Your Opinion: The T&Cs of AvCom

[Iceberg]

Good discussion - nice to see you back HJK414

Regarding jokes and banter on the Academy forum - this made me think of cultural norms in business. The British culture allows comedy and jokes in the business environment - maybe it is to lighten the discussions in tense environments.

The Germans on the other hand don't like idle chatter and jokes when discussing business or serious matters. It's a cultural/genetic thing I think - I tend to be like this, coming from German heritage.

So British people often see Germans as grumpy, difficult or devoid of humor, where this is not the case at all. The diversity of Avcom users leads to this type of clash in discussions - especially of serious matters like in the Academy. I would allow a bit of humor, bit won't mind if it is moderated when it gets a bit out of hand.

[Patrick AL]

--I think that the process should be a little more consultative than authoritative, and be seen/experienced so by the 'offender'
( unless a gross and obvious violation in post which requires immediate deletion due to defamatory/illegal content )

-possibly Mods could engage the alleged offender before summary amputation of their contributions? -this would allow respective understandings of posts to be clarified, and hopefully 'censorship' can be settled by agreement between poster and mods?

Thanks Patrick for a balanced post.

We did try the consultative route, and the issue is that it becomes quite an overhead. It is never a single interaction, on average it was around 4 PMs per moderation event. There are currently around 200 moderation events per month. That would be around 800 PMs that mods would have to process.

[Fransw]

Good discussion - nice to see you back HJK414

Regarding jokes and banter on the Academy forum - this made me think of cultural norms in business. The British culture allows comedy and jokes in the business environment - maybe it is to lighten the discussions in tense environments.

The Germans on the other hand don't like idle chatter and jokes when discussing business or serious matters. It's a cultural/genetic thing I think - I tend to be like this, coming from German heritage.

So British people often see Germans as grumpy, difficult or devoid of humor, where this is not the case at all. The diversity of Avcom users leads to this type of clash in discussions - especially of serious matters like in the Academy. I would allow a bit of humor, bit won't mind if it is moderated when it gets a bit out of hand.

True! And the Dutch think they know it all! The Afrikaner is mix between the Dutch, Brit and Viking...

Not sure which one is the worst!

[Old, Fat and Hairy]

--I think that the process should be a little more consultative than authoritative, and be seen/experienced so by the 'offender'
( unless a gross and obvious violation in post which requires immediate deletion due to defamatory/illegal content )

-possibly Mods could engage the alleged offender before summary amputation of their contributions? -this would allow respective understandings of posts to be clarified, and hopefully 'censorship' can be settled by agreement between poster and mods?

Thanks Patrick for a balanced post.

We did try the consultative route, and the issue is that it becomes quite an overhead. It is never a single interaction, on average it was around 4 PMs per moderation event. There are currently around 200 moderation events per month. That would be around 800 PMs that mods would have to process.

Pah!

Your tyranny is weak, Grasshopper. Your smiting of unbelievers is as the gentle zephyrs of spring caressing the hair on one's back...

[Richard Smit]

I think everything is just fine, the way it already is.

[JCA]

One area where I would request a review is that of 'Speculation' as to the cause of an incident or accident. So many times one observes a speculative subject being discussed which eventually leads to the acrimony that Avcom is known for. ie the Pissing Contest. Occasionally a speculator may hit the nail on the head being that the cause being discussed, is as obvious as the day is long. But you can only learn from proven facts.
Want to start a bun fight on Avcom? Challenge speculation and it being allowed. For me it wouldn't bother me if speculation was not allowed, in fact I would prefer that no discussion on the where's and why fore's took place, especially with fatal accidents. Leave it to the investigators and the immediate witnesses. If it then takes a few months for a report to appear, so be it. Performing on Avcom and slating the system ain't going to help.

[Whirly]

With the mix of personalities, age and different levels of experience, it's never going to be easy.

Nobody likes to be moderated or have a post removed, it feels personal. Unfortunately, sometimes it is as a mod might be biased towards a topic or a person. Keep it impartial and fair, and it should be fine.

