Your Opinion: The T&Cs of AvCom

[NunoCarreira]

Following some discussions on other topics, we committed to opening a dedicated topic whereby you can present your opinion on our site's current set of Terms & Conditions.

For reference, our site's general T&Cs can be found here. Also important to note that certain forums within AvCom may be subject to additional terms and guidelines. These are posted at the top of the section either in a pink block or in some cases, as an announcement within these forums. See the Academy and Aircraft for Sale sections for examples.

Our moderator group use these T&Cs in their moderation activities. It is the standard to which we are held accountable to each other in our moderation and more importantly, to ensure that the duties, are executed without fear or favour.

Clearly there are some areas that we cannot really debate, such as those that are in place to safeguard the site from legal action.

We have always attempted to keep our T&Cs as simple as possible and should be easy to apply. To this end it also needs to be easy enough for all forumites to understand. If you are to provide inputs, please put yourself in a moderators position and think how you would apply your suggestion.

[jimdavis]

I have no problem with the T&Cs. They have been well thought out and are fair and reasonable.

However I have had occasion in the last few months to question the application of these T&Cs by what seems to be aggressive over-moderation. Members - particularly the more involved and committed ones - feel constricted by what we see as policemen rather than moderators.

A moderator should be an arbiter, a mediator, a referee or an umpire - even a mentor who can bring stray sheep back into the fold. At the moment there seems to be an aggressive culture that's driving the most useful members away.

Transparency is called for. It's interesting to note that those of us who seem to taking the brunt of the bullying, are generally not afraid to use our proper names, and are happy to share details of our lives, hobbies, likes, and dislikes - as one would when chatting to members at the flying club pub.

We don't want a no-name, no-history black-shirt waving a stick at us and telling us what we may and may not say. I friendly tip from the barman, whose name and history we know, would do the job a lot better

The crackdown on humour has to be one of the most aggressive pieces of 'moderation' I have ever witnessed.

The first step towards repairing the relationship between members and mods would be for management to have the moderators put their proper names to each piece of moderation, followed by a friendly reminder to stick to the club rules. Having one's post deleted by someone who doesn't wish to be known, is as despicable and cowardly as having stones thrown at one from behind a hedge.

I repeat, transparency is the first step in repairing the relationship.

jim

[Mike Wissing]

I have no problem with the T&Cs. They have been well thought out and are fair and reasonable.

However I have had occasion in the last few months to question the application of these T&Cs by what seems to be aggressive over-moderation. Members - particularly the more involved and committed ones - feel constricted by what we see as policemen rather than moderators.

A moderator should be an arbiter, a mediator, a referee or an umpire - even a mentor who can bring stray sheep back into the fold. At the moment there seems to be an aggressive culture that's driving the most useful members away.

Transparency is called for. It's interesting to note that those of us who seem to taking the brunt of the bullying, are generally not afraid to use our proper names, and are happy to share details of our lives, hobbies, likes, and dislikes - as one would when chatting to members at the flying club pub.

We don't want a no-name, no-history black-shirt waving a stick at us and telling us what we may and may not say. I friendly tip from the barman, whose name and history we know, would do the job a lot better

The crackdown on humour has to be one of the most aggressive pieces of 'moderation' I have ever witnessed.

The first step towards repairing the relationship between members and mods would be for management to have the moderators put their proper names to each piece of moderation, followed by a friendly reminder to stick to the club rules. Having one's post deleted by someone who doesn't wish to be known, is as despicable and cowardly as having stones thrown at one from behind a hedge.

I repeat, transparency is the first step in repairing the relationship.

jim

Thank you Jim. You encapsulated exactly what I wanted to say, and did, (twice this week) only to have a no-name keyboard warrior remove my posts.
My advice to mods is if you don’t have to guts to put your name to your work, remove yourself as a moderator. It’s a thankless job, but YOU chose it.
Most of you do great work, and many are respected members. It’s not easy, but then again, it can be. I moderate two sites on social media, same A type personalities, similar subjects and we don’t have nearly as much moderated content as here. Let me tell you, Americans think they can say ANYTHING because of the 1st Amendment……..

