A revised poll on non-aviation content

[Greebo]

Looks like we're going to have to settle some questions about the particulars of non aviation related content.

I've put together a poll that I believe covers ALL of the possible options. If I've missed any, deal with it and pick the one closest, cause I ain't editin this monster.

Terms:
Av/Non-Av - Aviation related/Non Aviation Related
Sen/Nonsen* - Sensitive material (politics, religion, law, other heated topics) vs. non-sensitive subjects

Note: No options for "no aviation related content" are listed because we ARE an aviation forum first and foremost

Footnotes:
*Pun intended
** hey, someone might want only hot topics...

 

[bstratt]

Chuck I abstained because I have no problem with the status quo but also would have no problem if you decided to separate it out. The only problem I would have is that if you created so many categories it took me 20 minutes to figure out where to post something!

 

[Greebo]

Chuck I abstained because I have no problem with the status quo but also would have no problem if you decided to separate it out. The only problem I would have is that if you created so many categories it took me 20 minutes to figure out where to post something!

Only 20 minutes?

Hmm I need to come up with more combinations!

 

[RogerT]

I feel like you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I can't recall
any issues I've had with any posts on here. I think people have shown
a lot of respect for one another in discussing all sorts of stuff. I see no
resemblence whatsoever to that other place before they closed the
Cesspool.

RT

 

[Michael]

that was harder than my FAA written test chuck!

 

[SkyHog]

oh geez, Chuck, that was more difficult than my job...

Whew.

 

[Greebo]

that was harder than my FAA written test chuck!

Mission accomplished then!

Oh, darn, I know what I forgot to include!!!

I forgot to include options for:
LikeNon/DisNon - Like nonsensitive topics / dislike nonsensitive topics
LikeSen/DisSen - Like sensitive topics / dislike sensitive topics

and all of the possible permeatations - there should have been...lets see...8 x 4 ... 32 total choices.

Oh well --- guess I'll start a NEW poll...

 

[ScottM]

Too many choices, Chuck. Unfortunetly, your poll will most likely not provide you with anything of statistical significance. You will probably need several polls or the MC could just decide how they want to deal with this issue first and then either pitch it to the users or start your new course of action.

Whatever you do is fine with me.

 

[Greebo]

Too many choices, Chuck. Unfortunetly, your poll will most likely not provide you with anything of statistical significance. You will probably need several polls our the MC could just decide how they want to deal with this issue first and then either pitch it to the users or start your new course of action.

Whatever you do is fine with me.

So you'ld be the first voter for option 9 then?

Honestly, I don't think we're going to see things change here - the last poll seemed to settle that.

BUT - there seems to be some confusion about how exactly those poll numbers should be interpreted - as to whether the increase in more sensitive topics of discussion is approved of or disapproved of by the general public here. Thats why I created this poll - not cause I think things will change or even want them to change, just to try to remove some of the "creative interpretation" possibilities.

Unfortunately, to cover the like/dislike questions would require 32 possible combinations...and honestly *I* don't care enough about the issue to go to that much trouble. But anyone who wants to argue about it further is free to.

 

[Brian Austin]

I think this is a wee bit complicated.

You've already established that Hangar Talk is welcome for non-av content in the previous poll. Take it out of this one.

Three options should suffice:

1. Status quo
2. Sensitive content welcome but in a separate forum
3. Sensitive content unwelcome

 

[ScottM]

So you'ld be the first voter for option 9 then?

No, actually. I think the MC does need to talk about it.

 

[poadeleted3]

I think this is a wee bit complicated.

You've already established that Hangar Talk is welcome for non-av content in the previous poll. Take it out of this one.

Three options should suffice:

1. Status quo
2. Sensitive content welcome but in a separate forum
3. Sensitive content unwelcome

Or you could just boot out the people you don't like, since you've already made clear that that is the case. Make everybody else happy, and you won't have people wondering if those of you on the MC are making your decisions based on who you do and don't like. Heck, might even make your job easier, and the site will be all cum ba ya, or however it is spelled.

