Semi-private forum

[flyingcheesehead]

Okay, hopefully the third time's the charm. I'll try to more accurately establish the goals of a semi-private forum as well as the proposal this time.

The problem: While we have a great group of people here on aviation's front porch, to the point that many of us consider PoA family, we do not have a good way of talking to each other about aviation subjects in a semi-private manner - In the front room instead of the front porch. When a big news event happens, our conversations could be used against us. In addition, there are from time to time other subjects that are best discussed without being Google-able or easily findable by those who are enemies of GA or PoA members.

The goals and considerations involved, as I see them:

1) PoA is the group we want to talk to, that's why we're here. This is the family.
1a) We should have an "indoors" place to talk only to family, as well as our front porch.
1b) By default, we want to be open and welcoming, thus the forums that currently exist should remain public and all posts should be posted in the public forums absent a specific reason to the contrary.

2) We get a lot of new users through Google. We should strive to keep that channel open.

3) We need a way to keep those who would do harm to GA from finding and reading things that they could use as ammunition.

4) Qualifications to see and read the semi-private forum should strike a balance between "security" (IE, requires more than an overzealous anti-GA type is likely to bother going through on a whim) and relative openness, to avoid the appearance of being elitist or cliquish.

Discussion in the next post.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Some suggestions that have been posted in the past, and why I believe they do not solve the problem:

* Post at the purple board: The Purple Board is not the group we want to talk to. PoA, the blue board, is the family. We want to talk to our own family, not the in-laws, so to speak.

* Post in Spin Zone: The Spin Zone is specifically for heated, non-aviation topics. The point of the semi-private forum is specifically to discuss aviation-related topics in a place where it will be much more difficult for enemies of GA to use our words against us. Thus, by definition the material that would go in the semi-private forum does not belong in the Spin Zone. In addition, a very large percentage of the family does not go into the Spin Zone.

* Sent a PM instead: The PM system is limited to 5 or 10 users at a time, and isn't suited for sharing information and discussions of this nature. We want to share with the whole family, but not the rest of the world.

* Make Hangar Talk (or another forum or group of forums, or all of them) private: That directly contradicts goal #2 above, and has the potential to create a lot of confusion (waitaminute, is this forum private? Or public?). In addition, none of the current forums match the subject matter that should be private.


My proposed solutions, details, and explanations:
* A new private-ish forum. Yes, we all know that nothing on the Internet is truly private, but that isn't to say that there isn't something more private than completely out in the open.

* Name: I don't much care. Going with our "front porch" metaphor, maybe "The Back Room?" Care should be taken in naming to avoid any confusion with existing forums, but also make it clear that this is the place for less-than-blatantly-public conversations to take place.

* Qualifications to see and read: As discussed above, we need to strike a balance here. After much discussion, I believe the best solution is to allow any registered member with at least 5 posts to view and post to the semi-private forum. This has an ease-of-setup advantage, as this is the exact same qualifications required to post attachments, so there's already a group set up for it. For reference, PoA's members list shows 4336 users, 1,087 of which have 5 posts or more. Only 886 members have visited in the last 30 days… So I don't think 5 posts is too exclusive. I don't want a huge post count as we want as many people as possible to be able to see this, but having no post count whatsoever could allow a reporter to simply sign up and see everything.

 

[ScottM]

My proposed solutions, details, and explanations:
* A new private-ish forum. Yes, we all know that nothing on the Internet is truly private, but that isn't to say that there isn't something more private than completely out in the open.

Glad you finally recognized this. My concern is that someone may think that the forum is truly private when it is not. Their expectations may lead them to be 'freer' with their speech than they should and if there are consequences from such postings will the corporation of limited partnership or whatever PoA is these day be held liable?

I first raised this issue in the following post:

I am wondering if the MC were to set up a protected forum, and the users felt that what they said there would not get into the public what would be the risk to PoA and the MC if something were to 'escape'? Would there be a liability risk for the MC?

Say a person posts in the protected forum something that they would not want read by the general public that could be damaging to the poster's employer. That information escapes and the person loses their job. Could the poster then in turn come back at the MC and sue for damages because there was an extension of safety made by the MC and they possible failed in their duty of care?

