extender wrote:

SQ22 wrote:

Feel free to start a dedicated thread about it, in the respective thread it was off topic, hence it has been deleted.

OK, so I follow your instructions, start a thread, and it vanishes. Tell me, what happened?

I was not the one doing the deletion, so I asked the moderator who deleted it to get back to you. Just to be To be clear I meant the Clintons involvement in Haiti in the past, not a possible involvement in the recent events, but please wait for the response.

extender wrote:

SQ22 wrote:

Feel free to start a dedicated thread about it, in the respective thread it was off topic, hence it has been deleted.

OK, so I follow your instructions, start a thread, and it vanishes. Tell me, what happened?

The thread in question was reported by another member as essentially flame bait. This was borne out by the fact that the majority of the responses weren’t even about the topic of the thread.

Also, the opening post had a couple of links just labeled “Link” with no explanation about what each of the links was about.

hOMSaR wrote:

extender wrote:

SQ22 wrote:

Feel free to start a dedicated thread about it, in the respective thread it was off topic, hence it has been deleted.

OK, so I follow your instructions, start a thread, and it vanishes. Tell me, what happened?

The thread in question was reported by another member as essentially flame bait. This was borne out by the fact that the majority of the responses weren’t even about the topic of the thread.

Also, the opening post had a couple of links just labeled “Link” with no explanation about what each of the links was about.

You're making my point. Tell me, how many people explain what their link is as you allude to above? "Essentially flame bait?" How many other threads meet that description? I see many of them and choose not to view/read them. Yet someone jumps on and reports it, and a moderator bans it? Herein lies the problem with non-aviation; some threads are allowed to continue for a long time, and others get whacked immediately when a select core user reports it. How many anti GoP/Republican/Trump threads are up at any given point? How many criticizing the left? You may not care what the forums' reputation is, but right now it is in a downward spiral, and experiencing what has been mentioned, it is obvious as to why.

extender wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

extender wrote:

OK, so I follow your instructions, start a thread, and it vanishes. Tell me, what happened?

The thread in question was reported by another member as essentially flame bait. This was borne out by the fact that the majority of the responses weren’t even about the topic of the thread.

Also, the opening post had a couple of links just labeled “Link” with no explanation about what each of the links was about.

You're making my point. Tell me, how many people explain what their link is as you allude to above? "Essentially flame bait?" How many other threads meet that description? I see many of them and choose not to view/read them. Yet someone jumps on and reports it, and a moderator bans it? Herein lies the problem with non-aviation; some threads are allowed to continue for a long time, and others get whacked immediately when a select core user reports it. How many anti GoP/Republican/Trump threads are up at any given point? How many criticizing the left? You may not care what the forums' reputation is, but right now it is in a downward spiral, and experiencing what has been mentioned, it is obvious as to why.

I'll reiterate it again, if you see a thread that you think violates the rules, report it. There are mods who don't venture into non aviation unless it is to clean up reports. Also, we have mods of all political stripes, Democrat, Republican, libertarian to name 3. Along with international mods with no horse in the US political race. The idea that there is bias is categorically false.

Frankly, I would have deleted the thread as well, the way that you started it and the content of your initial post did nothing to promote a health dialog, and therin lies the problem with most flamebait posts. They do nothing to help promote healthy dialog. If you had, the post would still be there.

tys777 wrote:

The idea that there is bias is categorically false.

We will have to disagree. I have taken screenshots of my posts, and they are not quoting anyone in several instances. and one in which I did quote a moderator, whose post was removed. Neither broke any of the rules, yet a counterpoint, or "healthy dialogue" as you put it wasn't promoted, it was destroyed.

tys777 wrote:

Frankly, I would have deleted the thread as well, the way that you started it and the content of your initial post did nothing to promote a health dialog, and therin lies the problem with most flamebait posts. They do nothing to help promote healthy dialog. If you had, the post would still be there.

I never got to discuss the matter, as the next morning it was gone.

Your discourse in this thread is most appreciated.

I’m going to go to bat for the moderators again re: political posting.

Honestly, at the end of the day, Anet is an aviation site. If your sole purpose here is to discuss politics in NonAv, your interests are most likely better served by political-centric websites where it’s a free for all and people argue endlessly, unproductively, about political nonsense, day in and day out. That was never what anet was about, it’s all about airplanes.

It comes as no surprise to me that the moderators have the most trouble with the NonAv forum.

The moderators on this site are far left of center. It's one thing to delete off topic/attacking posts, it's another to delete replies with disagreements.

Case in point, when all is said and done the "Non Aviation" section of this site is an echo chamber.

FlyEndeavorAir wrote:

The moderators on this site are far left of center. It's one thing to delete off topic/attacking posts, it's another to delete replies with disagreements.

Case in point, when all is said and done the "Non Aviation" section of this site is an echo chamber.

Deleting replies with the initiating post has been standard around here for a long time. The mods were quite clear in this very thread that they come from all manner of backgrounds, so there's that too.

Aaron747 wrote:

FlyEndeavorAir wrote:

The moderators on this site are far left of center. It's one thing to delete off topic/attacking posts, it's another to delete replies with disagreements.

Case in point, when all is said and done the "Non Aviation" section of this site is an echo chamber.

