thank you for trying so hard to please everyone and fix this. AOPA's board is very valuable, and if we didn't all care, we wouldn't be so upset about it. I really do hope it can be fixed before permanent damage is done to AOPA.

 

[gibbons]

I have never been a part of a "moderated" board before, so I have to draw on other analogies here. I continue to think of this group as if everyone was in my hangar.

There are people who's ideas I don't share, those who I always enjoy seeing, those who are annoying, and those who I like but others in the hangar don't. Some have a poor reputation at the airport among the rest of us but we all know who they are and don't engage them in much conversation. I don't ask them to leave because I don't agree with them, and I don't try to shut them up. If someone else in the hangar doesn't like the conversation they are free to go somewhere else. Somehow, this all works and we are all able to get along pretty well. This is the equivalent of reputation on this board. You are also able to "ignore" specific people here, just like in the real world.

When the discussion turns to politics or religion is when all of us at the hangar need to be especially sensitive to the opinions of others. Sometimes we even avoid saying what's on our minds because we're aware that it might result in hurt feelings or, worse, damage to a relationship that may never be repaired. On this board, the same applies. We hope that those who participate will choose their words carefully, especially when the topic is a sensitive one, always mindful of the feelings and opinions of others. If you want to label this being PC then that's fine. My mother called it "good manners" long before PC became a popular term, and it's the self-policing we all hope to see here.

And very, very seldom someone at the hangar will get carried away and say something that was just plain hurtful, offensive, or insensitive. When this happens I'll ask them to please not do that again, that it isn't welcome in my hangar. They may get their nose out of joint for a day or two, but they come back - usually with the understanding that they went too far. This is the equivalent of one of the "moderators" stepping into a thread and saying, "let's tone it down a bit."

Now, I've never asked anyone to leave and not come back, but only because it hasn't been required. And it hasn't been required because the people who visit my hangar know the rules. The rules, after all, are pretty well understood by anyone who is at a party, someone else's house, or any social event. Asking someone to leave and not return is a possibility but it would result in hard feelings for a long time and the situation would have to be bad indeed for me to take this kind of action. It's something that you see very infrequently because people, generally, know these unwritten social rules of behaviour.

I don't believe it all has to change just because we're not meeting face-to-face. As long as the people who enjoy this community - this hangar - act as if they were standing in front of the person they are messaging there will be very little need for any of the moderators to step in.

I have met some wonderful people as a result of my participation in the AOPA board, and Robert has done an excellent job trying to serve many masters. But it wasn't my hangar, it was someone else's, and since I didn't like the tone of the discussion I left. I simply can't imagine being in any other social situation where the tone of conversation was like it is in Hangar Talk and not turn around and leave.

I don't expect that PoA will always be a friendly, happy place. We'll all get angry about something or other, probably sooner rather than later. But, as adults, we are supposed to know how to deal with our own anger and frustration. What I do expect from any board I'm going to continue to frequent is civility. Good, old fashioned "good manners." Let's all make our mothers proud.

Chip

[edit] ps... at my hangar no one would ever let me be that long winded. Sorry about that.

 

[wsuffa]

I think Chuck hit a good point.

It IS a community. Like any community, there will be people who are tempted to be bad actors. That's why we have laws and an enforcement mechanism if people violate them.

I LIKE the community of folks, and I'm really glad most of them are here. In the time I've been on AOPA (since '98 or '99), almost everyone (including some that might be called "bad actors") have made some contribution to the GOOD side of the content on the board. A great example is the postings of "Window Shopping" airplane-for-sale listings, and the discussion of the pros/cons of those aircraft.

I think the issue goes beyond just eliminating anon posters, it goes to having rules & enforcement to fall back upon when folks are unwilling to take personal responsibility for their behavior. With freedom of speech comes a responsibility.

My 0.02

 

[Carol]

it's 99% certain it was one and the same guy. he admitted it online, then edited the post. plus his actions made it clear. I've been watching over there for quite some time now, and it became pretty clear about 6 months ago that if it kept going at its current rate it would end up in either a fistfight for real, or a fistfight moderated by the courts.

It is. I read the post via email along with plenty of other posts which were later deleted. I got sick of the vitriol.

