Should PoA members be a reflection of the MC?

steingar said:
I've met many of the MC and been really impressed with what nice people they were.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where in my OP I said any of the MC were not nice people. I merely submit that they are unresponsive to PoA members - and in fact I submit as one fact in support of that is that when someone posted a poll to Hangar Talk on whether the Spin Zone should be closed, the MC moved the poll to the Spin Zone where the results would be so skewed as to be meaningless. I do not recall seeing the MC initiate polls or any other similar mechanism to measure member preferences prior to their making any changes to the message board.

And I actually have had negligible financial contributions accepted for upkeep of the site, something I was happy to do.
Click to expand...
I have enjoyed and appreciated PoA in the past. Other than the small cost of reviving the member map I have not had any other opportunity to contribute.

I've made no secret of my own disagreement with the MC regarding their decision about the Spin Zone. But I will make even less of a secret about my respect for the MC, who give of their time to make the board work. If enough people really feel that strongly they can form their own site. We're all here voluntarily. I think POA will not be as vibrant and as frequented in the absence of the Spin Zone, but it will still be POA.
Click to expand...
The AOPA, PoA, and the Purple Board forum progression seem to suggest an ever-tightening control spawns migration to less controlled forums.

The argument that one should not criticize volunteers because they are giving something for allegedly nothing relies for its effectiveness on the psychological principle known as reciprocity. Combined with the PoA Rules of Conduct any corrective feedback is pretty much muted. Long term viability of a forum would therefore seem to occur only if that one-sided bargain is dispensed with.

And if my name comes up in conversation then you know things are really bad.
Click to expand...
You're safe. :)
 
steingar said:
That is the scariest thought I've had in a long time. That folks don't have anything better to do than talk about little ol' me.

Then again, may be I was right. Maybe it really does all revolve around me.
Click to expand...
Doctor, in case you haven't noticed, when you turn your attention away, we all cease to exist.
;)
 
Yes as a paying member I should have a say! Oh wait a minute... Membership is free. Never mind. :redface:
 
Jim Logajan said:
They just didn't think all that much of some of your traits. Nothing worse than that; I have dislikable traits too. I suspect the only reason you probably inferred worse from my post is because you started with belittling straw-man argument and expected something in return.

You came up at a get-together where sometimes discussions of other people on the forum come up. I wouldn't have mentioned it at all, but you did ask about how many PoA fly-ins I'd been to and your post was all about the whining personalities behind the posts rather than the arguments in the posts.

I haven't subscribed to the Spin Zone in years and don't use it, but thought it worth the effort as a non-user to defend its existence on behalf of the people who did enjoy using it. But defending it is pretty much impossible under the given management scheme - so first step is to determine whether that scheme can ever be replaced with some other responsive organization, equivalent to, say, a representative republic.
Click to expand...

PoA is a private non-profit organization. That status does not confer any requirement for the organization to be representative of its members.

Read the PoA Rules of Conduct. That notes that the MC has the discretion, but not the obligation, to take action as warranted with respect to content on the site. There are legal reasons for that....

Bottom line is that you can choose to participate or not. Like any other organization or corporation, you are free to go elsewhere. Like any other corporation or organization, the management retains the discretion -but not an obligation-to ban anyone who violates the policies.

From personal experience on the MC, I can tell you as a fact that the MC members do not always agree. They put in a lot of time to try and make this a community. And the do it for exactly zero compensation. The board survives with no advertising and no mandatory charge to the users.

Anyone can set up a forum. The purple bored was set up as an alternative to the red and blue boards. Some folks participate in more than one forum, others stick to only one.

Jim Logajan said:
My understanding is that there is a legal entity - either a non-profit corporation (if I recall correctly,) though maybe it is an LLC.



Of course. The question is why anyone would object to requests for changes to the way it is run?
Click to expand...

For every member that wants the SZ, there is another member that does not. Some decisions are in the eye of the beholder - what one might see as an attack, another might see as sarcasm. The MC does take member opinions into account, but is most concerned about building community.

Personal comment: I was off the MC when the SZ decision was made, but I would have fully supported eliminating it. In the time I was on the MC, the SZ went from a place that was an alternative to a major complaint vector and time suck for the mods. I fully supported it in the beginning, but got tired of the constant issues that I came to see it as something that really didn't fit with the rest of PoA. And many of the prolific posters came to PoA solely or primarily for SZ, not for the main forums. My view changed to the point where those that want to argue, insult, bash, and battle over politics should find a forum where that is encouraged.