Deleting replies with the initiating post has been standard around here for a long time. The mods were quite clear in this very thread that they come from all manner of backgrounds, so there's that too.

We've been accused of being too left, too right, too U.S. centric, too International. We have heard it all. The fact is that we come from all political strips, multiple continents, and all kinds of personal/professional backgrounds.

Like you said, it is standard procedure to delete a post that violates guidelines and then all posts that were in response. It's part of why we tell people to not reply to a post that they think violates guidelines, just report it and move on. Which gets me to something else. Report a post that you think I against the guidelines. We especially rely on user reports in Non-aviation to draw our attention to possibly offending threads. At the same time, justify in your report why you think it violates guidelines.

FlyEndeavorAir wrote:

The moderators on this site are far left of center. It's one thing to delete off topic/attacking posts, it's another to delete replies with disagreements.

Case in point, when all is said and done the "Non Aviation" section of this site is an echo chamber.

I'll have to agree on this one. Look in Non-Av. there isn't one thread that puts the left in poor light. Any threads started, disappear. And since there is no transparency, posts by moderators here a simple feel-good measures. If a mod posts in support of any particular POV, either left or right, that moderator should not be able to delete any posts, if post in the forum at all.

extender wrote:

FlyEndeavorAir wrote:

The moderators on this site are far left of center. It's one thing to delete off topic/attacking posts, it's another to delete replies with disagreements.

Case in point, when all is said and done the "Non Aviation" section of this site is an echo chamber.

I'll have to agree on this one. Look in Non-Av. there isn't one thread that puts the left in poor light. Any threads started, disappear. And since there is no transparency, posts by moderators here a simple feel-good measures. If a mod posts in support of any particular POV, either left or right, that moderator should not be able to delete any posts, if post in the forum at all.

It's interesting that you accuse bias, because when I look at the first page from a moderator view (we still see deleted topics), I see more threads critical of the U.S. Gop that have been deleted than any others. Of course, users aren't going to see that we are deleting things on both sides. Also, being critical of a political view doesn't equal deletion, it all hinges on if it violates the guidelines or not. Again, we have a global moderating team with views all across the U.S. and global political spectrum. That includes conservatives, libertarians, and democrats. If you feel something is violating the rules, report it and explain why.

In that case, you have the upper hand, because I cannot see what you do.

But I do see these Anti GoP/Republican/Conservative:

Rep. Greene Says She Would Kick Chinese Out Of US

TX Senate Bill Drops Teaching Requirement That KKK Is ‘Morally Wrong’

Caitlyn Jenner stalked and harassed at CPAC

Gallup Poll Results: Republicans' Confidence In Science Down 27 Points Since 1975

YouGov Poll Finds 66% Of Southern Republicans In Favor Of Seceding From USA

Texas House Republicans vote to track down absent Democrats and arrest them if necessary

GOP advances bill to limit teaching of slavery and racism in classrooms

DeSantis’ anti-riot law didn’t apply as Cuba protesters shut down a Miami-Dade road.

GOP Personalities Don't Know What Marxism And Socialism Are

Tucker calls General "pig, stupid"; Ingraham calls for defunding the military

And some undoubtedly are low-quality, but they are there.

And now for the Anti-Left/Democrat/Liberal threads:

Zero.

I can look up in my Mod Panel and see exactly who cans what. For what goes on here, I can screenshot posts, because I know they will disappear, but what good will that do? Nothing.
When people do discuss this board, it isn't all rosy. And that is a shame, because there some good people out there that can contribute a lot to these discussions.

At the end of the day, this is an aviation website. If your big concern is that there is a left or right bias in the non aviation section, you should maybe reconsider your participation here and find a site dedicated to politics.

It absolutely is an Aviation website, and I post in Tech Ops. As to discussing politics, that is what is allowable in Non-Av. Make politics off limits, and non-av would lose a bit of traffic. The big concern is the bias and lack of transparency. Moderators are supposed to be upstanding and not petty, and it is frustrating when a person has valid points to discuss, and isn't allowed to.

extender wrote:

It absolutely is an Aviation website, and I post in Tech Ops. As to discussing politics, that is what is allowable in Non-Av. Make politics off limits, and non-av would lose a bit of traffic. The big concern is the bias and lack of transparency. Moderators are supposed to be upstanding and not petty, and it is frustrating when a person has valid points to discuss, and isn't allowed to.

Almost anyone here has had threads closed or deleted one time or another. It’s not that anything ‘isn’t allowed’ - it’s simply a matter of wording things correctly and properly sourcing as the rules require. When they aren’t the thread will be gone. I don’t see anything unreasonable in those expectations.

extender wrote:

It absolutely is an Aviation website, and I post in Tech Ops. As to discussing politics, that is what is allowable in Non-Av. Make politics off limits, and non-av would lose a bit of traffic. The big concern is the bias and lack of transparency. Moderators are supposed to be upstanding and not petty, and it is frustrating when a person has valid points to discuss, and isn't allowed to.

Honestly, even if we were able meet a threshold considered transparent by your standards, we would likely still be accused of being biased — if not by you, then someone else. People see the truth they want to see whether or not it is consistent with the reality of the situation. You see threads or posts in support of your viewpoint being removed, therefore, we are biased against your point of view. People tend to pay less attention to posts or threads running contrary to their opinions, so you're less likely to notice when they go missing. Regardless, it's not possible for you to keep score unless you have the ability to see what's been removed, so frankly an accusation of bias rings hollow when it's based on anecdotal evidence.