Some of the answers I got were:

That is a concern.

I think you and I have both been in corporate environments were we see what can happen if the wrong stuff is disclosed. My new gig has so many passwords, restrictions, and firewalls that I sometimes wonder how I'll remember them all (4 separate passwords/access logins just to get to email).

While I think a reasonable person does not expect annonymity on any Internet posting and Kent has recognized that in this case as well. In light of the recent revelation that indeed people who post about sensitive subject have been subpoenaed, people need to not only be careful what they post but board owners who have private or semi-private promised forum may also be sucked into these lawsuits. Whether it be from an irate poster who assumed too much privacy or by attorney looking to gain access as part of their discovery process.

This has to be a concern and needs a sound policy before undertaking.

* Name: I don't much care. Going with our "front porch" metaphor, maybe "The Back Room?" Care should be taken in naming to avoid any confusion with existing forums, but also make it clear that this is the place for less-than-blatantly-public conversations to take place.

Name does not matter, but forum scope does.

This is the same old argument we have been having. The only thing new is that now there is a private place to talk. The question is to talk about what?

If it is lessons learned then we already have a lessons learned category. creating a private one duplicates where people can post, will lead to confusion because someone may post in the public one thinking that it is private.

This new private forum becomes a catch all that is not really focused as well. The private forum will encompass subjects such as medical, hangar talk, lessons learned, mechanical stuff, IFR issues, etc. It would thwart the attempts of categorizing information to make it findable, useful, and pertinent to people who are browsing these forums. It would create a duplicate discussion area for many subjects and cause confusion about whether one was in a private or public area.

Since our initial discussion on this topic there was a change made to our only true private area of discussion, Spin Zone. The SZ is not viewable by the search engines. So what Kent is asking for is technically possible. The SZ has a very specific focus and charter. But that still caused issues for some people who would forget where they were posting at. Were they in HT or SZ. So SZ added a color to make it more apparent where one was posting to. Did this help? For some sure, but as we just observed this week people were confused about where they posting in the thread about the plane crashing into the IRS building. People completely missed the not so subtle color differences between the SZ and elsewhere on the forum. How will they be able to differentiate the even more subtle difference between a private and non-private part of the forum?

The recent plane crash thread is also an excellent example of how many posts will there be on a subject. In the open part of the forum there were at least three separate threads in two different forums. The MC has combined two of those threads together and had to move them from Lesson's Learned to Hangar Talk. With the addition of a catch all private forum will this create even more work for the MC handling thread duplications? Probably. Will those extra threads lead to confusion among the users? Most definitely, they already show signs of confusion.

Another item to consider is what happens when some posts a topic or response in the private area, but for whatever reason the thread is moved to a non-private forum? That expectation of privacy will be lost. Thread movement is fact of PoA. Kent postulated that the Austin crash thread was posted in Lessons Learned as that resides in a part of PoA with the heading Confidential Subjects.

Also, obviously Dave also thought he was in a private forum when he posted. This area is called "Confidential Subjects" but it is not confidential at all. This thread does not belong in Lessons Learned, it was clearly posted here because the OP, Geico, thought that "Confidential" meant something.

If this was the case consider what happened latter to the very thread that Kent was making an observation about.

Thread moved into Hangar Talk per MC vote.

Now if the original thread was truly in a private area and people had posted there with an expectation of privacy, their post was moved to a theoretical non-private area and any protection they thought they had is lost.

* Qualifications to see and read: As discussed above, we need to strike a balance here. After much discussion, I believe the best solution is to allow any registered member with at least 5 posts to view and post to the semi-private forum. This has an ease-of-setup advantage, as this is the exact same qualifications required to post attachments, so there's already a group set up for it. For reference, PoA's members list shows 4336 users, 1,087 of which have 5 posts or more. Only 886 members have visited in the last 30 days… So I don't think 5 posts is too exclusive. I don't want a huge post count as we want as many people as possible to be able to see this, but having no post count whatsoever could allow a reporter to simply sign up and see everything.

ELITIST!!!



I am not sure what problem having a min post count solves. Perhaps you can explain why having access after 5 or any number of posts is important. I am just not seeing it.