 

[Gary]

There is no possible way the POA management is going to please all the people all the time. You can poll away, but in the end, it's your board, set the rules as you see fit. If the users don't like the rules, then there are plenty of other sites to visit.

It's pretty clear to me that Hanger Talk is for all those issues that are not clearly aviation related. I see no reason to change the present set up and the rules as written seen to work just fine. The political/sensitive/etc. posts are often fun to read and I haven't seen any major flame wars that got out of hand. In my mind it really comes down to personal responsibility, we all have the option to read, respond or ignore any post, exercise your ability!

Gary

 

[wsuffa]

Another board I belong to has a "hot" section... and has a couple of forums for non-av content. It seems to work pretty well....

Were it my choice, I think I would establish a "hot" section that allows opt-out on the new posts button.

 

[Dart]

Only 20 minutes?

Hmm I need to come up with more combinations!

Chuck, I'm so sorry this grief is visiting you here. I think P.O.A's original rules and intent were, and are, quite clear. P.O.A. wants to be an aviation community; not a F.A.Q. page, business directory, or a wikipediea.

It astounds me how supposedly mature grown-ups can be so incapable of censoring their literature input, filtering what they don't want, restraining themselves from entering discussions they can't win or extracting themselves when they've gone too far. It's as if they need a nanny to tell them where to go and what to read. I'm beginning to understand how laziness also plays a part. They want a steady stream of pre-filtered "new posts" with the crusts cut off and the pulp strained out in their inbox. Actually logging on and screening their favorite forums for recent threads of interest is just too much effort.

To POSTERS: Folks get of your lazy e-butts, and visit by forum. Chances are excellent you will never have to read a Non-Av post if you stay within the av-only forums. Nobody here is trying to trick anyone into reading a political or faith based post by labeling it "What headset should I buy?" How difficult is that???????????? Instead you chose to annoy moderators and readers about posts you have no interest in, from an area you would otherwise not visit, because it shows up in your bulk "new posts" list. Sheesh.

To MANAGEMENT: I propose a new rule (t-i-c of course): If a member is such an idiot they don't know how to avoid non-Av subjects in the ONLY non-Av section, then they don't have a sufficient I.Q. to be a pilot anyway. Therefor, they shall be banned. Ron L said it long ago in a board far,far away - All good bars have a backroom to give the rowdeys a place to hang away from the walk-in crowd. In all boards I've read worth reading, it is the thread content arguments that are longer, more annoying, offensive, devisive, and destructive than the actual threads.

To MODERATORS: Continue to monitor rude, offensive POSTERS. Deal with them individually with the fair and equal application of the rules. It is INDIVIDUALS, not forums that cause problems. Constantly and mercilessly patrol av-only forums for non-av content, that is within the letter and the spirit of the rules. Continue to cool off overheated threads.

 

[Missa]

Looks like we're going to have to settle some questions about the particulars of non aviation related content.

I've put together a poll that I believe covers ALL of the possible options. If I've missed any, deal with it and pick the one closest, cause I ain't editin this monster.

Terms:
Av/Non-Av - Aviation related/Non Aviation Related
Sen/Nonsen* - Sensitive material (politics, religion, law, other heated topics) vs. non-sensitive subjects

Note: No options for "no aviation related content" are listed because we ARE an aviation forum first and foremost

Footnotes:
*Pun intended
** hey, someone might want only hot topics...

Ok, I'm confused... which one is: everything allowed, non-sensitive stuff and airplane suff in HT and a seprate fourm for sensitve stuff so that the people who don't like it can ignore it (and will stop compaining) but the people who want to see it can?

 

[Brian Austin]

Or you could just boot out the people you don't like, since you've already made clear that that is the case. Make everybody else happy, and you won't have people wondering if those of you on the MC are making your decisions based on who you do and don't like. Heck, might even make your job easier, and the site will be all cum ba ya, or however it is spelled.

Oh, brother. As I already made clear in a subsequent post, no one makes unilateral decisions and whatever decision is reached MUST be applied to some area of the RoC. It's our own PoA Constitution and we're pretty rigid about adhering to it.

