I have added two new topics in the non av section regarding trumps proposed border wall


Both disappeared with no explanation after a few minutes


Is this discussion really that offensive to moderators ?

Max Q wrote:

I have added two new topics in the non av section regarding trumps proposed border wall


Both disappeared with no explanation after a few minutes


Is this discussion really that offensive to moderators ?

It isn't about what we consider offensive (I'm not offended at all), and we don't give explanations unless you ask. You have asked, so I will provide one, but we typically would prefer you contact us via email at moderators@airliners.net. Our preference is to address these things in private.

When you create threads that start the way you started both threads, you're essentially trying to pick a fight. You know you were, so you may as well own it. Fights create a lot of work for us, so we remove those posts or threads to prevent them from deteriorating into a mean-spirited argument. If you want to have that discussion, then by all means, there's nothing wrong with it — we just ask that you try to conduct it in a productive manner. I have included the relevant rule below.

1q. Flamebait
1. Users should not knowingly create posts or topics with the explicit purpose of angering users, or causing arguments. Clearly provocative threads, posts, or statements may be deleted.
2. Use of pejorative terms or names for political leaders, political parties, or other public figures in an attempt to incite an argument may be considered flamebait and removed at a moderator’s discretion.

No,

Not trying to pick a fight, and if you read the responses you’ll see there wasn’t one. my post was an attempt to take a more humorous look at a bizarre situation and from the responses it’s obvious it was taken that way


Your assumption it was something else is unfortunate but typical

You've admitted on another thread that your posts were tongue in cheek comments. How is that not trying to pick a fight?

777ER wrote:

You've admitted on another thread that your posts were tongue in cheek comments. How is that not trying to pick a fight?

I’m bewildered by your answer but if I was really trying to pick a fight I wouldn’t do it with a light hearted post intended to elicit a humorous response, thats what ‘tongue in cheek’ is.



Is it really not possible to have conversations involving politics that aren’t just vicious attacks on each other ?


There’s no shortage of those even within this forum


Laughter really is the best medicine, a less serious discussion can be a welcome relief to people of all differing opinions and quite therapeutic

Max Q wrote:

777ER wrote:

You've admitted on another thread that your posts were tongue in cheek comments. How is that not trying to pick a fight?

I’m bewildered by your answer but if I was really trying to pick a fight I wouldn’t do it with a light hearted post intended to elicit a humorous response, thats what ‘tongue in cheek’ is.



Is it really not possible to have conversations involving politics that aren’t just vicious attacks on each other ?


There’s no shortage of those even within this forum


Laughter really is the best medicine, a less serious discussion can be a welcome relief to people of all differing opinions and quite therapeutic

Sadly these days politics always brings out the nastiness in others.

It might seem like a joke or laughter to you (got nothing against having a good joke) but sadly there will be others who will take it the wrong way, especially when they feel its attacking their president, country or economy.

Is any reference to corruption in aviation is violation of a.net rules? Politics are widely permitted on Indian aviation thread, but whenever I make a reference, I am getting a board warning. This is to a point I am of the opinion a.net promoting corruption in aviation.

BTW, what is warning level 1. Is there a scale.

777ER wrote:

Max Q wrote:

777ER wrote:

You've admitted on another thread that your posts were tongue in cheek comments. How is that not trying to pick a fight?

I’m bewildered by your answer but if I was really trying to pick a fight I wouldn’t do it with a light hearted post intended to elicit a humorous response, thats what ‘tongue in cheek’ is.



Is it really not possible to have conversations involving politics that aren’t just vicious attacks on each other ?


There’s no shortage of those even within this forum


Laughter really is the best medicine, a less serious discussion can be a welcome relief to people of all differing opinions and quite therapeutic

Sadly these days politics always brings out the nastiness in others.

It might seem like a joke or laughter to you (got nothing against having a good joke) but sadly there will be others who will take it the wrong way, especially when they feel its attacking their president, country or economy.