If we were to have this type of forum having it immediately available to users would cause what type of problem? I think at one time it was mentioned to stop people from doing a little data mining of the private forum.

Final thoughts.

I am not against a private forum at all. I recognize hiding posts from the search engines may be a good thing.

I do not think we need an additional catch all forum whose only difference is that the posts are quasi-private. As we have seen this would create:
1. duplication of subjects
2. confusion about where one should post
3. additional work for MCs
4. possible legal issues for the owners of PoA

The min post count idea I do not understand the need for at all.

Chuck had this to say about a private forum and it is good to review.

It's kind of funny that this request is out there, because when I was doing the initial configuration of PoA, one thing I tried to do was *get our name out there*. AOPA was closing its forum, and I wanted us as visible as possible to give people an alternative.

I'm not going to actually vote on this in the MC, because this is a decision about the future the MC has to make.

But to chime in formally on this, personally, I'm opposed to such a change. I think it goes directly against the spirit in which PoA was founded. This is the Front Porch of Aviation on the net, and to me that implies neighborly, social, and out in the open.

I tend to agree with Chuck on this.

But to play devil's advocate, the Purple Board is a private, hidden board. They still have plenty of people finding them, seem to have a very active group of purple people who are not unlike the people here on PoA. Given that one has to wonder if having all of PoA open is really making it anything but just more open to search engines? If that is the case then should we not consider just making all of our forums non-search engine visible?

A former MC member had this to say:

I've always disagreed on this point. I never thought the upside of driving new members to the site via a search engine was worth the stifling effect that public access to discussions here has on our current members.

As a counter point to Greebo's argument, I think PoA was founded as a place where members can openly discuss aviation related issues, something that doesn't happen when every bot in the world is constantly cruising the board and caching the posts.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=413279&postcount=99

I don't think Chip is wrong. In light of how well the purple board is doing I think the solution is to configure PoA like the purple board. No new forum is required, a simple adding of the script to stop search engines from reading PoA and a log in required to see posts.

 

[dmccormack]

Good idea, but this may spawn more and more "rooms" which will become a management nightmare.

"This forum is for private talk EXCEPT you can't mention God or Politics"

"But I wanted to tell everyone about a great piano prodigy that played at our church yesterday..."

"Church!?!"

 

[RotorAndWing]

The problem is even if you "think" you're using a private forum, it's not.

Other users could read something in the "private" forum and copy it. Then it's sent on to someone else or posted on a "public" forum.

When I was a member of ALPA we had the same issue. We had a "private" member's only forum that eventually got some folks into trouble.

 

[Anthony]

Nothing is private on the internet.

 

[Everskyward]

My concern is that someone may think that the forum is truly private when it is not.

+1. I don't care how many forums there are because I just click on "new posts" anyway. However I wouldn't post anything different in a private forum than a public one so it's not solving anything as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Greebo]

What has changed that leads you to believe the MC will have changed their mind on this?

 

[JeffDG]

What has changed that leads you to believe the MC will have changed their mind on this?

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the proposal, I would place this proposal as an attempt to change their minds, not necessarily as a belief that their minds have already changed.

 

[wsuffa]

Good idea, but this may spawn more and more "rooms" which will become a management nightmare.

"This forum is for private talk EXCEPT you can't mention God or Politics"

"But I wanted to tell everyone about a great piano prodigy that played at our church yesterday..."

"Church!?!"

How many more bad post reports will be generated in the "private" forum because folks will feel more inclined to abuse others there?

If, however, we were to consider it, I think we'd need to establish criteria for entry, such as a minimum level of participation here on aviation topics (spin zone postings would not count).

 

[Mtns2Skies]

If, however, we were to consider it, I think we'd need to establish criteria for entry, such as a minimum level of participation here on aviation topics (spin zone postings would not count).

+1 Though I don't have a huge opinion in this because there really isn't anything of my flying the could be used against me. I guess I'm okay with the level of participation that because I basically live on this board

 

[flyingcheesehead]

My concern is that someone may think that the forum is truly private when it is not.

This should be made clear in the forum descriptions. Several people in the past have mentioned having a disclaimer.

This is the same old argument we have been having. The only thing new is that now there is a private place to talk. The question is to talk about what?