Like or dislike isn't the issue. I actually agree with a good chunk of what many of you are saying from the right side of the fence.

Mixing political, religious and "sensitive" (too relative a term in my opinion) topics with non-"sensitive" topics seems to be the issue more than anything. We can ignore forums but some people just don't like seeing a long list of quotes and links spouting an ideology. I'm not sure what cause everyone thinks they're pushing here with those kinds of posts. Why go through all the effort when we all know nothing is going to change with the small group of folks who actually pay attention to them? Based on the rep comments we've been seeing, I can predict who will take what side of an argument and when it's going to start violating the RoC. It's really sad that so much effort and time goes into an activity that generates pretty much no end result besides increasing blood pressures.

 

[gprellwitz]

I don't know if the forum software has the capability, but allow the user to determine which forums will be included in the "Latest forums topic" and even how many show up. That way, if we want to see the 30 most recent topics out of forums x, y, and z we can do that from one screen. Even better, have it show those since we last logged in!. No, that's not laziness, it's efficiency, customizability, and personalization. Of course, it's also extra work for programmers to implement, and therefore helps keep me in a job

 

[ausrere]

Is there a way for a user to actually see how many people have put them on their ignore list?

 

[Greebo]

Or you could just boot out the people you don't like, since you've already made clear that that is the case. Make everybody else happy, and you won't have people wondering if those of you on the MC are making your decisions based on who you do and don't like. Heck, might even make your job easier, and the site will be all cum ba ya, or however it is spelled.

We've made it clear that this is the case?? You know anyone who's been booted based on who we like and don't like, then?

For that matter, do you know any posters with an interest in aviation who have even been booted??

As for the accusation that the MC is making decisions based on who we like and don't like - about the only thing I can say to that which won't violate the RoC is this: you are showing an unbelievable amount of nerve making that claim.

If we wanted everything to be "kum bay ya" (I think), do you REALLY, SERIOUSLY, IN ALL SELF HONESTY think we'd be having any of these discussions???

 

[Greebo]

Is there a way for a user to actually see how many people have put them on their ignore list?

No. Nor, IMO, should there be. It would defeat the purpose, I think. Kind of like one kid saying to another, "I'm IGNORING you" when thats the last thing they're doing.

 

[Everskyward]

It's really sad that so much effort and time goes into an activity that generates pretty much no end result besides increasing blood pressures.

Sometimes I don't think people realize that the more confrontational they get the likelihood of swaying someone to their side goes down to just about zero, but maybe that's not the objective.

 

[Greebo]

Ok, I'm confused... which one is: everything allowed, non-sensitive stuff and airplane suff in HT and a seprate fourm for sensitve stuff so that the people who don't like it can ignore it (and will stop compaining) but the people who want to see it can?

GAH!

I MEANT to include that one too.

Damnit.

Oh well, I refer you to the instructions:

I've put together a poll that I believe covers ALL of the possible options. If I've missed any, deal with it and pick the one closest, cause I ain't editin this monster.

Sorry.

 

[poadeleted3]

We've made it clear that this is the case?? You know anyone who's been booted based on who we like and don't like, then?

For that matter, do you know any posters with an interest in aviation who have even been booted??

As for the accusation that the MC is making decisions based on who we like and don't like - about the only thing I can say to that which won't violate the RoC is this: you are showing an unbelievable amount of nerve making that claim.

If we wanted everything to be "kum bay ya" (I think), do you REALLY, SERIOUSLY, IN ALL SELF HONESTY think we'd be having any of these discussions???

It was a member of YOUR MC who stated that just because you allow people who post here doesn't mean they are liked. YOUR MC member who raised doubts in any reasonable mind as to how you all may or may not be making decisions. Do you, in all self honesty, expect people to believe that your personal feelings do not play into your decisions? I, for one, expect no such super-humanity from you. I made no claims as to who you have or haven't booted, and your contention that I did so is inaccuarate. What I DID say is that you a member of YOUR management council made clear, to me at least, that there are people here you would rather not be here when he made those posts.

