Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Site Feedback and Support' started by flyingcheesehead, Feb 13, 2009.
NO!NO!NO! Any room like this this is just screaming to be called the "Cone of Silence"
"The Back Room" as in da palce for da boys behind da bar.
I'm just pulling your leg!!! :smile::smile:
I think Scott would have us call it Salvini's in honor of the pilots' back room in Flight for Freedom. (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0035888/)
I for one am not interested in making this "cliquish", but in having a somewhat private place where we're not broadcasting on the corner to passers-by. Anyone who wants to stop and chat is welcome!
"Behind the Green Door", in honor of Peggy's alter ego.
Excellent, I love it!
Not bad either. How about Zone of Silence as a compromise.
Lifted out of another thread:
What I'm envisioning is NOT a "gate on the front porch" - If it's a gate, it's a gate *behind* the front porch into which small groups may disappear from time to time to discuss various things that we may not want random people to see. We'd still be spending the vast majority of our time on the front porch, and always welcome newcomers.
BTW, I think the reason we probably seem "cliquish" to newcomers is that most of us who have been here for a while have met others of us in person, and in many cases we've met a LOT of other folks on here in person. I've probably met a hundred PoAers in person. So, we have a lot of inside jokes and such. That's just the nature of the beast.
Kind of like the upstairs bedroom during a frat party?
I know what you mean, though, and fully agree. It's NOT about wanting to be elitist, snobish, or cliquish. It's about not wanting to hold every conversation on the street corner with a megaphone in hand.
Ah so you see it more as the VIP room once you can get into the club for exclusive use by special members.
How is that not elitist?
Are you sure that is what you meant? It sure sound like an elite level of user. What is wrong with what we have and if you want to say something you don't want picked up PM it?
No Scott, I really don't. This is more like the main bar, which has a bouncer at the door, rather than the party on the street.
"Elitist" would be requiring 5,000 posts and a $5,000 donation to PoA.
Calling what I'm asking for "elitist" is like calling you elitist for closing and locking the doors on your house when there are homeless people.
WARNING!!! NSFW AND OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE!!!
I had no idea. Post edited.
I have been schooled by a Kevin Smith movie! Nothin' makes you feel dumb like that!
That's what we used to call it in college when we sat on the front porch with beers in hand, chillin' - And that's the only context I've ever heard it in.
Apologies to anyone who may have been offended.
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.
SZ already feels like our dirty little secret as it is.
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.
I tend to agree. Anybody is welcome, but I know of several members that have been bitten by the ties to Google. I do agree that if you post something you should be ready for the repercussions. That said, there isn't any reason to make it as easy as googling. Let them find it. It does stifle a LOT of discussion. I promise.
My feeling is, if you want it to be google-proofed, post it on the purple board, not here. We cannot be all things to all people. I also agree that the main advantage of this board is its openness. My vote (for what it is worth) is No.
And it doesn't have to be "our dirty little secret" if moderated properly. SZ has been ruined by the likes of a very few. I keep getting PM's from people that won't go there anymore. Good people that actually fly airplanes. Not wannabees that just want to b*tch about Republicans and conservatives. Too bad, it could be a decent place to have actual discussions.
I tend to agree with you. I know a number of members who have found this site through Google. As far as more open discussions are concerned, I wouldn't change my posting habits at all based on whether the site, or a part of it, was private or not.
That's a whole different subject. I can understand why people didn't want to see a bunch of SZ posts when they hit "New Posts" but I never understood why we had to go through the whole joining and rejoining process. It seemed like we had to protect people who didn't have the self-control not to hit the SZ button when they really didn't want to see what was inside.
No offense to the good folks who run the purple board...but I want one-stop shopping. It would be valuable to me to have a place to go that doesn't get Googled. However, I would much rather not have to learn the rules, written and unwritten, of a separate system.
+1...the reaction I got in the SZ to my daring to actually post as a conservative came very, very close to running me off of this site for good. There are a couple of folks who I (probably unfairly, by now) think less of than I might because of their actions there.
For me, it was a simple choice: leave the SZ and have it disappear from my perception of this system, or leave the system entirely. I was that disgusted by it.
Thanks Chip, that pretty much sums up how I feel on this subject, well almost. I do understand the usefulness of Google as a source of members but my hope is that this could be limited to a much smaller set of forums which would remain "public".
Re: "Members Only" forum (SZ sidetrack)
AFaIK, I've never participated in the SZ forum, mostly because I really, really wanted to avoid the political diatribes I used to see on the original AOPA board. Every once in a while I'll take a look at SZ just to reconfirm my decision (and it always works).
Do we even have any proof that the CONTENT of the posts is what draws new members from Google? For all we know it could be the front page.
I'm not even promoting that we close off the content to members only. I'd just like to restrict the indexing of the content by reputable search engines (via the robots.txt file or similar means).
Let the search engines index the front page but not the lower levels. Use content on the front page to declare what we are based on how new members find us (easy with access to the analytics).
The quality of the dialogue in the SZ has unarguably gone up in recent weeks.
It used to be a place where some folks felt "actual discussion" consisted of nothing more than robotic recitation of hyper-partisan talking points, fact-free hyperbole, and outright lies. Thankfully, people who consider that embarrassing behavior to be anything even resembling "discussion" seem to have apparently gotten the message that those who engage in those kinds of antics, which are the lowest common denominator in political discourse, won't see the spewing of their uninformed pablum go unchallenged by facts, actual thought, and simple truth and have consequently decided to not participate. That decision is a wise one, and the level of discourse has gone up at least a couple notches.