I don't presume to know what others would want to talk about privately. High-profile accidents is a good example, and usually what makes this subject come up. However, there are certainly other things people don't want to be quite as public. There are also accidents that people may want to post about in the public area. I think the only subject that the new forum needs is "stuff that should be private." The OP would obviously be the one making the decision about where to post the thread. As a matter of practice, if a thread is started outside the private area and a poster wants to talk about it privately, they can start a new thread in the private area and post a link in the public thread. We already have threads duplicated in the Spin Zone sometimes.

This new private forum becomes a catch all that is not really focused as well. The private forum will encompass subjects such as medical, hangar talk, lessons learned, mechanical stuff, IFR issues, etc. It would thwart the attempts of categorizing information to make it findable, useful, and pertinent to people who are browsing these forums. It would create a duplicate discussion area for many subjects and cause confusion about whether one was in a private or public area.

This sounds a lot like Spin Zone as well. That's a catch-all for anything that might get heated, this would be a catch-all for anything that might be private. I would advocate a color change to avoid confusion here as well. As for "findable" the search function would work just as well and I don't think most people "browse" when they're trying to "find" something.

The SZ has a very specific focus and charter. But that still caused issues for some people who would forget where they were posting at.

Hence, the color and why I think that would be a good idea here too.

So SZ added a color to make it more apparent where one was posting to. Did this help? For some sure, but as we just observed this week people were confused about where they posting in the thread about the plane crashing into the IRS building.

I don't think anyone intended for the IRS crash to be in Spin Zone. By definition, Spin Zone is non-aviation.

People completely missed the not so subtle color differences between the SZ and elsewhere on the forum. How will they be able to differentiate the even more subtle difference between a private and non-private part of the forum?

I don't think it should be a "more subtle difference," I think a color change would be wholly appropriate. And we can't save people from themselves.

The recent plane crash thread is also an excellent example of how many posts will there be on a subject. In the open part of the forum there were at least three separate threads in two different forums. The MC has combined two of those threads together and had to move them from Lesson's Learned to Hangar Talk. With the addition of a catch all private forum will this create even more work for the MC handling thread duplications?

Doubtful - It would be OK to have two threads, one outside the semi-private area and one inside, just like today it's OK to have two threads, one outside the SZ and one inside the SZ for when a particular part of the conversation is likely to get heated.

Another item to consider is what happens when some posts a topic or response in the private area, but for whatever reason the thread is moved to a non-private forum? That expectation of privacy will be lost.

It should be MC policy that threads in the semi-private forum are never moved outside of that forum, obviously.

I am not sure what problem having a min post count solves. Perhaps you can explain why having access after 5 or any number of posts is important. I am just not seeing it.

So that Thomas Frank can't just sign up for an account and instantly have access.

If we were to have this type of forum having it immediately available to users would cause what type of problem?

Reporters. I'd really hate to be the source of anything for Thomas Frank and the likes of him.

I do not think we need an additional catch all forum that the only difference is that the posts are quasi-private. As we have seen would create:
1. duplication of subjects

Which we already have with SZ and which is easily alleviated by someone posting a link if they start a "private" thread on a "public" conversation.

2. confusion about where one should post

Make a new color so people can easily see where they are. Other than that, it's simple: "Do I want this conversation on a city bus, or on network television?" to borrow Lance Fisher's excellent analogies.

3. additional work for MCs

I doubt it will. But, I think we should at least try. If it's a boondoggle, we can always kill it off later.

4. possible legal issues for the owners of PoA

I think the lawyers on the MC are smart enough to come up with a solution to that. There's already some liability involved anyway...

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I support Kent's recommendation for reasons stated in the other thread. On AvSig, certain areas cannot be searched by outside services such as Google.

The reasons for that follow: I

In the accident and incidents section, a pilot was supeonead for offering insight into a crash where he had once flew that plane. An enterprising attorney did a search (was not a member), saw the thread and sent the summons. While we all realize the threads are not now completely private, a search by non-members isn't possible.

I was once was posting about an incident on here where I submitted a NASA report. Board member kept asking detailed questions where I had been vague because they really wanted to understand what happened. I had to be vague because I couldn't be completely sure someone couldn't do a search and find the thread. While I realize a member could; why open that to anyone who can use Google? If you want more factual discussion, we can at least eliminate those probing from the outside. Go/No go decisions are often quite subjective. If someone discusses one that lead to an issue, do we want a Google or other search to find it to be used against the pilot?