 

[Greebo]

1) Brian was, I'm pretty sure, speaking in broadly reaching general terms about the sentiments of the community. Accurately.

2) Yes, I expect people to believe that we actually do keep our feelings, personal friendships, personal likes and personal dislikes out of our decisions, because we've demonstrated on multiple occasions now that we don't. I will not name names, because doing so would violate the RoC, but there are several people here who should know or at least strongly suspect that they are not well liked by the staff here, and if they don't at least suspect it, then they are seriously self-delusional. They remain here, despite that fact, and they have on more than one occasion been the objects of our own defense against complaints from people in the community who do try to get them removed based on personal sentiments. Whether we like them or not, we make a deliberate effort to check and DOUBLE check that all decisions made here are based on the RoC, objectively. We rant, but we keep the rants out of sight, and to each other.

3) It is HARDLY super-human to keep personal likes and dislikes out of a decision. Its called professionalism. As a former cop, I should think you would be able to understand that concept intimately. I hesitate to imagine what life in this nation would be like if our police forces were allowed to make authoritative decisions based on personal feelings.

ANy other questions?

 

[cherokeeflyboy]

DID say is that you a member of YOUR management council made clear, to me at least, that there are people here you would rather not be here when he made those posts.

If there are people that the mgmt council would not rather be here, and I am one of them please advise. Months ago I crossed the line on the POA rules
(directed at Joe I believe). Doc Bruce sent me a little "love note" and with my reply all was forgiven. If I was not welcome here, I surely would not return. Why would any one want to participate in something where they were not wanted???
I dont feel this is the case regarding me specifically but if it were you would not see me whining and crying cause nobody want to play with me.
KD

 

[grattonja]

Sometimes I don't think people realize that the more confrontational they get the likelihood of swaying someone to their side goes down to just about zero, but maybe that's not the objective.

I tried suggesting that to a poster not too long ago. The thread is still up if you choose to go and look at it. The reply back was the last post in that thread. Swaying someone to their side is simply NOT the objective of some folks.

I like the civility with which most discourse so far has been conveyed here, since the demise of Soapbox on the Red Board. However, I did vote to separate "sensitive" from "non-sensitive" stuff. It would take certain banners out of play for some people who simply don't want to read them.

I am all in favor of continuing to allow political postings here, as it seems to help keep the numbers up, which in turn helps keep the aviation forums busier. As long as it remains civil, and doesn't degenerate into the sort of "are too, are not" crap that I have seen elsewhere. When that happens, and it DOES most often seem to happen over politics/religion, then something may have to be done. I don't think POA will get there, because one of the founding premises of this place (and yes I was a day one charter member and remember the circumstances) was active moderation. Our mods do a good job of cooling hot tempers, and shutting down that which gets out of control (not very often needed either).

Jim G

 

[fgcason]

I had a very inspired post about this subject all typed up and the mouse pointer on the post button then realized it's a complete waste of effort that would server no useable purpose.

When it comes down to it:
Rules of conduct, split out forums and user comments only go so far. They suggest a path to go down but short of draconian moderation in a totaliarian system it won't solve the problem. The people involved however can solve the problem without a huge list of rules. It's an accepted behavior issue, not a rule violation issue. If a group really does not like a certain behavior the way to discourage that type of behavior, even if it's within the limits of the written rules but "we just don't like it," is fairly simple:
Thread Views = Minimal number and Thread Replies = ABSOLUTE ZERO. If there's a trend developing, push the little red triangle with "!" in the middle under the users name and send a polite nastygram to the management.

When it comes to it, this should even have to be a topic of discussion and if this was a social gathering of actual humans in the same room, it wouldn't be.

I voted my peace in the poll. This subject is beneath me. Off to more interesting things...

 

[Brian Austin]

1) Brian was, I'm pretty sure, speaking in broadly reaching general terms about the sentiments of the community. Accurately.

That is correct.

Historically here at PoA, my own personal feelings HAVE entered our MC discussions. I'm human and readily admit it. But I've been called on it and balanced by logic presented by the other members. That's part of the idea behind a council approach. It works, if for no other reason than keeping check on each other's emotions.