Just so I'm clear, I'm not intending to pick on you or anyone in particular, I'm simply expressing an observation of the people who levy accusations of bias against us. We've been accused of everything you can possibly think of, so I've generally stopped keeping track at this point.

In my real life, I am an apolitical civil servant. I have always brought that same approach here. I have never once expressed a political opinion here (nor will I), and I moderate based on merit and within the spirit of the rules. Most of my moderating colleagues similarly do not express their political beliefs, and I have no doubt in their ability to act objectively. I have volunteered with many of them for years here; I know how they work, they know how I work, and we have confidence in each other to work effectively and appropriately. I recognize that my saying this is unlikely to change any minds, but hopefully you can understand that it gets exhausting being regularly accused of things you know to be inaccurate.

atcsundevil wrote:

You see threads or posts in support of your viewpoint being removed, therefore, we are biased against your point of view. People tend to pay less attention to posts or threads running contrary to their opinions, so you're less likely to notice when they go missing.

I get your point. But why things don't add up, you try to figure out why.

atcsundevil wrote:

Regardless, it's not possible for you to keep score unless you have the ability to see what's been removed, so frankly an accusation of bias rings hollow when it's based on anecdotal evidence.

I wasn't kidding when I referred to screenshots. I have them.

atcsundevil wrote:

Just so I'm clear, I'm not intending to pick on you or anyone in particular, I'm simply expressing an observation of the people who levy accusations of bias against us. We've been accused of everything you can possibly think of, so I've generally stopped keeping track at this point.

One of those moments where you understand that there are bad apples everywhere. You just roll with it.

atcsundevil wrote:

Most of my moderating colleagues similarly do not express their political beliefs, and I have no doubt in their ability to act objectively.

Some do. And at that point, they should have the integrity to behave as a member, and not a moderator. And that is the crux of my point. I've been here long enough to see what the deal is.

atcsundevil wrote:

I have volunteered with many of them for years here; I know how they work, they know how I work, and we have confidence in each other to work effectively and appropriately. I recognize that my saying this is unlikely to change any minds, but hopefully you can understand that it gets exhausting being regularly accused of things you know to be inaccurate.

I get it, and apologies for the tedium.

So I decided to open a thread on this: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... orks-cuomo

only to be removed without explanation. The same happened to the Hunter Biden thread I opened last year, which according to the moderator it was removed because it wasn't new. Only to be confirmed months later that it was new.

This forum has become so biased and tilted to liberal and leftists themes, that a thread on a subject that just came out and deals with someone from the political side that is good in this forum, gets removed.

So what's the actual purpose of doing a discussion forum where only 90% of themes are against people who think or support other side of political spectrum?

I have decided to cut back on posting here because most of my replies are deleted, or given a warning, I have been banned multiple times just because I 'went off topic', however the others who post on subjects that lean to the left they are OK, even when they go off topic.

This last thread being removed is the last straw. I am out, you wish to keep this the way it goes. Good for all of you. Thanks for the times to all!

Your thread was removed because it was flamebait. You were clearly trying to provoke other users with your commentary. Most of us mods are tired of cleaning up non aviation threads and we've lost patience with the flamebait. I've said this before in this thread. This is an aviation website. We offer non aviation as a courtesy to our members. If your big concern is liberal bias on this site, then you should find a political site to post on.

OA412 wrote:

Your thread was removed because it was flamebait. You were clearly trying to provoke other users with your commentary. Most of us mods are tired of cleaning up non aviation threads and we've lost patience with the flamebait. I've said this before in this thread. This is an aviation website. We offer non aviation as a courtesy to our members. If your big concern is liberal bias on this site, then you should find a political site to post on.

This is the problem. I have seen your post, sometimes attacking other posters opinion because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. You who by all accounts admit are a liberal, you just remove threads because they are 'flamebait'. Yet I can post links to the many threads that are flaimbait on the first page of the non aviation forum. All of which have to do with Trump supporters or Trump or conservatives or Republicans. They are there but because you are OK with them they are still there.

However, I post a thread linking to a new york times link, not a right wing, and its a problem. Its flaimebait.

If you are really a moderator, then I would have thought you would abstain from commenting against others political views, and at the same time run the show of moderating content on the forum. You are an activist moderator, and always have been.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

OA412 wrote:

Your thread was removed because it was flamebait. You were clearly trying to provoke other users with your commentary. Most of us mods are tired of cleaning up non aviation threads and we've lost patience with the flamebait. I've said this before in this thread. This is an aviation website. We offer non aviation as a courtesy to our members. If your big concern is liberal bias on this site, then you should find a political site to post on.

This is the problem. I have seen your post, sometimes attacking other posters opinion because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. You who by all accounts admit are a liberal, you just remove threads because they are 'flamebait'. Yet I can post links to the many threads that are flaimbait on the first page of the non aviation forum. All of which have to do with Trump supporters or Trump or conservatives or Republicans. They are there but because you are OK with them they are still there.

However, I post a thread linking to a new york times link, not a right wing, and its a problem. Its flaimebait.