I was recently warned by a board member they had been threatened with a law suit for discussing the Barron Thomas state securities action filed against him. I made the original post and he counseled I might want to remove it. Since it was factual, I declined. However, since that thread can be searched and found by any outside person, I'm re-thinking the post. OTOH, I'd like members to know. OTOH, I don't want to take the time, effort and money to prove I'm right for something that is of little or no benefit to me.

Best,

Dave

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Good idea, but this may spawn more and more "rooms" which will become a management nightmare.

That's for future determination - And I think that the forum description should make it clear that the default should be to post somewhere else. Really, I don't see this forum having a huge amount of traffic, but what traffic is there will be some of our best content.

I do not wish to cause significant additional work for the MC, and I don't think this will be the case. If it is, like I said, we can kill it.

Nothing is private on the internet.

The problem is even if you "think" you're using a private forum, it's not.

Hence, why I'm calling it semi-private, and it should be clear either in the description, disclaimer, or both that this is NOT for discussions that should truly be of a private nature.

Other users could read something in the "private" forum and copy it. Then it's sent on to someone else or posted on a "public" forum.

We should add to the RoC that this is not allowed on PoA, and on the disclaimer that PoA accepts no liability for those who would paste it outside PoA.

However I wouldn't post anything different in a private forum than a public one so it's not solving anything as far as I'm concerned.

But there are those who would. Right now, it's network television or nothing.

What has changed that leads you to believe the MC will have changed their mind on this?

Since the MC has never released any opinion on the matter, I don't know that they have to change their minds. I'm simply attempting to clarify the issues and hopefully not get into a big argument this time so that the MC has a clear idea of what the proposal is.

How many more bad post reports will be generated in the "private" forum because folks will feel more inclined to abuse others there?

I don't think it'll be any different, in fact it could be better because the people would have to be at least somewhat established members of the community and thus would understand how things work here.

If, however, we were to consider it, I think we'd need to establish criteria for entry, such as a minimum level of participation here on aviation topics (spin zone postings would not count).

Agreed.

 

[ScottM]

So that Thomas Frank can't just sign up for an account and instantly have access.

Reporters. I'd really hate to be the source of anything for Thomas Frank and the likes of him.

.

Ok but if one needs to post say, 5 messages. Thomas Frank spends all of 7 minutes posting his 5 messages and gains access.

Is the answer to raise the minimum level? What is the right level? 10? 1000? 31,262 posts?

Or should access be based on minimum time as a member and post count? When does gaining access to this private board sound like getting access start to sound too much like gaining access to the 'private special members only all access back stage' area? If that is a perception than does it turn off members?

I would say it does, just based on how people responded about having to get a log in on the Purple Board to see what was going on. But at least in the case of what the purple board did the access was all or none for any and all that obtained a log in.

I don't think the min post access level solves the problem of keeping potential trouble makers out. It could also keep out people that want to explain something about an accident. We saw very recently two people post to a very old thread their personal experiences with an aircraft accident. Their posts added positively to the discussion. Had there been a minimum post count we would likely have never gotten that information.

 

[skidoo]

This sounds like a private knee-jerk reaction that appears just like a government knee-jerk legislation.

Trying to create internet privacy may be a futile effort. If you want a private conversation, then hike several miles into the forest and have your conversation. Just be sure that everyone is naked.

 

[dmccormack]

Trying to create internet privacy may be a futile effort. If you want a private conversation, then hike several miles into the forest and have your conversation. Just be sure that everyone is naked.

Yeah, yeah -- great advice! It didn't work...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ok but if one needs to post say, 5 messages. Thomas Frank spends all of 7 minutes posting his 5 messages and gains access.

Is the answer to raise the minimum level? What is the right level? 10? 1000? 31,262 posts?

Or should access be based on minimum time as a member and post count?

I had that same thought - Maybe 5 posts and a week - But didn't want to confuse the issue too much. I think that even with the week, we'd still need the 5 posts to keep the reporters out - They might be stifled on THIS accident, but ready for the next one if it was only a time delay.