You know what they say about opinions - they are like.... Everyone has one.

That's personal opinion.

The MC deserves credit for what they do.
 
wsuffa said:
PoA is a private non-profit organization. That status does not confer any requirement for the organization to be representative of its members.
Click to expand...

Neither does it preclude it. I already tried to point out (and assumed it should be self-evident,) the organization's sine qua non is its members and therefore am proposing the MC membership should be elected by those who infuse it with its value.

Read the PoA Rules of Conduct. That notes that the MC has the discretion, but not the obligation, to take action as warranted with respect to content on the site. There are legal reasons for that....
Click to expand...
That doesn't appear to be relevant to the rules relating to who is chosen to MC membership. Nor does that discretion preclude members like myself from making their case with respect to any action.

Bottom line is that you can choose to participate or not. Like any other organization or corporation, you are free to go elsewhere. Like any other corporation or organization, the management retains the discretion -but not an obligation-to ban anyone who violates the policies.
Click to expand...
And I think the bottom line is the MC can also consider changing the way it runs. Something that you may have overlooked, though: I am not directly affected by the removal of the Spin Zone, so you should ask yourself why I would trouble myself to make myself a target of ridicule of others. Check whether my posting history makes me a particularly bad poster or whether I'm pretty typical - maybe the kind of person you think adds net value. And whether others may be like me and freely take your invitation to leave.

You know it took me some courage (or plain stupidity) to post something I knew might grate on others no matter how diplomatic I tried. I knew it could not help but make others think that I think I'm somehow smarter or wiser than the MC. The unavoidable pitfall of disagreeing with "authority".

From personal experience on the MC, I can tell you as a fact that the MC members do not always agree. They put in a lot of time to try and make this a community. And the do it for exactly zero compensation.
Click to expand...
I posted a link concerning the reciprocity principle and its dangers. Seems likely that anyone who does something for zero compensation may subconsciously feel others owe them - or feel slighted if the owing is not paid back by silent acquiescence. I feared that reaction could occur - if not from the MC, then from others.

The board survives with no advertising and no mandatory charge to the users.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have started this thread if I thought the long term viability of the group was not in doubt because of the way it was organized and being run. Unless changed, I think that in a few years it will be a pretty quiet place.

Anyone can set up a forum. The purple bored was set up as an alternative to the red and blue boards. Some folks participate in more than one forum, others stick to only one.
Click to expand...
All I can say is I enjoyed the use of PoA. Before that, Usenet newsgroups.

For every member that wants the SZ, there is another member that does not.
Click to expand...
Is that an actual result of some unbiased polling or just a personal assessment?

Some decisions are in the eye of the beholder - what one might see as an attack, another might see as sarcasm. The MC does take member opinions into account, but is most concerned about building community.
Click to expand...
Based on the repeated appeal to reciprocity ("we're uncompensated volunteers") I get the impression that decision choices are weighted with highest priority given to the amount of immediate effort the MC would need to apply, with community needs lower in priority. I don't think that, as the old saying goes, is any way to run a railroad. It would also explain, I think, why no polling is done.

Personal comment: I was off the MC when the SZ decision was made, but I would have fully supported eliminating it. In the time I was on the MC, the SZ went from a place that was an alternative to a major complaint vector and time suck for the mods.
Click to expand...
The above appears to be an (inadvertent?) datum in support of the notion that the MC gives greatest weight to the amount of effort involved when it makes its decisions. That works so long as the members can be convinced the decision was really done with them first in mind.

I fully supported it in the beginning, but got tired of the constant issues that I came to see it as something that really didn't fit with the rest of PoA. And many of the prolific posters came to PoA solely or primarily for SZ, not for the main forums. My view changed to the point where those that want to argue, insult, bash, and battle over politics should find a forum where that is encouraged.

You know what they say about opinions - they are like.... Everyone has one.

That's personal opinion.
Click to expand...
People with strong opinions in their politics, religion, and selflessness do seem to gravitate toward things like the SZ and MC and eventually cause problems. :D

The MC deserves credit for what they do.
Click to expand...
If enough others are, I'm willing to donate $50 toward the purchase of gold watches to be provided to every current member of the MC if they'll arrange a set of secession rules that allows them to retire soon and be replaced by people chosen by active members of the PoA community. They can then be rid of their burden.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Neither does it preclude it. I already tried to point out (and assumed it should be self-evident,) the organization's sine qua non is its members and therefore am proposing the MC membership should be elected by those who infuse it with its value.