If you are really a moderator, then I would have thought you would abstain from commenting against others political views, and at the same time run the show of moderating content on the forum. You are an activist moderator, and always have been.

I think you know what part of your post was flamebait, and it wasn't the link you posted. As to other flamebait, if it bothers you report it. We don't read all threads and we don't see all posts. People constantly complain about posts that violate the rules, but they never actually report them, we don't see them, and they remain in place.

OA412 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

OA412 wrote:

Your thread was removed because it was flamebait. You were clearly trying to provoke other users with your commentary. Most of us mods are tired of cleaning up non aviation threads and we've lost patience with the flamebait. I've said this before in this thread. This is an aviation website. We offer non aviation as a courtesy to our members. If your big concern is liberal bias on this site, then you should find a political site to post on.

This is the problem. I have seen your post, sometimes attacking other posters opinion because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. You who by all accounts admit are a liberal, you just remove threads because they are 'flamebait'. Yet I can post links to the many threads that are flaimbait on the first page of the non aviation forum. All of which have to do with Trump supporters or Trump or conservatives or Republicans. They are there but because you are OK with them they are still there.

However, I post a thread linking to a new york times link, not a right wing, and its a problem. Its flaimebait.

If you are really a moderator, then I would have thought you would abstain from commenting against others political views, and at the same time run the show of moderating content on the forum. You are an activist moderator, and always have been.

I think you know what part of your post was flamebait, and it wasn't the link you posted. As to other flamebait, if it bothers you report it. We don't read all threads and we don't see all posts. People constantly complain about posts that violate the rules, but they never actually report them, we don't see them, and they remain in place.

Was it this:

"Cuomo was considered a the 'hero' governor by the media and Democrats". Is that flamebait? That's a FACT. And it wasn't addressed specifically to no one in the forum.

Again, if you will do the job of cleaning up threads in the non av, first thing I would suggest is refrain from participating on the political debate showing your colors. You are taking down threads that might go against your political views or people. Let others who are not biased decide.

If that sentence I wrote was flame bait, then all threads in the forum would have to be taken down. I know you said this is not a political site. True, but if you allow political commentary, you then just have to make clear that the only political commentary allowed is for those favorable to liberal or leftists tendencies.

BTW, many times I have reported threads, for example, when there is a mass shooting, I report when posters start talking bad about the US and how the gun laws cause shootings. That's completely off topic, but they are allowed. But according to your leftist criteria that's not off topic.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

OA412 wrote:

Your thread was removed because it was flamebait. You were clearly trying to provoke other users with your commentary. Most of us mods are tired of cleaning up non aviation threads and we've lost patience with the flamebait. I've said this before in this thread. This is an aviation website. We offer non aviation as a courtesy to our members. If your big concern is liberal bias on this site, then you should find a political site to post on.

This is the problem. I have seen your post, sometimes attacking other posters opinion because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. You who by all accounts admit are a liberal, you just remove threads because they are 'flamebait'. Yet I can post links to the many threads that are flaimbait on the first page of the non aviation forum. All of which have to do with Trump supporters or Trump or conservatives or Republicans. They are there but because you are OK with them they are still there.

However, I post a thread linking to a new york times link, not a right wing, and its a problem. Its flaimebait.

If you are really a moderator, then I would have thought you would abstain from commenting against others political views, and at the same time run the show of moderating content on the forum. You are an activist moderator, and always have been.

I would have removed the thread as well, and I'm not "liberal". For what it is worth, we set aside our biases when we moderate contrary to popular belief, be that favorite airline, airport, manufacturers etc...

Again, everyone gets held up on what we moderate in non aviation. Like has been said, we are not a political forum, we are an aviation forum. Also, report what you think violates guidelines as we need help bringing things to our attention as we can not read every post.

OA412 wrote:

This is an aviation website. We offer non aviation as a courtesy to our members. If your big concern is liberal bias on this site, then you should find a political site to post on.

It doesn't stop you from posting in the Non-Av though. I prefer Tech/Ops myself, and I do post in there. I have expressed the thought that as a moderator, you shouldn't be posting in threads. You are either are a member like the rest of us, or a a moderator. You can't do both and be impartial. A few places have rules concerning moderator conduct; and that is one of them. I posted examples further up on this thread just to illustrate what AirWorthy99 has alluded to.

tys777 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

OA412 wrote:

Your thread was removed because it was flamebait. You were clearly trying to provoke other users with your commentary. Most of us mods are tired of cleaning up non aviation threads and we've lost patience with the flamebait. I've said this before in this thread. This is an aviation website. We offer non aviation as a courtesy to our members. If your big concern is liberal bias on this site, then you should find a political site to post on.

This is the problem. I have seen your post, sometimes attacking other posters opinion because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. You who by all accounts admit are a liberal, you just remove threads because they are 'flamebait'. Yet I can post links to the many threads that are flaimbait on the first page of the non aviation forum. All of which have to do with Trump supporters or Trump or conservatives or Republicans. They are there but because you are OK with them they are still there.

However, I post a thread linking to a new york times link, not a right wing, and its a problem. Its flaimebait.

If you are really a moderator, then I would have thought you would abstain from commenting against others political views, and at the same time run the show of moderating content on the forum. You are an activist moderator, and always have been.