When does gaining access to this private board sound like getting access start to sound too much like gaining access to the 'private special members only all access back stage' area?

I'm specifically recommending low-ish requirements to avoid that perception.

If that is a perception than does it turn off members?

I would say it does, just based on how people responded about having to get a log in on the Purple Board to see what was going on.

I disagree, because they can still see 95% of the board and get to know us. You can't see ANY of the Purple board.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

How would this be managed?

I start a thread in the public section- will the MC move it? On what grounds would they move it? Suppose someone disagreed on the reasons for moving it?

If a thread is started, another is started in the private section, we have two threads going. Should they be merged? Where does the merged thread go?

If a thread is left running in both the public and private parts, who determines what should be posted in each? The same information almost certainly gets to the reporters.

This could well turn into a headache for the MC.

Finally, there is a lot more pro-aviation here than anti-aviation; I post nothing I wouldn't say in public- because even in a private area, it is being said in public. The public nature of this forum does a lot to show that we aren't all rich people or terrorists. In the latest incident, information is posted that counters the anti GA claims. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Fed or Mr. Reporter just needs to make the minimum number of posts to get into the private section.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Did I take this thread title wrong? Is it a thread for those driving semis that is private? <g>

Best,

Dave

 

[ScottM]

Did I take this thread title wrong? Is it a thread for those driving semis that is private? <g>

Best,

Dave

With a minimum post count that has been met!!!


BTW if the request for a semi-private forum is granted can we get a semi-pubic forum as well for stuff that we only want found after a marginal amount of searching?

What a about a quasi-private forum? Do we need one of those as well? That would be a forum that appears private but really isn't

 

[Dave Siciliano]

On AvSig, everyone knows, or has at least been informed, that three sections aren't searchable by outside search engines. It's that simple over there. On that board, we use are real names. I would think discussion about accidents/incidents, Go/No go or where someone did something that could be a violation but is worth sharing for the learning benefit of others, or the posting of information about a party that others need be warned about would be natural places to protect from outside search.

We had that issue on another board once. Someone used a vendor and wanted to complain about them. A vendor threatened to sue the board sponsors and that ability was taken away.

We do have a mechanism to discuss this now if one posts without identifying themselves. While that can be beneficial, others don't know how to weight the credibility of the poster.

I'd be satisfied just posting anonymously if that's what others prefer.

Best,

Dave

 

[ScottM]

I'd be satisfied just posting anonymously if that's what others prefer.

FWIW and FYI: PoA does allow anonymous posting on Lesson's Learned and Medical Matters right now.

 

[Doggtyred]

FWIW and FYI: PoA does allow anonymous posting on Lesson's Learned and Medical Matters right now.

I dont think the issue is so much "anonymous" posting as much as it is about keeping dirty laundry inside and not airing it to the unwashed masses...

I appreciate the rationale for the proposal, but the devil is in the details.

And most importantly.. any expectation of privacy.. in an internet forum.. is inversely related to the number of people who have access to the forum. Once you have more than a dozen or so peeps, there really ISN'T any enforceable sense of privacy to one's statements.

My feelings are that any "semi private" or "private" forum will be duplicative.. and provide privacy in name only... and would be an exercise in futility and false security.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I support Kent's recommendation for reasons stated in the other thread. On AvSig, certain areas cannot be searched by outside services such as Google.

The reasons for that follow: I

In the accident and incidents section, a pilot was supeonead for offering insight into a crash where he had once flew that plane. An enterprising attorney did a search (was not a member), saw the thread and sent the summons. While we all realize the threads are not now completely private, a search by non-members isn't possible.

I was once was posting about an incident on here where I submitted a NASA report. Board member kept asking detailed questions where I had been vague because they really wanted to understand what happened. I had to be vague because I couldn't be completely sure someone couldn't do a search and find the thread. While I realize a member could; why open that to anyone who can use Google? If you want more factual discussion, we can at least eliminate those probing from the outside. Go/No go decisions are often quite subjective. If someone discusses one that lead to an issue, do we want a Google or other search to find it to be used against the pilot?