That doesn't appear to be relevant to the rules relating to who is chosen to MC membership. Nor does that discretion preclude members like myself from making their case with respect to any action.

And I think the bottom line is the MC can also consider changing the way it runs. Something that you may have overlooked, though: I am not directly affected by the removal of the Spin Zone, so you should ask yourself why I would trouble myself to make myself a target of ridicule of others. Check whether my posting history makes me a particularly bad poster or whether I'm pretty typical - maybe the kind of person you think adds net value. And whether others may be like me and freely take your invitation to leave.

You know it took me some courage (or plain stupidity) to post something I knew might grate on others no matter how diplomatic I tried. I knew it could not help but make others think that I think I'm somehow smarter or wiser than the MC. The unavoidable pitfall of disagreeing with "authority".

I posted a link concerning the reciprocity principle and its dangers. Seems likely that anyone who does something for zero compensation may subconsciously feel others owe them - or feel slighted if the owing is not paid back by silent acquiescence. I feared that reaction could occur - if not from the MC, then from others.

I wouldn't have started this thread if I thought the long term viability of the group was not in doubt because of the way it was organized and being run. Unless changed, I think that in a few years it will be a pretty quiet place.

All I can say is I enjoyed the use of PoA. Before that, Usenet newsgroups.

Is that an actual result of some unbiased polling or just a personal assessment?

Based on the repeated appeal to reciprocity ("we're uncompensated volunteers") I get the impression that decision choices are weighted with highest priority given to the amount of immediate effort the MC would need to apply, with community needs lower in priority. I don't think that, as the old saying goes, is any way to run a railroad. It would also explain, I think, why no polling is done.

The above appears to be an (inadvertent?) datum in support of the notion that the MC gives greatest weight to the amount of effort involved when it makes its decisions. That works so long as the members can be convinced the decision was really done with them first in mind.

People with strong opinions in their politics, religion, and selflessness do seem to gravitate toward things like the SZ and MC and eventually cause problems. :D

If enough others are, I'm willing to donate $50 toward the purchase of gold watches to be provided to every current member of the MC if they'll arrange a set of secession rules that allows them to retire soon and be replaced by people chosen by active members of the PoA community. They can then be rid of their burden.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are full of yourself...
 
EdFred said:
You know how many bad fly-ins I've been to ? :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

I can't remember ever being at a bad fly in, because I love fly ins no matter how small, out of the way, or poorly put together.
I've been to some great ones, but they always advertise themselves by the full lot of planes over on the side.
 
What makes you think that having a login on POA makes you a member of the organization. It's not even required that non-profits be a membership organization.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Neither does it preclude it. I already tried to point out (and assumed it should be self-evident,) the organization's sine qua non is its members and therefore am proposing the MC membership should be elected by those who infuse it with its value.

That doesn't appear to be relevant to the rules relating to who is chosen to MC membership. Nor does that discretion preclude members like myself from making their case with respect to any action.

And I think the bottom line is the MC can also consider changing the way it runs. Something that you may have overlooked, though: I am not directly affected by the removal of the Spin Zone, so you should ask yourself why I would trouble myself to make myself a target of ridicule of others. Check whether my posting history makes me a particularly bad poster or whether I'm pretty typical - maybe the kind of person you think adds net value. And whether others may be like me and freely take your invitation to leave.

You know it took me some courage (or plain stupidity) to post something I knew might grate on others no matter how diplomatic I tried. I knew it could not help but make others think that I think I'm somehow smarter or wiser than the MC. The unavoidable pitfall of disagreeing with "authority".

I posted a link concerning the reciprocity principle and its dangers. Seems likely that anyone who does something for zero compensation may subconsciously feel others owe them - or feel slighted if the owing is not paid back by silent acquiescence. I feared that reaction could occur - if not from the MC, then from others.

I wouldn't have started this thread if I thought the long term viability of the group was not in doubt because of the way it was organized and being run. Unless changed, I think that in a few years it will be a pretty quiet place.

All I can say is I enjoyed the use of PoA. Before that, Usenet newsgroups.

Is that an actual result of some unbiased polling or just a personal assessment?