I agree with the general consensus here - there should be rules, and those rules should have teeth, up to and including banning folks. I have absolutely no problems with political posts - either side - it's when the posters start calling everyone who doesn't march in lockstep with them mindless morons and worse that it gets offensive and bullying. and that DOES stifle debate, for as much as the main culprits hotly scream that it doesn't.

I also wanted to add that I think many folks *were* trying to self-police over there... we should be able to self police.. but there are a few people who stubbornly simply will not listen to reason. as in all their other posts, they are right, all others are wrong, that's that. they loudly proclaim that others should follow rules that they thumb their noses at (i.e. ignore posts, etc.)

Robert, thank you for trying so hard to please everyone and fix this. AOPA's board is very valuable, and if we didn't all care, we wouldn't be so upset about it. I really do hope it can be fixed before permanent damage is done to AOPA.

What she said.

 

[Greebo]

To derail this thread a bit:

Judy - Chip's thread is the kind of thread for which I make a point to give reputation. Well thought out, well said, thought provoking and insightful.

Remember, with reputation, you can only click that icon 10 times a day at most. While we want the users to exercise their option to show approval or disapproval, its important for the users to realise that their ability to do so is limited, and thus they should save their opportunities for only the best and worst examples of what YOU feel make up good or bad contributions to the forum community as a whole.

(And to clear up another issue - Thread Rating - top right section of a thread - is thread specific. Like Brian said, Reputation accumulates against a person over time. :cheerio: )

 

[gkainz]

... immediate bad post reporting that is sent to ALL of the management team (and an impromptu test gave a few of us a minor heart attack a little while ago)

moi? I said I was sorry and it won't happen again...

Greg

 

[Greebo]

We know you did, Greg. That's why your penalty will only to be hung up by your tonails and whipped with a wet noodle a hundred times, vs. actually getting anything SERIOUS done to you.

 

[Brian Austin]

moi? I said I was sorry and it won't happen again...

Greg

LOL. Yeah, yours. No sweat. It was a good test, really...although I wouldn't make it a habit.

 

[gkainz]

We know you did, Greg. That's why your penalty will only to be hung up by your tonails and whipped with a wet noodle a hundred times, vs. actually getting anything SERIOUS done to you.

Duely noted!

 

[n741dm]

Okay, it may be the Yuengling I have been consuming this evening, but beyond what anybody here has posted to the survey on the AOPA site, what do you want to see in a forum?
Rules? What ones?
Dedicated login linked to the AOPA membership?
A server that works? That can be cured on the AOPA site.
New style interface?
limited login capability?
Robert, from AOPA.

Robert~
Thanks for dropping by and taking time to ask your questions. I do not envy you your job of trying to clean-up and salvage the AOPA board, as I'm sure it will prove to be both difficult and contentious.

First, the subject of "Rules"... In a perfect world, minimal rules suffice to keep things in order. Obviously the board has devolved into less than a perfect world, so rules are necessary to maintain a modicum of order. So that begs the question, "What rules"?
1) Remain civil. This one pretty much covers it all. Unfortunately, when dealing with some who are quite egocentric, and in an environment such as the one which exists there at the present time (no enforcement or censure having been done), the task of reining-in the offenders is daunting.
The trolling, baiting, name calling and flaming between two relatively small groups of posters have been way over the top lately, but for me, the final straw was the use of vulgar language of a sexual nature in an inane attempt to demonstrate "free speech". Totally unacceptable in my opinion in an open forum...
2). Penalties: Violation of Rule 1 will cause suspension or revocation of posting privileges for xx days (weeks, months, etc.)

Most of the other problems on the board can be controlled by enforcing the "rules" which presently are in place. Hanger Talk is the only forum in which discussion of a political, religious or other non-aviation subject may be posted... Post the rule, then enforce the rule fairly. Something like "Three Strikes, You're Out" would be an excellent deterrent to the recent transgressions.

Dedicated AOPA linked logins would be a very good start, as it would cut out one of the recent misguided protests of handing out your login info to others to make a point...

I feel that if you were to initiate these few strong measures, enforce them fully and fairly, you would not need to have a fully moderated board. I intend to maintain my AOPA membership for all the other worthwhile things the organization does. I look forward to being able to use the web board again without the discomfort I have felt recently.