I would have removed the thread as well, and I'm not "liberal". For what it is worth, we set aside our biases when we moderate contrary to popular belief, be that favorite airline, airport, manufacturers etc...

Again, everyone gets held up on what we moderate in non aviation. Like has been said, we are not a political forum, we are an aviation forum. Also, report what you think violates guidelines as we need help bringing things to our attention as we can not read every post.

Very well, then, tell me what exactly of this sentence is flame bait: "Cuomo was considered a the 'hero' governor by the media and Democrats"

Would this be flamebait: "Trump was considered a great president by FOX news people and Republicans".

I am open to listen why my affirmation which is true and accurate is 'flamebait'. I say this without the intention of argument.

OK so spending 5 minutes on the forum, quickly saw how 4 threads had, according to the 'flame bait' standards, flame bait. The moderator who took down my thread, put it back up locked, but it seems this moderator did not receive a report of flamebait because two posters on the forum never complained about the alleged 'flame bait' used by me:

here are a few samples:

Republican contempt for democracy and the Constitution continues...

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1458665

Republicans out here trying to cancel history:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1461113

It's safe to say none of the current crop of conservative personalities were awake in history class when units on communism and socialism were taught.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1462571

Republicans clearly refuse to stand up for democracy and patriotism.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1461289

Why couldn't the moderator who seems to have moderated my thread without anyone reporting, had removed these 4 threads. All sentences are in the OP

AirWorthy99 wrote:

OK so spending 5 minutes on the forum, quickly saw how 4 threads had, according to the 'flame bait' standards, flame bait. The moderator who took down my thread, put it back up locked, but it seems this moderator did not receive a report of flamebait because two posters on the forum never complained about the alleged 'flame bait' used by me:

here are a few samples:

Republican contempt for democracy and the Constitution continues...

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1458665

Republicans out here trying to cancel history:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1461113

It's safe to say none of the current crop of conservative personalities were awake in history class when units on communism and socialism were taught.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1462571

Republicans clearly refuse to stand up for democracy and patriotism.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1461289

Why couldn't the moderator who seems to have moderated my thread without anyone reporting, had removed these 4 threads. All sentences are in the OP

You have no way of knowing whether a thread was reported or not.

This isn't a place to air posts that you think violate guidelines, there is a report function for that.

extender wrote:

OA412 wrote:

This is an aviation website. We offer non aviation as a courtesy to our members. If your big concern is liberal bias on this site, then you should find a political site to post on.

It doesn't stop you from posting in the Non-Av though. I prefer Tech/Ops myself, and I do post in there. I have expressed the thought that as a moderator, you shouldn't be posting in threads. You are either are a member like the rest of us, or a a moderator. You can't do both and be impartial. A few places have rules concerning moderator conduct; and that is one of them. I posted examples further up on this thread just to illustrate what AirWorthy99 has alluded to.

I do, as do other moderators, but Non Av was not, and is not, the sole or primary reason I'm on here. We are not prohibited from posting on the forum. As has already been mentioned, we delete posts that break the rules. One week we're accused of being a "safe space" for liberals, another week for being a "safe space" for conservatives. Just because you're keeping screenshots, it really doesn't prove anything. Further, unless it's something egregious, I almost never moderate threads in which I actively participate. I allow other moderators to handle those reports. On many occassions, I've been accused of targeting a posted when, in fact, their post was deleted by another moderator. Deletion notifications would cut down on the angst, but the site owners have no interest in reimplementing them, so here we are.

tys777 wrote:

Again, everyone gets held up on what we moderate in non aviation.

This bears repeating. In the years I've been on a moderator on this site, I can count on one hand the number of people who have complained about my biased moderation outside Non Av. Users are most hung up on the one forum that's not aviation related.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Very well, then, tell me what exactly of this sentence is flame bait: "Cuomo was considered a the 'hero' governor by the media and Democrats"

Would this be flamebait: "Trump was considered a great president by FOX news people and Republicans".

I am open to listen why my affirmation which is true and accurate is 'flamebait'. I say this without the intention of argument.

You are clearly trying to provoke other users with that title. I fully agree that it was flamebait, and it's clear to me that your intent is to start an argument. I don't post in Non Av, nor have I ever expressed a political opinion on this forum — I would have absolutely changed that title and/or deleted it, and you can't accuse me of bias when I have never expressed an opinion one way or another. I'll repeat what my colleagues have said repeatedly: This is an aviation website. We ran out of patience for people posting flamebait and picking political fights years ago. This isn't why we're here, this isn't why we volunteer our time, and this isn't how we want to expend our effort. If you are incapable of discerning obvious political flamebait due to your own personal bias, then I highly suggest you find another discussion forum for that.

extender wrote:

I have expressed the thought that as a moderator, you shouldn't be posting in threads. You are either are a member like the rest of us, or a a moderator.

This forum has been around for more than two decades, and that's not how we work. Many of us work or have worked in aviation, and thus we have insight to share. It's clear when we're participating as users and when we're acting within our scope as moderators. You may feel differently, but we have no plans to change.

extender wrote:

You can't do both and be impartial.