[Fransw]

I don't think the mods are out to get some of us! We all get moderated at some point. I got banned a couple of times. Once for a month for calling an idiot an idiot. That was a sweet one! And some of my posts got deleted for example the one where I said the Sling 4 115hp is NOT suitable for 4 adults. Relax, get over yourself, start a new topic, and make a couple of posts. You will immediatly feel better guaranteed!

[HJK 414]

This topic prompted me to reactivate..
I had been communicating with Roger about this for some time.

Jim Davis – We agree on the no name – throwing stones from behind a hedge ….

And as for the statements :
“ At the moment there seems to be an aggressive culture that's driving the most useful members away.” …..
"It's interesting to note that those of us who seem to taking the brunt of the bullying, are generally not afraid to use our proper names, and are happy to share details of our lives, hobbies, likes, and dislikes - as one would when chatting to members at the flying club pub."

I could not agree more ..... ......we have lost too many experienced flyers ...and mods !!

Yet – in my view - there is another angle to this T&C debate

The T&C's are made as a general “umbrella” for the site.
Applied by Moderators that are not necessarily (ex) Pilots.
And that is fine as long as it is a ....one size fits all .....approach.

But - Lets look at this from a different perspective ...

Let's make a few Pilots moderators on a IT web forum …..
Let's make some Bricklayers moderators on an Accounting platform.....
Let's have some Accountants moderate an Architectural forum …...

Sound silly ?? – well not entirely, if you use a “one set approach for all” regulation.
Question is : does that work on Avcom ??
In my view – NOT.

I would applaud a separate forum that is “by invitation”, in a “closed group hangar” with a group of experienced Pilots / Aviation people that enables me to speak to other like minded peers without some Chuck Yeager type with 50 hours circuit experience telling me that I have been doing it all wrong for years.

Or some know it all genius explaining to me that landing on a jungle strip with no Nav-aids in questionable VFR conditions was irresponsible - as he has seen a video of some guy coming short... and I should be aware that this set a precedent as others may try .….. and I should retract my post …. bla bla bla...

And as soon as I ask him to pull his head in – I have some moderator remove my post as it is “personal”......

That type of closed forum (Avcom is all about the flying is it not ?) … would require moderation by people that are known by name – are peers – and understand the mindset of the industry and able to interpret the “intent” and “attitude” of these flying people that have spent the best years of their lives in a cockpit.

The other “open” general forums can be moderated under an umbrella – under standard T&C's - but unless the forum is prepared to loose more and more members – you may need to approach this topic in a different manner …..

The world has changed – Avcom may need to change as well

JK

[jimdavis]

It's been mentioned numerous times that humour and off-topic banter in the Academy section is against the Academy's rules. You can do so in the other sub-forums, just not in Academy

If this is an "Academy" rule that the mods intend enforcing, then I suggest you change the rule.

Anyone who has had any experience of academy / training / teaching / lecturing / instructing will know that humour is an excellent teaching tool.

jim

[Roger]

Will try address some of the comments/ideas here. Will do so in separate posts.

To address the 'anonymity' of the mod that applies moderation. We act and apply moderation as a unified group. The moderators have a code of conduct that we all adhere to in applying and executing the moderation activities. I cannot recall a time where moderation has been applied, that is outside the scope of the T&Cs.

With the T&Cs as our guide/rule book, they are the basis used in applying the moderation. No more, no less.

Many industries use this approach, take for instance F1, the stewards apply penalties as a group and there is no mention of which steward applied the penalty. Not sure why there is a need to understand which mod or steward applied a penalty.

There have been cases where there has been a plea for moderation to be reviewed, and we usually accede to such a request. If you believe you have been treated unfairly, feel free to drop a PM to anyone of the moderators requesting a review.

[Roger]

It's been mentioned numerous times that humour and off-topic banter in the Academy section is against the Academy's rules. You can do so in the other sub-forums, just not in Academy

If this is an "Academy" rule that the mods intend enforcing, then I suggest you change the rule.