 

[Greebo]

Ok, correct and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this:

If a group really does not like a certain behavior the way to discourage that type of behavior, even if it's within the limits of the written rules but "we just don't like it," is fairly simple:
Thread Views = Minimal number and Thread Replies = ABSOLUTE ZERO. If there's a trend developing, push the little red triangle with "!" in the middle under the users name and send a polite nastygram to the management.

No, that is not a solution. That is just attempting to bully the management council in to getting rid of someone who's playing by the rules.

Reporting threads or posts simply because you don't like the poster or subject is considered by us as an abuse of the bad post feature. If a post is within the bounds of the Rules of Conduct, and you know it is within those bounds, then there is no justification for reporting it. Repeated abuses of Report Bad Posts WILL result in consequences for the abuser.

Report Bad Posts is only for the reporting of posts where you believe the Rules of Conduct may have been directly violated in some way.

Thank you.

 

[Greebo]

Historically here at PoA, my own personal feelings HAVE entered our MC discussions. I'm human and readily admit it. But I've been called on it and balanced by logic presented by the other members.

Same here, and same here.

Thats why the MC works. We're all adults, we're all professionals, and we don't all have the same hot buttons. We also don't agree on everything.

But we all agree on two things - That we all put first and foremost the well being of this forum, and that we will all act as Council Members in accordance with the decisions of the Council.

 

[AirBaker]

I don't mind things the way they are. However, (no offense Mr. Birdman), It seems as if Hangar Talk is overrun with political posts. I do enjoy them from time to time, but there are just too many to sift through.

Just my opinion.

 

[Sonar5]

I didn't vote at all, since the poll is well just humerous, IMHO.

Thanks for the humor..... And if it wasn't meant to be humerous, my opinion is that is the way I see it with all those choices.

I hope the mc doesn't actually consider this poll when making any decisions....

 

[Areeda]

While I enjoy what Chuck refers to as non-sensitive non aviation discussions I find most of the rest meets my definition of trolling.

Just one comment on these polls. It seems to me that putting the poll in Hanger Talk your preselecting people who feel Hanger Talk is worth reading. Notice how Ron's poll has shown slow steadily declining support for leave it as is? I suspect that is due to people like me who visit occasionally.

Joe

 

[Missa]

GAH!

I MEANT to include that one too.

Damnit.

Oh well, I refer you to the instructions:

Sorry.

K-- I'm voting for sep av/non av, sep sen/non sen... but really it should be Hanger Talk (av and non sen non av) and a Political/faith/charged forum that those people who want to ignor can ignor.

Missa

 

[alaskaflyer]

While I enjoy what Chuck refers to as non-sensitive non aviation discussions I find most of the rest meets my definition of trolling.

Just one comment on these polls. It seems to me that putting the poll in Hanger Talk your preselecting people who feel Hanger Talk is worth reading. Notice how Ron's poll has shown slow steadily declining support for leave it as is? I suspect that is due to people like me who visit occasionally.

Joe

Ah, but since the poll is about Hangar Talk...

Also, from the page you linked:

Internet trolling can usually be effectively dealt with by simply responding to the substantive issues rather than name calling.

With the exception of one or two individuals, this is what I am seeing in the Hangar, regardless of the original intent of the first post of a thread. Which is a good thing, no?

 

[fgcason]

Ok, correct and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this:

Ooops. You're right. My bad. While editing, I stopped typing before all the words got out in the right order. (I thought you could read everyone's mind by now. )

Bad posts thingie for trends that are out of line. Point being that generally people who are being ignored while trying to get attention tend to become more insistent on getting the attention so they often start stepping across the line - then leverage can be applied from management types.

The zero views, zero replies method is a reasonably effective method to handle the not to the line annoyance problems.

 

[Steve]

http://www.pearlchurch.com/camp/campapp06.htm

 

[alaskaflyer]

http://www.pearlchurch.com/camp/campapp06.htm

Hmmm, maybe http://lnk.in/3gq7 instead?

 

[Michael]

We could solve this right here and now, just do what I want and be done with it.