Whirly.

[Airlou]

My Opinion:- I was once moderated by using the word "garbage" instead of maybe "not true"... at first i felt offended by the moderator but after thinking about it, I had a thought about how the poster on the other side must feel or experienced my remark, either way the other person was protected and I had to learn to be better...
Mods keep up the good work, I can not do it neither will I.
Really some posters here that got to be reprimanded
Appreciate

[Barros]

Frankly I think that some on this forum have there agendas curbed when moderated .
Also sais a lot about pilots and egos

[Burner]

Personally I find the annoying one liner attempts at humor incredibly annoying on the serious threads within the Academy. All they do is dilute the very good gen that is posted when discussing an accident or incident. It's a pity that there isn't an option to ''hide'' the banter, where the user can see that there was a largely irrelevant post made, and can decide themselves if they want to view said post. That why the poster wouldn't have as bruised an ego.

I do think that the mods largely do a very good job, and it's appreciated by me that they are slightly more strict in the academy. I've often gone back to view older accident threads, and can imagine that a 30 page thread would have been a 50 page thread had one liner irrelevant banter been allowed. I have zero issue with someone posting a few pertinent thoughts and ending the thoughts off with something light hearted. What annoys me is when someone who has zero to add to the thread, posts some silly attempt at humour without adding any sort of value to the discussion.

Jet Blast on PPrune is a bit like their version of 123.45. I'm attaching their RoE (rules of engagement), which I think are very good, and food for thought.

To keep JB open & to avoid moderator overload at the same time, here are some blindingly obvious points to keep in mind when posting.

1. The focus of this board is aviation. You're welcome to participate even if you don't aviate, but do not abuse the courtesy extended to you by the board's principal users. Aviation related subjects that don't fit the other forums are the aims here.

2. Remember all that stuff you agreed to when you signed up for PPRuNe? If in doubt, look it up. It still holds.

3. Zero tolerance on racism. Racist remarks will get an otherwise worthwhile post moderated or deleted. One man's joke is another man's racism; the decision rests with the moderators and the board's owners.

4. Personal attacks on others are not allowed. To be mortally insulting without getting personal is an art form. Acquire the skill. If you can not counter an argument without attacking the person, then do not post here. Play the ball, not the player!

5. If you are attacked by someone, use the 'report to moderator' function and the post will be looked at by the Mods. Do not revenge like with like.
Ignore trolls. If you feed the troll you are just as guilty.

6. Aviation is an international endeavour par excellence; bigotry has no place on this bulletin board. If venting intolerant gut feelings is your thing, go do it somewhere else.

7. Do not hijack other people's threads by endlessly introducing your private fetishes, hang-ups and pet-obsessions. Go see a shrink instead.

8. Do not post endless newspaper articles (copyright issues) or links to publications on the net without context or good reason and relevance to the post or thread. Moderators are obliged to read it all. Really Really Boring And Totally Pointless Snippets Of Information belong in this thread and nowhere else!

9. We'd prefer you not to discuss politics & religion. Two subjects that almost inevitably seem to lead to some people losing the plot completely and Mods having to work overtime. But since these subjects also lead to some of the most interesting threads, and life can't be all "Mornington Crescent", if you choose to participate in such a thread, show some restraint and a goodly dose of maturity.

10. Sex, better practised than talked about : Hotel Lobby Rules apply to discussing it here on JB.

11. Moderation is like abuse; best self inflicted. We much prefer that you moderate your own output but will not hesitate to moderate it for you if required.

12. Freedom carries with it a responsibility. Neglect the latter, forfeit the former.

Moderators are just ordinary people, with a busy life that extends well beyond the boundaries of this forum, who have volunteered (= been press ganged) into continuing to moderate one of the more difficult forums. It would be very easy to just pull the plug, but all have agreed that whilst we keep it under control it can continue.

[Patrick AL]

The following is aimed at providing some insight into Avcom moderation that might answer many questions & concerns that have been raised.....