Anyone who has had any experience of academy / training / teaching / lecturing / instructing will know that humour is an excellent teaching tool.

jim

This rule has been in place since the Academy opened and was to ensure the quality of the discussion. The Academy is also the only section where we do not allow much leeway in thread drift and are super sensitive to off topic banter.

This is also why we began this topic to gauge whether we should review these rules.

Do we allow humour in the Academy?

It is a tough one. Lets take a recent example, where the satirical rip of the 'Fine time to leave me Lucile' song was brought up a number of times on the Safair thread. Did that add to the quality of the discussion? What learning of safety can come from mentioning and discussing a satirical take on a song? What if your kin was killed by those loose wheels, should we still allow people to make fun ?

We are catering to a large audience and unfortunately some do lack social filters.

As much as we are sometimes challenged on applying the T&Cs, we are also sometimes challenged for not being consistent in application. Hence if some humour is allowed, it must all be allowed, even if seriously misplaced.

In summary, if we allowed the humour, we would not have the ability to remove such an insensitive/misplaced post. It could also lead to a deterioration of the quality of a topic.

Happy to debate this and we will certainly apply our minds to any suggestions. (So removing the rule is not off the table, but we do need to appreciate the downside)

[Argonaught]

Very similar to humour debate, the mods took a lashing for moderating an Academy post today (Trumps Bump). The thread had drifted into a political discussion of which country's president was better than the other. In my mind, this has got no value in an aviation safety discussion.

This is the post that started it:

At least he can count and did a wonderful job being President….unlike some South African Presidents…..

The topic was 16 posts long and 8 of them were moderated or deleted as they were a follow on to the above statement debating presidents, or attacking/supporting the mods for removing that type of content.

Those that got upset with this moderation, are you proposing that we should allow that level of political discussion in the Academy topics?

We agree that in some circumstances that politics may make an appearance in a topic, such as the SAA thread, and we will apply ourselves accordingly, but what we saw in the Trumps Bump thread had no place under our current guidelines.

Worthwhile also mentioning that had the posters started topics with the the same content discussed in the last two posts, in 123.45, they would have been left alone.

[Whirly]

My opinion will get me banned!

Whirly.

[jimdavis]

So far, Roger, you are simply defending the actions of what I will call rogue mods.

I frankly don't believe that most of the black-shirt modding has been a from a consensus of the mods. I think that you, as the boss, are in a difficult position - you have to stand up for your mods, but you also have to bring about meaningful change. This requires tough decisions.

At the moment you are doing the first part - supporting your mods - but you are not saying anything about swift and meaningful change.

The members are only here because they enjoy this pub. If it stops being enjoyable they won't hang around long.

jim

[Roger]

Well then Jim, we are all rogue mods.

There are sometimes debate amongst the mods, that is true, but at the end of the day with a group of us, we will land on a balanced outcome that we all support. To act as individuals in our moderation with no oversight, or support, will result in as many differing standards of moderation or no moderation at all. That will not work.

The change is what this thread is about. We require specific changes to be proposed to the T&Cs. What changes are you proposing? Are you for instance in support of the T&Cs to allow the political, off topic, discussion on Safety topics?

[jimdavis]

Well then Jim, we are all rogue mods.

There are sometimes debate amongst the mods, that is true, but at the end of the day with a group of us, we will land on a balanced outcome that we all support. To act as individuals in our moderation with no oversight, or support, will result in as many differing standards of moderation or no moderation at all. That will not work.

The change is what this thread is about. We require specific changes to be proposed to the T&Cs. What changes are you proposing? Are you for instance in support of the T&Cs to allow the political, off topic, discussion on Safety topics?

Roger, I spend most of my time on Academy, and hope that my contributions have value as far as flight safety is concerned. If you are clamping down on the occasional joke and a bit of fun then so be it.

Your posts here indicate that the mods are not allowed to exercise a bit of discretion. I understand you must do this because how much is a "bit" of discretion?

You have now defended the way the mods are implementing the T&Cs and have told us there will be no change.

So Roger, it's your business to run the way you want. And I believe it is a business since it's crowded with ads. Perhaps that's a part of the problem - I don't remember this sort of fear amongst the members in the old days.