Based on the repeated appeal to reciprocity ("we're uncompensated volunteers") I get the impression that decision choices are weighted with highest priority given to the amount of immediate effort the MC would need to apply, with community needs lower in priority. I don't think that, as the old saying goes, is any way to run a railroad. It would also explain, I think, why no polling is done.

The above appears to be an (inadvertent?) datum in support of the notion that the MC gives greatest weight to the amount of effort involved when it makes its decisions. That works so long as the members can be convinced the decision was really done with them first in mind.

People with strong opinions in their politics, religion, and selflessness do seem to gravitate toward things like the SZ and MC and eventually cause problems. :D

If enough others are, I'm willing to donate $50 toward the purchase of gold watches to be provided to every current member of the MC if they'll arrange a set of secession rules that allows them to retire soon and be replaced by people chosen by active members of the PoA community. They can then be rid of their burden.
Click to expand...

I don't have a dog in the fight, and I don't come here to argue. Within a fairly loose set of rules, this board can become whatever the members want it to be. But I don't see PILOTS of America as the place that should expend time & resources on politics (unrelated to flying) and hot topics. Again, my opinion. Yeah, it does cost something to run PoA.

Looking at it from a strictly capitalistic point of view, if PoA doesn't meet the needs of it's users, the users will leave. And some have (noted that with the exception of Mike A and an occasional drive-by by Greebo, none of the founders are still here). Like any organization, PoA changes over time.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. As I am with mine.
 
I'll consider trading my seat on the management council for a good RV-8. Don't even think of trying to bribe me with a Rv-8A.
 
flyingron said:
What makes you think that having a login on POA makes you a member of the organization. It's not even required that non-profits be a membership organization.
Click to expand...


Very true. There are no "members" on POA and there is no "membership"
 
I have been watching all this in the various threads. At this point I believe that the MC should refrain from responding to any of it. Let everyone vent, say what they want and let it all die down. It seems every time someone on the MC responds it just makes it worse, and its bad enough already. If in fact this is just a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum, the MC needs to be the adults, stop defending and let it go and slowly die.
 
Since we are talking bribes, I would take a new Super D.
 
mikeinbama said:
I have been watching all this in the various threads. At this point I believe that the MC should refrain from responding to any of it. Let everyone vent, say what they want and let it all die down. It seems every time someone on the MC responds it just makes it worse, and its bad enough already. If in fact this is just a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum, the MC needs to be the adults, stop defending and let it go and slowly die.
Click to expand...

Good point. Thanks for the reminder.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Neither does it preclude it. I already tried to point out (and assumed it should be self-evident,) the organization's sine qua non is its members and therefore am proposing the MC membership should be elected by those who infuse it with its value.

That doesn't appear to be relevant to the rules relating to who is chosen to MC membership. Nor does that discretion preclude members like myself from making their case with respect to any action.

And I think the bottom line is the MC can also consider changing the way it runs. Something that you may have overlooked, though: I am not directly affected by the removal of the Spin Zone, so you should ask yourself why I would trouble myself to make myself a target of ridicule of others. Check whether my posting history makes me a particularly bad poster or whether I'm pretty typical - maybe the kind of person you think adds net value. And whether others may be like me and freely take your invitation to leave.

You know it took me some courage (or plain stupidity) to post something I knew might grate on others no matter how diplomatic I tried. I knew it could not help but make others think that I think I'm somehow smarter or wiser than the MC. The unavoidable pitfall of disagreeing with "authority".

I posted a link concerning the reciprocity principle and its dangers. Seems likely that anyone who does something for zero compensation may subconsciously feel others owe them - or feel slighted if the owing is not paid back by silent acquiescence. I feared that reaction could occur - if not from the MC, then from others.

I wouldn't have started this thread if I thought the long term viability of the group was not in doubt because of the way it was organized and being run. Unless changed, I think that in a few years it will be a pretty quiet place.

All I can say is I enjoyed the use of PoA. Before that, Usenet newsgroups.

Is that an actual result of some unbiased polling or just a personal assessment?

Based on the repeated appeal to reciprocity ("we're uncompensated volunteers") I get the impression that decision choices are weighted with highest priority given to the amount of immediate effort the MC would need to apply, with community needs lower in priority. I don't think that, as the old saying goes, is any way to run a railroad. It would also explain, I think, why no polling is done.

The above appears to be an (inadvertent?) datum in support of the notion that the MC gives greatest weight to the amount of effort involved when it makes its decisions. That works so long as the members can be convinced the decision was really done with them first in mind.