I can, and do. I have never once expressed a political opinion in my nearly dozen years on this forum. I have both praised and trashed most manufacturers and airlines. I am fully capable of expressing an opinion without compromising my impartiality, and I challenge you to find a post of mine that does. Other moderators are within their right to express a wider range of opinions. They are fully capable of acting impartially when required. We hold each other accountable far more than users do, which is why we are careful to act impartially. You can choose to believe me or not, but it doesn't alter the fact either way.

extender wrote:

A few places have rules concerning moderator conduct

As do we. We have a lengthy standards of conduct, and it's something we take seriously. Moderators are removed when abuses occur, and in some cases we've gone so far as to remove them from the site entirely. We hold each other accountable, and we have little tolerance for improper behavior. The last moderator removed for such abuses was short-lived in their role, received no warning prior to dismissal, and was permanently banned from the site. Improper behavior affects all of our reputations, and it's not something the rest of us are willing to compromise.

atcsundevil wrote:

You are clearly trying to provoke other users with that title. I fully agree that it was flamebait, and it's clear to me that your intent is to start an argument. I don't post in Non Av, nor have I ever expressed a political opinion on this forum — I would have absolutely changed that title and/or deleted it, and you can't accuse me of bias when I have never expressed an opinion one way or another. I'll repeat what my colleagues have said repeatedly: This is an aviation website. We ran out of patience for people posting flamebait and picking political fights years ago. This isn't why we're here, this isn't why we volunteer our time, and this isn't how we want to expend our effort. If you are incapable of discerning obvious political flamebait due to your own personal bias, then I highly suggest you find another discussion forum for that.

I understand fully the nature of your frustrations and have definitely seen my share of removable posts in Non-Av. I agree fully that everything you say is true. But...


This is a serious question. Why moderate that at all? At another site I frequent, there is a forum separate from the rest that is deliberately not moderated. They go so far as to refer to it as 'The BBQ Pit.' Granted, that is a site frequented by the sort who have serious and and detailed science and social related things to post about, and I suspect that the overwhelming majority of its subscribers are at least College educated. But what you see in that last forum can get more intense than anything we are likely to find here. And yet, those same users tend to go along just fine in all of its other forums. Off the top, I can think of only two occasions in the last 25 years where someone was actually banned.

I know you do not make policy here, but if moderating Non-Av is such a goat rope —and I have no doubt it is— and if people feel it is over policed anyway, would it not just be better to back off entirely and let the cry babies show themselves the door?

atcsundevil wrote:

As do we. We have a lengthy standards of conduct, and it's something we take seriously. Moderators are removed when abuses occur, and in some cases we've gone so far as to remove them from the site entirely. We hold each other accountable, and we have little tolerance for improper behavior. The last moderator removed for such abuses was short-lived in their role, received no warning prior to dismissal, and was permanently banned from the site. Improper behavior affects all of our reputations, and it's not something the rest of us are willing to compromise.

So how does one go about making that happen? I actually do have concerns about a particular moderator currently working here. While I do not feel singled out or slighted for ideological or personal reasons, I do believe there are some strong competency issues at play. I have received a few messages that are downright non-sensical. I do not have a personal issue there, but it is the feeling one might have after being followed around by an angry vagrant for a minute or two in a car park. . .

It is not a huge issue to me, but I do think this one has passed their expiry date and would be better off not moderating.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Why moderate that at all?

There may be some users who would agree with that assessment, but it seems like the majority of people expect us to actively moderate the forum. I have tried on a number of occasions to simply ban political discussion, but I have been unsuccessful. My reasoning behind that is that we have a number of users who only participate here to engage in political arguments, and that's ostensibly not the purpose of this site. In any case, we're expected to moderate, and it's open to any topic. I don't see either of those expectations changing regardless of my opinions on the subject.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

So how does one go about making that happen? I actually do have concerns about a particular moderator currently working here. While I do not feel singled out or slighted for ideological or personal reasons, I do believe there are some strong competency issues at play. I have received a few messages that are downright non-sensical. I do not have a personal issue there, but it is the feeling one might have after being followed around by an angry vagrant for a minute or two in a car park. . .

It is not a huge issue to me, but I do think this one has passed their expiry date and would be better off not moderating.

Users who have specific issues with moderators can either contact us directly at moderators@airliners.net, or take their complaint specifically to the head moderators by emailing headmoderators@airliners.net. This would avoid engaging with a moderator directly, as we aren't privy to those emails. If your issue is with a head moderator, your next course would be to contact the community manager.

atcsundevil wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Very well, then, tell me what exactly of this sentence is flame bait: "Cuomo was considered a the 'hero' governor by the media and Democrats"

Would this be flamebait: "Trump was considered a great president by FOX news people and Republicans".

I am open to listen why my affirmation which is true and accurate is 'flamebait'. I say this without the intention of argument.

You are clearly trying to provoke other users with that title. I fully agree that it was flamebait, and it's clear to me that your intent is to start an argument. I don't post in Non Av, nor have I ever expressed a political opinion on this forum — I would have absolutely changed that title and/or deleted it, and you can't accuse me of bias when I have never expressed an opinion one way or another. I'll repeat what my colleagues have said repeatedly: This is an aviation website. We ran out of patience for people posting flamebait and picking political fights years ago. This isn't why we're here, this isn't why we volunteer our time, and this isn't how we want to expend our effort. If you are incapable of discerning obvious political flamebait due to your own personal bias, then I highly suggest you find another discussion forum for that.
.