Good luck! Oh, and getting a more robust hamster would be a definite plus!

 

[Len Lanetti]

Okay, it may be the Yuengling I have been consuming this evening,

Robert,

My wife's family is from the Pottsville area where Yuengling is brewed. It is coal mining country. If you saw, tasted, smelled the water you would switch your brand. :<)

but beyond what anybody here has posted to the survey on the AOPA site, what do you want to see in a forum?
Rules? What ones?

Civility between posters regardless of topic. If that requires moderators well so be it. If that requires that the topics are restricted to strictly aviation that would be sad but aviation is the reason AOPA exists.

Dedicated login linked to the AOPA membership?

I think that would be best. Only AOPA members have access to the site for viewing and posting rights.

A server that works? That can be cured on the AOPA site.

Actually, part of the charm of the site ;<) ---in all seriousness, yes.

New style interface?

I actually like the Webboard AKIVA interface. Maybe because I don't browse to other forums where software like the one here at POA is more typical but I'm really having a tough time adjusting to the new interface. In fact, if it wasn't for interface and the fact that I think the AOPA webboard can be saved I would have jumped totally to POA. Though, Dr B's comments have given me reason to reconsider posting further at AOPA and maybe even here.

limited login capability?

Nah! I routinely hop onto the board many many times a day. Reading a half a dozen aviation related posts at a clip gives me a chance to clear my mind in-between work tasks.

Robert, from AOPA.

Thanks for doing the research Robert.

Len

PS hope this reply interspaced with Robert's original post works. Edit---it didn't really it made my posts look like Robert had said them 'till I pasted the Wordperfect/XML quote start and end tags into the right places.

PPS Dr B your "avatar" picture is backlit...meaning the white background threw off the camera's light meter and didn't allow for enough light to show your facial features. When you have that backlit condition you have to overexpose the shot a bit (another example of when it happens...dark room subject standing in front of window on bright sunny day). I think that getting the camera to overexpose is hard to do with many/most of today's fully automatic camera's (digital or film). You might be able to correct the image with photo editing software on your computer.

 

[grattonja]

Robert:

I have thanked you for your work on the "other" web board in the survey and also in direct email. You have a tough job over there. I am here, but I have not truly "jumped ship", as there is way too much on the AOPA web board that I would have to give up to avoid the incivility.

I think what is good on the AOPA board is evinced right now by a thread about NDBs in the Cloud Busters. 80 plus posts, regarding keeping vs getting rid of NDBs. Somewhat passionate discussion, but very productive and interesting.

And I think Hangar Talk of the last two days is indicative of what needs to be changed. Vitriol, trolling, mean spirited debate (if what is happening there can be termed debate) and foul language. Many of us use swear words sometimes in our life, but it really isn't all that hard to control it when you are typing. Not really. A new and recent form of incivility "over there" involves commenting on pilot experience, as a measure of right to hold an opinion on things, including politics. It is divisive, and will no doubt drive student pilots and low time people elsewhere. From what I can see from the membership here, it may have driven some of them here already.

I like what Bruce and the others have done here. I like the rules. I do not get the sense that they are going to be administered in a Draconian manner, but it comforts me to know that there are guidelines to keep discourse here civil. And true incivility will not be tolerated, not by the community and not by the management.

I think you will end up shutting down Hangar Talk "over there". Even with Momma AOPA watching the behavior, it is abhorrent. I hope you can keep the productive forums alive, and not have the vitriol of the one group reach into all areas.

Good luck.

Jim G

 

[Gary]

Robert:

Was that the Lager or the Chesterfield Ale that caused the introspection?

Rules - Minimal, do like a good debate, problem is drawing the line between spirited and defamatory. Guess we will rely on the moderators to determine this. Is there an impeachment (for the moderators) process if we are dissatisfied?

Dedicated Log-in - Absolutely, anons can be for the Medical stuff

Server - Faster is better, but wasn't that big of an issue.

Interface - Doesn't matter, I'll eventually learn how to use it.

Will be interesting to see how this board turns out, I look at it as another alternative. Much smaller audience, may be more civil. My first day here and I do see some familiar names! But all these icons and choices, need to make a cheat sheet just so I can navigate through here.

Gary