The issue of moderation was addressed several years back where rules were put in place “specific to moderators” (There is actually a guide “Moderator’s code of conduct and guidelines”) – designed to remove unfair bias – like the moderator’s rule of “not moderating on a topic where that specific moderator has participated” as an example. Perhaps what many Avcomers are not aware of is that there is a moderators “Forum Section” on avcom where any significant moderation is mentioned & discussed amongst the moderators and where the guide “Moderator’s code of conduct and guidelines” is accessible. Moderators are under the scrutiny of their peers for any actions taken, etc… and are held to the moderation standards outlined. Strong actions like temporary or permanent banning’s are actually discussed and reviewed by the moderator’s group in coming to a collective decision before action is taken. This protocol & mechanism has been the protection and balance to ensure uniformity of the moderation standards where the T&C’s are applied evenly and fairly.

It was decided many years ago that moderators speak with one united voice and therefore the reason for moderation remaining anonymous in terms of the general avcom population - but be assured that the moderators group is well aware of moderation decisions and which moderator carried it out – so there is a level of checks and balances that has worked extremely well for many years. The other important factor is that the desire was to have “moderators” participate on avcom in topics as normal avcomers without there being a skewed bias with their identity being associated with moderation (This was one of the main reasons why it was changed) – Why therefore is it so important to have the identity of the moderator known ? Moderation is more of a group activity than many will realise... (The moderator’s group know who did the moderation and do peer review).

Any avcomer who is moderated can launch an appeal if they feel strongly grieved by it or if they feel that moderation was not in accordance with the T&C’s and as Roger has mentioned – simply PM any moderator and that sentiment is relayed to the moderator’s group and reviewed and addressed.

As an avcomer for many years and a moderator for the major part of that time, I can testify to the fact that there is significant harmony amongst the moderators, who are almost always in agreement with moderation that has taken place (in accordance with the T&C’s and the moderators’ guidelines) and in some circumstances when peer review has led to the outcome of a change in moderation outcome, there has been moderation group agreement on that action. (Most of these types of examples have related to POPI Act issue and litigation challenges). Any significant consideration has always been brought to the awareness of the moderator’s group, which has spotlighted the topic in question and the resulting moderation decision was a collective one, although usually executed by one of the moderators.

On the question of “why are some posts left unmoderated when they conflict with the T&C’s ?” – In reality, there are eight moderators (all with varying interest and experience in aviation, media, etc…) Realistically, not all posts are going to be seen or read by a moderator and in which case, other avcomers “Report this post” when something contravenes the T&C's and the report is then placed on the moderation queue and gets addressed.

Bottom line - If the avcomer sticks to the T&C’s they will not get moderated (and some sections have stricter or specific T&C’s relating to that section) – so it is encouraged that avcomers familiarize themselves with the T&C’s and section specific rules.

On the question of “Speculation” in the Acacdemy & Flight Safety section – the purpose for this section is to help educate pilots by shared academic knowledge, experienced aviators knowledge, shock awareness that these accidents are happening - the importance of any topic (accident related) is to convey the FACTS of the accident as best known (Keeping individuals names out of it until they are publicly released), but what IS encouraged is discussion based on speculation of what the cause(s) could have been. Avcom is not trying to come to the conclusion specific to the accident in question, but to cover and discuss the various possibilities, all of which are intended to be thought provoking to any pilot reading the discussion. There has been countless feedback from grateful individuals who have stated that some of the content shared has saved their lives because it has led to a change in their flight planning, or execution, or decision making, attitude towards aviation safery, etc….

We have (and had) the participation of many great and experienced aviators who have posted really good content that has been more impactful than perhaps they realise, and sadly some of them have left avcom in a huff because of comments made that they didn’t agree to or because they were moderated for T&C infringement and felt that because of their other significant contributions, they were moderation immune. If you want to give back to aviation, then the best thing you can do is share your knowledge & experience in this section - you have no idea how many lives it could save and how many pilots have benefitted from your input - surely that is worth a little of the "forum irritation" experienced.

Roger’s opening statement in this discussion was to solicit ideas and suggestions with regard to the T&C’s (The moderators only enforce them), so if some suggestions make good sense and will enhance the forum experience, they might be adopted.