You have completely disqualified your assessment of my statement when you already stated later on this thread that you are completely opposed to political commentary on this site and on that forum. So basically you are already prejudiced against any sort of political commentary. Clearly you will have problems with absolutely any political commentary. Now that you have disclosed that your wish is to completely ban political opinion on this site.

I got no problem in not ever coming back to a very moderated and strict site. I respect that. Its a private enterprise. What I would like is for you folks to stop pretending that political commentary from the right or conservatives is tolerated because its not. If you may have noticed not much conservatives participate on the forums, its OK is less work for you guys, and less problems. So the ideal thing is to just let everyone now that this nonav forum political commentary from the right will be severely moderated, wheras from the left it won't.

I very rarely open threads, yet for some reason the same moderator who removed a thread last year because according to this moderator what I posted was not new (Hunter Biden allegations) only for months later the FBI to confirm the allegations and investigation, removed another thread dealing with another leftist figure on a subject that places this person on bad light.

My concern is that moderators who have a political axe to grind, or are annoyed by certain posters who don't think like them, they are more prone to actually moderate these people.

Its your forum, your prerogative.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

You have completely disqualified your assessment of my statement when you already stated later on this thread that you are completely opposed to political commentary on this site and on that forum.

That's asinine, and you're deflecting. Just because I don't express political opinions and I'm against political discussion on this forum doesn't negate my ability to moderate on an impartial basis. By that assessment, it implies there's nothing you do in your life that you disagree with, but still do anyway. We both know that's not true. I don't like to follow speed limits, but I do because I have to.

You're choosing to engage in flamebait, and you're choosing to blame us for not allowing it. You're opting to not follow the rules, and instead of accepting responsibility, you're blaming us and others based on conjecture. It won't get you anywhere.

I believe this discussion has run its course. You've expressed your opinion, and we've told you why it's wrong. You can continue to disagree, but it won't alter the fact. It's time to move on.

AirWorthy99,

I have a question, have you ever been a member here under a different screen name? Just curious, i'm sure everyone has their own reasons, but why would you join a website devoted to aviation yet post what appears to be 100% in the non-aviation section and almost every post is political in nature? You even said, I believe it was last year, that you had to take a break from this website as it was affecting you psychologically. If a website was bothering me that much it would be the last place i'd want to visit.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

You have completely disqualified your assessment of my statement when you already stated later on this thread that you are completely opposed to political commentary on this site and on that forum. So basically you are already prejudiced against any sort of political commentary. Clearly you will have problems with absolutely any political commentary. Now that you have disclosed that your wish is to completely ban political opinion on this site.

.

I could never make it as a mod. This is flame bait and being argumentative to me.

Any moderator care to volunteer who is doing clean up in the Cuomo thread? Two posts have disappeared. Or is this enforcement of STRICTLY maintaining the standard that EVERY Statement is On-Topic

Stevie Wonder can see it.

CaptHadley wrote:

I have a question, have you ever been a member here under a different screen name?

This was a problem even when the site was paid membership only, but compounded by the fact that now membership is available to anyone, people just get banned and make another throwaway account under a new name. I imagine this must be particularly frustrating for the moderation team, and why I don’t respond to anyone without at least 1,000 posts.

lpdal wrote:

I imagine this must be particularly frustrating for the moderation team

Words cannot describe.

atcsundevil wrote:

lpdal wrote:

I imagine this must be particularly frustrating for the moderation team

Words cannot describe.

Ding, ding, ding! We do the best we can with what we have. We'd love to see paid membership come back, but it's not a priority for site owners.

My only Request is
DONT BLOCK the entire thread if a troublemaker deliberity posts out of context post in a well debated thread.
Ideally only remove the faulty post and let the debate continue.

HAWK21M wrote:

My only Request is
DONT BLOCK the entire thread if a troublemaker deliberity posts out of context post in a well debated thread.
Ideally only remove the faulty post and let the debate continue.

That's typically what we do... If there's a post that needs to be removed, we delete it. Deleting the thread or locking the thread is never our first course of action, it's the last resort. We only delete or lock when the thread is out of hand or if the thread starting post violates the rules.

atcsundevil wrote:

HAWK21M wrote:

My only Request is
DONT BLOCK the entire thread if a troublemaker deliberity posts out of context post in a well debated thread.
Ideally only remove the faulty post and let the debate continue.

That's typically what we do... If there's a post that needs to be removed, we delete it. Deleting the thread or locking the thread is never our first course of action, it's the last resort. We only delete or lock when the thread is out of hand or if the thread starting post violates the rules.

If this is done nowadays then its a welcome change.
Understand the thinking of the Troublemaker who deliberatly posts something to stop a welcome debate.

atcsundevil wrote:

That's typically what we do... If there's a post that needs to be removed, we delete it. Deleting the thread or locking the thread is never our first course of action, it's the last resort. We only delete or lock when the thread is out of hand or if the thread starting post violates the rules.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in the "The Murder of Ella French" thread here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1463679

The majority of the thread, including parts of the opening post was about US gun law and gun control, but it was locked without warning for going off topic when it was a reasonably well behaved and on topic thread.