This thread seems to have caused the mods to close ranks rather than be open to solutions to what has become an extremely unpleasant mess.

You asked for our opinions and I have offered mine. There's nothing more I can do but watch the decay of a once happy pub.

jim

[HJK 414]

Hold it Jim,

Roger is in a difficult position as it is.
He can hardly state – we are open to a debate about T&C's and by the way – that is because the current group of Mods suck at their job......
That is not entirely fair – Roger feels they have been doing their tasks diligently according to the rules and regulations that were agreed upon in the T&C's, as a group. Fair enough - enough said - (water under the bridge)

I do not think this thread was created to reflect upon past moderation or individuals – but is an opening as to – how forward in a changed world – changed set of members and a ever changing attitude on social media.

My suggestion is :
Create a new forum : “Dinosaurs” for all I care
Same as Academy – but only accessible by invitation.
Minimum requirement – X amount of posts on General Forums / Academy.
5 or 6 Core members that decide membership / acceptance ?

Per example …...
Jim Davis (GA - Training)
ACE (Andrew) or Nugpot (Willem) or Mike Gough (Jets – Commercial ops)
Dave Mortimer (Volo) – or Oscar (OG) - (Gliding)
Chalkie Stobbart ( lone Wikipedia for aviation)
Add a Heli Pilot (Charles (Rotor Mad) / Wijnand (Whirly) or Perigrine ( highly skilled / knowledgeable ) or invite back Nick (Cage)
You need a group that has a broad background.

Let that core decide whether a member / (after being on Avcom for at least X amount of posts) has enough flying experience – insight – knowledge – and the right attitude to add value or insight into an “old style” flying club debate / pub.
(and do not make the mistake of counting hours ! - 1000 hours of circuit training does not teach anyone anything)

Moderate it by placing some old hands on the new colour Mod team (Paul S ? / Brand ? / Richard C ?)
Or choose a few of the current team that have insight into aviation and let it loose …..
it may surprise everyone that civil debate is possible between old friends …..

And lets get back to what it was – without throwing rocks at the current team.
In my view – it is quite possible to get back to the “Old Pub” - and those members would have no problem interacting on the open forums – but would probably appreciate “a place of their own”

As for the decay of a once very happy pub – I could not agree more
Where are many of the old hands …..

It is only a suggestion .......
But meant with the best interest of Avcom at heart ....

JK

[Mike Wissing]

Very similar to humour debate, the mods took a lashing for moderating an Academy post today (Trumps Bump). The thread had drifted into a political discussion of which country's president was better than the other. In my mind, this has got no value in an aviation safety discussion.

This is the post that started it:

At least he can count and did a wonderful job being President….unlike some South African Presidents…..

The topic was 16 posts long and 8 of them were moderated or deleted as they were a follow on to the above statement debating presidents, or attacking/supporting the mods for removing that type of content.

Those that got upset with this moderation, are you proposing that we should allow that level of political discussion in the Academy topics?

We agree that in some circumstances that politics may make an appearance in a topic, such as the SAA thread, and we will apply ourselves accordingly, but what we saw in the Trumps Bump thread had no place under our current guidelines.

Worthwhile also mentioning that had the posters started topics with the the same content discussed in the last two posts, in 123.45, they would have been left alone.

I sense an ego trip here…..I hope I’m way off base as I’ve never got that from you before!
Roger, you are incorrect about that being the post that started it. That post quoted was mine, (did I lie in my post?) - I was responding to a previous post attacking Trump, which you had not removed at the time of my posting……If you can’t get your facts straight, take a look at why you’re a moderator! Your mind/opinion, as stated, has no relevance in being a moderator. Just because you get all bunched up about something should not play into your decision making as you admitted above.
I’m seriously considering leaving AVCOM. I’m a nobody, but what I do know is this is becoming ridiculous and heavy handed moderating has made a lot of good, experienced people leave this site.

“Mods took a lashing”…..really! Somebody mods the posts, put your name to it, simple.
A silly question…..why didn’t you just move the entire post to 123.45 when you became displeased with the direction it was taking? There was no value in the entire thread as a learning tool.