I was recently warned by a board member they had been threatened with a law suit for discussing the Barron Thomas state securities action filed against him. I made the original post and he counseled I might want to remove it. Since it was factual, I declined. However, since that thread can be searched and found by any outside person, I'm re-thinking the post. OTOH, I'd like members to know. OTOH, I don't want to take the time, effort and money to prove I'm right for something that is of little or no benefit to me.

Best,

Dave

On AvSig, everyone knows, or has at least been informed, that three sections aren't searchable by outside search engines. It's that simple over there. On that board, we use are real names. I would think discussion about accidents/incidents, Go/No go or where someone did something that could be a violation but is worth sharing for the learning benefit of others, or the posting of information about a party that others need be warned about would be natural places to protect from outside search.

We had that issue on another board once. Someone used a vendor and wanted to complain about them. A vendor threatened to sue the board sponsors and that ability was taken away.

We do have a mechanism to discuss this now if one posts without identifying themselves. While that can be beneficial, others don't know how to weight the credibility of the poster.

I'd be satisfied just posting anonymously if that's what others prefer.

Best,

Dave

For what my opinion is worth, I'm with Dave on this. I've seen enough news articles with statements to the effect of "the authors of this story reviewed web forums related to the subject, and here is what various posters had to say," going on to name posters by screenname and have exact quotes of what was written.

The subpoena issue is something I'd never considered, but is also right on.

While nothing is private on the internet, all it would take to have prevent 95% of the above concerns would be a "google-proof forum." Whether that's possible, and what the logistics of it would be, I don't know - but I do think it would at least be worthy of consideration.

Also, I don't see this so much as an issue of anonymous posting of embarrassing subjects (e.g., how does a felony affect my medical). Instead, I see it as an issue of "sometimes there are sensitive subjects discussed in which fodder could be obtained that would portray GA, or pilots in general, in a bad light; do we want to have a way that we can discuss these things amongst pilots while being relatively secure in doing so."

 

[astanley]

For what my opinion is worth, I'm with Dave on this. I've seen enough news articles with statements to the effect of "the authors of this story reviewed web forums related to the subject, and here is what various posters had to say," going on to name posters by screenname and have exact quotes of what was written.

The subpoena issue is something I'd never considered, but is also right on.

While nothing is private on the internet, all it would take to have prevent 95% of the above concerns would be a "google-proof forum." Whether that's possible, and what the logistics of it would be, I don't know - but I do think it would at least be worthy of consideration.

Also, I don't see this so much as an issue of anonymous posting of embarrassing subjects (e.g., how does a felony affect my medical). Instead, I see it as an issue of "sometimes there are sensitive subjects discussed in which fodder could be obtained that would portray GA, or pilots in general, in a bad light; do we want to have a way that we can discuss these things amongst pilots while being relatively secure in doing so."

In general, I'm with Kent and Dave. Nothing is private on the internet, and I behave accordingly, but the forums I enjoy the most are the ones that have an area where you have to demonstrate your commitment to the community (by contributing), and has a "no search engines, no BS" set of rules. It's not Spin Zone, it's not our "Confidential Matters" section, as many would say "but we already have this!".

That said, I probably will not pass, because I'm pretty sure my SZ:Non-SZ ratio is 1,000:1

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[wsuffa]

So, if we created a semi-private forum, would you all be willing to accept a requirement that all users of the board must use real names?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Bill: I do use my real name, but don't see the need. This board has a bit different personality than AvSig and I like that. User names can also protect to some degree, but I don't believe it would take a sophisticated party long to track that down. You know more than I about that.

Best,

Dave

 

[dmccormack]

Also, I don't see this so much as an issue of anonymous posting of embarrassing subjects (e.g., how does a felony affect my medical). Instead, I see it as an issue of "sometimes there are sensitive subjects discussed in which fodder could be obtained that would portray GA, or pilots in general, in a bad light; do we want to have a way that we can discuss these things amongst pilots while being relatively secure in doing so."

Agreed -- and that's typically the sort of talk that happens around hangars -- "I'd never fly that piece of crap -- it's as poorly maintained as anything I've ever seen..." wouldn't be something we'd say around non-fliers, so as to avoid a false impression.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

So, if we created a semi-private forum, would you all be willing to accept a requirement that all users of the board must use real names?