People with strong opinions in their politics, religion, and selflessness do seem to gravitate toward things like the SZ and MC and eventually cause problems. :D

If enough others are, I'm willing to donate $50 toward the purchase of gold watches to be provided to every current member of the MC if they'll arrange a set of secession rules that allows them to retire soon and be replaced by people chosen by active members of the PoA community. They can then be rid of their burden.
Click to expand...

I wish that I had a dollar for every time you predicted the demise of this board in response to an "MC injustice".
 
Now then, to the actual Thread Title.

I think you meant to ask if the MC should be a reflection of the PoA members...

The answer is obviously still NO. But at least it would be asked correctly.

There is no need to build constituencies and make sure the MC has enough high-wing, low-wing, Professionals, GA, Students, interested observers, certificated, EXPERIMENTAL, etc, etc, etc.

They are kind enough to give their time. That might should be enough?

As to SZ, you'll never be bothered with my opinion that is should stay. Ooops!
 
EdFred said:
There's also nothing stopping you from starting your own message board and having whatever rules you want over there.

There has never been a vote for MC. This isn't a democracy, or even a republic. It's an oligarchy - and it's been that way since day 1. Deal with it, and quit being a whiny 12 year old.

"Waaaaah, I didn't get any say on a message board I don't contribute any money to. Waaaaaaahhhhh. I want a poooonnnnyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!"
Click to expand...

This actually brings up an interesting point, what we contribute. What is this board about? It's never been about money, hence it's ad free. This site has always been Google searchable as well, because the purpose of this board is the dissemination of information. What we all contribute is content, and that means we are all volunteering our thoughts and time. This is a valuable commodity in the business sector, and depending on productivity, a more valuable contribution than management, because it is the product of the board. The thing is, for people to volunteer their time and thought, they need to get a return out of it. When you restrict the thoughts allowed, you may be trying to steer the content, but at the same time you are reducing the return on investment for the volunteer.

Rule of law is a failure in concept because it blocks free will. You can't tell people what to think or how to act, you can only inspire them. When you restrict thought, you breed contempt, and you lose 90% of your content over 10% of your threads; and the best part is, that still will have no affect on making the rest of POA a kinder and gentler place, in fact more likely for the opposite to occur. The assumption is that the attitude in SZ is "bleeding over" into the rest of the board when in reality is that the attitude present in humanity that is visible mostly in SZ will now manifest itself fully in the rest of the forum because it has nowhere else to manifest.

Limiting speech and subject matter did not make AOPA kind, I don't understand why an intelligent person would believe it will have a positive effect here? The only route to peace is through anarchy, otherwise people will continue in the eternal struggle against, "the man".
 
Henning said:
When you restrict thought, you breed contempt, and you lose 90% of your content over 10% of your threads.
Click to expand...

I don't think there was ever an attempt to restrict thought. Even with the demise of SZ no thoughts are being restricted. Just actions.
 
Gerhardt said:
I don't think there was ever an attempt to restrict thought. Even with the demise of SZ no thoughts are being restricted. Just actions.
Click to expand...

You can't restrict one without the other. If one can't communicate a thought, it is ineffective. Thought is meant to be a self sustaining chain reaction, unfortunately the human reactor fizzles far more often than making fission.
 
denverpilot said:
"I'm being repressed! I'm being repressed!" LOL.
Click to expand...

I always wondered how the MC was chosen. Watery tarts distributing swords is no basis for operating an internet forum.
 
Heck, if there were a PC-12 in it, I'd go BACK on the MC. :yes::rofl:
 
Henning said:
You can't restrict one without the other. If one can't communicate a thought, it is ineffective.
Click to expand...

Nah, everyone keeps most of their thoughts to themselves. And no one could reasonably argue that the MC is trying to restrict thought. SZ was for childish behavior, and a good part of that was fun for everyone involved. But left to self-police, things degenerated beyond the kind of atmosphere that the MC wants to foster. To say that everything that took place was a good-will exchange of thoughts would be a fabrication. It's possible to exchange thoughts among people who disagree, even in a manner that's argumentative, but much of the time it went far beyond that. And hostility that was created in SZ spread to other forums.

I hate to see SZ go away as it's one of my favorites and I don't think it can be duplicated elsewhere. But I understand the reasoning behind the decision.
 
Since we're talking bribes, I'll take a tip tanked 414 with AA Intercoolers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top