[Ugly Duckling]

I turned in my Green Jacket on the 13th of May after being a Mod for 14 years as I needed a sabbatical, pun intended.
My views on the Chalkie incident is contrary to that of some of the Greens and clearly aligned with that of a number of members.

The month away has been good for my outlook on life.

A pub for pilots as Jan proposed has merit however the members need to be pilots present or past, active or inactive so that they have the foundation for constructive participation. If you want to walk the walk with the likes of Chalkie and Jim amongst the Jans, Wildcats, Nugpots, Swamp Donkey and others you had better know a bit more about engines and airframes, aerodynamics and the weather than what Mr Google or Mrs Wikipedia can deliver.

[Roger]

Here is my attempt to summarise where we are at:

This topic was spawned from discussions when the moderators applied the T&Cs of the Academy section. We agreed to open a specific topic to discuss these T&Cs and garner opinion on whether those or the global T&Cs should be reviewed/amended.

Summary of this discussion:

• There is no support for changing the T&Cs, whether the global ones or individual forum based ones.
• Some support for a 'closed/by invitation only' forum.

If this is the outcome, will in the next few days open a topic on the merits of the Closed forum idea and add a poll to assist us with gauging the sentiments of our community.

[jimdavis]

Here is my attempt to summarise where we are at:

This topic was spawned from discussions when the moderators applied the T&Cs of the Academy section. We agreed to open a specific topic to discuss these T&Cs and garner opinion on whether those or the global T&Cs should be reviewed/amended.

Summary of this discussion:

• There is no support for changing the T&Cs, whether the global ones or individual forum based ones.
• Some support for a 'closed/by invitation only' forum.

If this is the outcome, will in the next few days open a topic on the merits of the Closed forum idea and add a poll to assist us with gauging the sentiments of our community.

Roger, I have serious reservations about the proposed invitation-only closed-forum. It seems that the people most likely to be invited to join are the most active, and most controversial, members. These are the people the mods are treating as 'trouble makers'.

They are stay away because do not enjoy being pushed around by a bunch of over-zealous cops with no sense of humour.

I believe that self-regulating, no-cops bar stands a better chance of success. Those who stay away at the moment are not idiots - they are intelligent people who know when enough is enough. They are capable of having a quiet word in the ear of anyone who occasionally oversteps the mark.

And if the mods feel that something is really over-the-top, they can ask you, and you only, to tip-toe into the pub and gently quieten things down.

Quiet discretion - not rule-book throwing is needed.

jim

[Roger]

Thanks Jim.

Agree 100% on the closed forum, but more so from the perspective that when we began this AvCom project, it was for ALL aviation enthusiasts. Creating a closed group for whatever reason, feels like flying against that prime reasons in initiating this platform. We did however agree to consider all ideas put in front of us here.

As far as the no rule book and quiet discretion, that is the way we started out and it worked well for a long period. We didn't even have a moderators group for the first while. There was no need for it.

As time went members pushed the boundaries and guidelines had to be introduced and a number of willing individuals to assist in applying those guidelines.

Even at this point, discretion was still available to us. In time however, that came back to bite us. In exercising that discretion, we had mods being labelled as inconsistent in the application of the guidelines, and favouring certain individuals. Topics not too dissimilar to this one were raised, and pretty much we were required to firming up the guidelines and working on the consistent application thereof. Perhaps this is where it became 'rules' and no longer guidelines. It did however achieve our aim of being consistent. I am not sure if there is a road back to that area without the re-introduction of inconsistent application.

An interesting term you introduced and did get me thinking a bit was the identification of trouble makers.

There are times when there is an individual that pops up on the radar and certainly fit that bill, and yes we do keep a keen eye out on their activities and may even lead to longer discussions amongst the mods. Luckily, this does not happen often.

In the recent activities that spawned this topic, the moderation certainly did not fit the aforementioned profile by any means. There is a massive distinction between a trouble maker and that of a single, troublesome post, made by an individual.