I wouldn't have any problem with it. But, I think everyone already knows mine.

Of course, I'm with Andrew - my non-SZ posts are...well...few and far between.

 

[Everskyward]

I wouldn't have any problem with it. But, I think everyone already knows mine.

But how would we keep from getting you confused with the other one?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

But how would we keep from getting you confused with the other one?

I could be the eeeeevil one!

Attorney, after all.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Did I take this thread title wrong? Is it a thread for those driving semis that is private? <g>

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Also, I don't see this so much as an issue of anonymous posting of embarrassing subjects (e.g., how does a felony affect my medical). Instead, I see it as an issue of "sometimes there are sensitive subjects discussed in which fodder could be obtained that would portray GA, or pilots in general, in a bad light; do we want to have a way that we can discuss these things amongst pilots while being relatively secure in doing so."

Bingo! Dave gets it... Clearly, so do several others.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So, if we created a semi-private forum, would you all be willing to accept a requirement that all users of the board must use real names?

All users of the semi-private forum, or all users of PoA as a whole? Could we register our names with the MC somehow, or would we have to be identified by our real name in all posts in both public and private areas?

I purposely do not use my full name so as to remain somewhat Google-nonymous, and while I'd be happy to use my full name in a private forum, I don't think you can easily do that without using your full name in the public areas as well, which I'd really rather not do.

What would be the purpose of using real names, and would some of the alternatives I've implied via the questions in the first paragraph serve that purpose?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And most importantly.. any expectation of privacy.. in an internet forum.. is inversely related to the number of people who have access to the forum. Once you have more than a dozen or so peeps, there really ISN'T any enforceable sense of privacy to one's statements.

My feelings are that any "semi private" or "private" forum will be duplicative.. and provide privacy in name only... and would be an exercise in futility and false security.

Again, that's why I'm referring to it here as "Semi-private." In a previous thread, Lance Fisher used the analogy that everything here currently is akin to being broadcast on network TV, while the content of the new forum would be things you wouldn't mind being overheard by a few people on a city bus but that you might not want to broadcast on network TV.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I start a thread in the public section- will the MC move it? On what grounds would they move it? Suppose someone disagreed on the reasons for moving it?

I would suggest that threads be moved into the semi-private forum only upon request (of the OP, most likely) and that threads NEVER get moved OUT of the semi-private forum.

If a thread is started, another is started in the private section, we have two threads going. Should they be merged? Where does the merged thread go?

If the OP of the public thread desires it to be merged into the private forum, that makes sense. They should, of course, never be merged into the public section.

They could also be left separate, as not all discussion needs to be private. We have had quite a few threads in the past that were duplicated between the Spin Zone and other parts of the forum - The politically charged stuff goes in the SZ thread while the rest doesn't.

If a thread is left running in both the public and private parts, who determines what should be posted in each?

Ummm... The poster!

This could well turn into a headache for the MC.

Maybe, maybe not - If it gets as bad as SZ was, kill it!

Finally, there is a lot more pro-aviation here than anti-aviation; I post nothing I wouldn't say in public-

There are probably some things here that we think of as pro-aviation that an enemy of GA would take differently in certain contexts...

As mentioned earlier, Mr. Fed or Mr. Reporter just needs to make the minimum number of posts to get into the private section.

By which point we probably know they're not our friends...

 

[Trapper John]

For what my opinion is worth, I'm with Dave on this. I've seen enough news articles with statements to the effect of "the authors of this story reviewed web forums related to the subject, and here is what various posters had to say," going on to name posters by screenname and have exact quotes of what was written.

That's just bad journalism any way you slice it. I'm just not convinced the MC needs to go to the effort of creating a new board to mitigate failings in journalism business.

And let's say an attorney takes an interest in a post. What is the attorney going to do to establish expert witness status for "flyingcheesehead", for instance?


Trapper John

 

[steingar]

Of course, this proposal is absolutely marvelous. I am wildly in favor of any proposal that makes more work for others that I neither have to do or pay for.

 

[RMCN172RG]

Of course, this proposal is absolutely marvelous. I am wildly in favor of any proposal that makes more work for others that I neither have to do or pay for.

You're not running for congress are you