Virtual737 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

That's typically what we do... If there's a post that needs to be removed, we delete it. Deleting the thread or locking the thread is never our first course of action, it's the last resort. We only delete or lock when the thread is out of hand or if the thread starting post violates the rules.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in the "The Murder of Ella French" thread here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1463679

The majority of the thread, including parts of the opening post was about US gun law and gun control, but it was locked without warning for going off topic when it was a reasonably well behaved and on topic thread.

There were a large number of posts that were deleted for being off topic. The moderator made the determination that the thread had gone off topic and run its course, as many threads often do. Keep in mind that you don't see the posts that are removed, so a thread that appears to be on topic may not actually be the case.

Virtual737 wrote:

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in the "The Murder of Ella French" thread here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1463679

I started that thread, and it was a civil discourse, but it jumped the tracks. I can't say I can blame the mods on this one.

atcsundevil wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

That's typically what we do... If there's a post that needs to be removed, we delete it. Deleting the thread or locking the thread is never our first course of action, it's the last resort. We only delete or lock when the thread is out of hand or if the thread starting post violates the rules.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in the "The Murder of Ella French" thread here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1463679

The majority of the thread, including parts of the opening post was about US gun law and gun control, but it was locked without warning for going off topic when it was a reasonably well behaved and on topic thread.

There were a large number of posts that were deleted for being off topic. The moderator made the determination that the thread had gone off topic and run its course, as many threads often do. Keep in mind that you don't see the posts that are removed, so a thread that appears to be on topic may not actually be the case.

extender wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in the "The Murder of Ella French" thread here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1463679

I started that thread, and it was a civil discourse, but it jumped the tracks. I can't say I can blame the mods on this one.

Thanks for the replies both.

This site is about aviation that means planes are made in different countries, airlines are from different countries and passengers are of different nationalities, religion, speak different languages and in some cases even a huge social economic differences.

As such the posts are going to be equally various. There will be natural tendencies of nationalistic pride, geo/political biases, cultural biases and religious bias.

The mods are doing what they can, they don't owe me or you anything. And yes, my posts have been deleted, big deal. I don't feel that I am being silenced or am being denied some constitutional right.

And note, this is the internet, there are no rights when you are getting it for free!

This may be besides the point, but I think just because people are behaving bad on the site, paid memberships should not come back. Just because some limited group of people out of the tens of thousands of us are being jerks doesn't mean everybody else has to pay for it. And besides, there are a lot of kids who are older than 13, but do not have a job yet or do not have an allowance, myself included who use this site. Adding paid memberships would take that away from us. I feel like our generation has the right to use this site. All of us are passionate about aviation and this is the way we develop and drive that passion. I'm literally just a freshman in high school and there is not a day that goes by that I don't learn something new from here. Whether it's by reading old threads, looking at the Technical section, or participating in discussions. In fact, a moderator in https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1421773 this linked thread said that younger users cause signifigantly less trouble. What is punishing us by making us pay for this site going to help the problem? I really hope that the moderators don't consider paid membership over something as solvable as bad behavior. A.net is a place for aviation geeks of all personalities to converse. Why should it be locked behind a paywall, if it's a place for everyone to converse?

oceanvikram wrote:

And note, this is the internet, there are no rights when you are getting it for free!

Except when you are an adolescent/teenager and Anet is something you are passionate about and your passion is at risk of being lost for good because of some adults who know better but don't apply it. Being able to converse here is both a blessing and a right for us.

Boeing757100 wrote:

This may be besides the point, but I think just because people are behaving bad on the site, paid memberships should not come back. Just because some limited group of people out of the tens of thousands of us are being jerks doesn't mean everybody else has to pay for it. And besides, there are a lot of kids who are older than 13, but do not have a job yet or do not have an allowance, myself included who use this site. Adding paid memberships would take that away from us to keep up with. I feel like our generation has the right to use this site. All of us are passionate about aviation and this is the way we develop and drive that passion. I'm literally just a freshman in high school and there is not a day that goes by that I don't learn something new from here. Whether it's by reading old threads, looking at the Technical section, or participating in discussions. In fact, a moderator in https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1421773 this linked thread said that younger users cause signifigantly less trouble. What is punishing us by making us pay for this site going to help the problem? I really hope that the moderators don't consider paid membership over something as solvable as bad behavior. A.net is a place for aviation geeks of all personalities to converse. Why should it be locked behind a paywall, if it's a place for everyone to converse?

Our reason for wanting paid memberships is to restore some accountability for users. The threat of an account ban is moot when they can just abandon that account and create a new one. We do have ways to track when people do that, but it's tedious and frustrating for us to keep up with. Users regularly hurl some pretty awful abuse at us over email, sometimes even crossing the line into flat out harassment, because it's so difficult for us to impose actual consequences when they do it. Without there being a buy-in, it simply makes the process too easy. We don't want to shut people out, but we do want there to be effective consequences for poor behavior.

To call it a headache for the past five years is an absolute understatement. It doesn't really matter anyway — we've asked repeatedly, and been repeatedly rejected by the site owners. So, we'll continue having people abuse and harass us simply because they disagree with us, and more often than not they'll get to continue participating here. I understand your perspective, and you're not wrong, but we have to deal with a whole other set of issues that leaves pretty much all of us firmly in the "paid" camp.