Edit: The short version is that if there is anybody who doesn't feel warm and fuzzy in the SZ, I can say with near-absolute certainty that it has everything to do with the integrity and intellectual quality of their posts (or, more accurately, the lack thereof), and nothing to do with which side of the political spectrum they fall on.
Let me make it a little clearer what I'm talking about: If there were any other discussion going on -- say, about a particular airplane -- and somebody swooped in and made all kinds of outrageous, vehement claims and didn't provide any factual basis for their argument, provided supporting facts that were simply completely opposite of the truth, or made up supporting facts for their argument, their post would be soundly and thoroughly excoriated. And rightly so. But when that exact same thing happens in the SZ, people claim to feel it's their political beliefs being attacked. And that's ridiculous.
It's a shame, really, that there aren't more folks who are capable of or interested in having an intelligent, informed discussion of issues that are of such importance (and are so interesting to discuss), but the simple fact is that many people would prefer to simply beat on some kind of partisan drum rather than actually discuss the nuances and details of political matters. And calling that kind of behavior what it is might turn some people off, but in the end, the quality of the discussion is -- as we've seen of late in the SZ -- well-served by doing so.
I disagree. It was starting to go up. Its now become a one sided ass slapping festival where personal attacks are held off until approx. the 3rd post now.
It looked so promising too. I was really hoping the MC had stumbled on the right way to go.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it that way at all.
There are a few bad apples (on both sides), to be sure, but the volume of garbage that I described above has gone way, way down.
+1, particularly the part about those that actually fly airplanes ......
Last time I checked, the possession of a valid Airman Certificate isn't a prerequisite for crafting honest arguments based on facts, nor is an expired one or the complete lack of one indicative of an inability to do so.
But let me expound just a little bit, taking just one recent thread as an example so y'all know what I'm talking about... In a thread started not too long ago, the OP contained a political figure's quote, taken so wildly out of context that the poster attempted to construe it to mean the opposite of what the public figure actually said. After being called out on that, the poster went on to explicitly claim that a given proposal didn't contain a specific provision that it clearly did contain. As if that wasn't enough, after being called out on that, the poster went on to represent as historical fact an assertion that far and away most experts in the field consider to be absolutely false.
Right there are three clear-as-day examples of outright, ribald dishonesty -- in just one thread.
I mean, what's one supposed to do with that kind of plainly dishonest garbage? Let it slide? I don't think so: That kind of junk has no place in an intelligent conversation, whether it's about politics or flying or anything else, and is an insult to everyone trying to conduct a conversation with a modicum of mutual respect and honesty.
What it comes down to is this: If somebody comes into the SZ and uses facts and accurate historical references to support a reasoned, honest argument, they'll be pleased with the conversation that ensues. But if, on the other hand, they come into the SZ and decide to use no facts -- or worse, lies -- to support their argument or are just there to repeat whatever talking points they [heard/read] that morning on their favorite [conservative/liberal] [talk show/blog] then they're likely to walk away less than pleased.
And I don't think that's at all unreasonable.
The MC has debated what constitutes the right level of moderation without it becoming censorship. I think the only majority we had was to try and let the inmates run.....
Moderation: where you'll get nastygrams regardless of which decision you make.
I really couldn't tell you what the "proper" level of moderation is.... (that is, other than the obvious deletion of spam, criminal behavior, etc, etc.)
For my part, as far as something like the SZ goes, I think y'all went in the right direction. Wheat/chaff/etc.
And (not trying to brown nose at all here) I think outside SZ, you do a pretty unquestionably good job.
Are you at least working on a certificate? Would you like to? If not, why do you even come here? Whether you like it or not, this is a community of people build around a common passion(and it ain't ****ing into the wind about politics). I think......
Screw it, you win. I'm going back to studying. I have my first multi-engine lesson tomorrow morning at 8:00am in a Seneca III.
For whatever it's worth...
I started working towards my private with my introductory flight in June of 2005. My first solo was on 12/11/2005 at GYY. I kept working towards it as time and money allowed, but financial considerations necessitated an almost exactly year-long hiatus between March of '06 and March of '07, and after that, increased work responsibilities didn't allow me to keep up the kind of training pace that I would've liked. But I kept at it (albeit slowly) and by the fall of 2007, I was getting close to being ready for the checkride when a basically perfect opportunity to indulge my second passion -- sailing -- dropped into my lap. I jumped on it, and that has consumed pretty much the entirety of the "hobby" portion of my budget since. Flying is still, however, my first passion, and as soon as circumstances allow, I intend to get back at it. I read the aviation threads here because it keeps my brain engaged in it -- and because there isn't a better aviation community out there.
Not that any of that makes any difference whatsoever to what I'm talking about.
Edit: Here's my online logbook if you're interested. I guess there are probably a few people who'd like to play the "I'm a pilot and you're not yet" superiority game, and that's their prerogative. But I certainly don't care one bit, and if anything, it's a pretty good indication that I'm right in what I've been talking about when they try to extend that to anything beyond flying.
Can you please take this BS BACK into the spin zone?
Oh yeah? Well I have over 400 hours. That means I'm 10 times better than a newly minted Private Pilot.
But you're less than 8 times better than me. Hah!