But why more or less only jokes? We all like jokes, we just don´t agree whats funny, and some people may get offended, i get that. But the non-Av forum is full counter-factual claims, that i don´t think anyone enjoys and plenty find offensive in a discussion, but it would pretty much seem that falsehoods only causes deletions when they are tongue-in-cheek, and hence made obvious they are hyperbole..

Of course no one can fact check a discussion forum or really enforce source requirement when jokes are easily recognizable, but the policy implementation seems to be unbalanced.

best regards
Thomas

atcsundevil wrote:

1q. Flamebait
1. Users should not knowingly create posts or topics with the explicit purpose of angering users, or causing arguments. Clearly provocative threads, posts, or statements may be deleted.
2. Use of pejorative terms or names for political leaders, political parties, or other public figures in an attempt to incite an argument may be considered flamebait and removed at a moderator’s discretion.

How do you balance these two rules in a social media world where astroturfers' rule the forums and their job is to protect their clients' image at any cost.

If I call a politician corrupt, that will make an astroturfer or social media warrior angry and resorts to name calling or press the crew call button. The only way to keep the discussion civil, not to say anything.

dtw2hyd wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

1q. Flamebait
1. Users should not knowingly create posts or topics with the explicit purpose of angering users, or causing arguments. Clearly provocative threads, posts, or statements may be deleted.
2. Use of pejorative terms or names for political leaders, political parties, or other public figures in an attempt to incite an argument may be considered flamebait and removed at a moderator’s discretion.

How do you balance these two rules in a social media world where astroturfers' rule the forums and their job is to protect their clients' image at any cost.

If I call a politician corrupt, that will make an astroturfer or social media warrior angry and resorts to name calling or press the crew call button. The only way to keep the discussion civil, not to say anything.

The rule just exists to promote civil discussion. You're free to make allegations in support of your opinion. When we say "pejorative term", we mean nicknames like "orange menace", "sleepy Joe", "Obummer", etc. Names like that serve no purpose other than to rile people up and start arguments. That creates a tremendous amount of work for us, particularly in the past year. Let's not forget, this is an aviation forum, so the time and effort that political discussions require will always take a backseat to other priorities.

At the end of the day, we don't really care what people say, so long as they're being respectful to other users and not purposely trying to incite arguments. We have quite a bit of tolerance for most other rules, but there's a very good reason that our first rule is this:

1a. Respecting Other Users
1. Please respect the opinions of others and choose your words wisely. Each user has their own point of view, and these views must be respected.
2. Please word all criticism, whether of another user's opinion, a photograph, crew member, a political topic, etc., in a constructive manner. Criticism which serves no purpose other than to incite or insult other members will be deleted and your account possibly suspended.

That's our priority, and a lot of the other rules, like the flamebait rule, are in support of that. Just because keyboard warriors engage in disrespectful discussion doesn't make it acceptable, and that's why we keep emphasizing that people let us know about it. We want you all to have respectful, productive discussions with as little interference from us as possible. I don't agree that the only way to keep discussions civil is to not have them, because the majority of users here are indeed capable. The problem is the minority of posters who come here to stir the pot and spoil threads, which is why we need help from users to point them out so we can handle it accordingly. It isn't about balance so much as this is all feel we can do — taking a laissez-faire approach isn't acceptable to us, nor do we (by and large) want to ban political discussion outright. I think we all generally have an innate sense of right and wrong, which includes respectful and disrespectful behavior, which is why I don't think that applying that basic standard is in any way unreasonable.

Hopefully that somewhat answers your question.

atcsundevil wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

1q. Flamebait
1. Users should not knowingly create posts or topics with the explicit purpose of angering users, or causing arguments. Clearly provocative threads, posts, or statements may be deleted.
2. Use of pejorative terms or names for political leaders, political parties, or other public figures in an attempt to incite an argument may be considered flamebait and removed at a moderator’s discretion.

How do you balance these two rules in a social media world where astroturfers' rule the forums and their job is to protect their clients' image at any cost.

If I call a politician corrupt, that will make an astroturfer or social media warrior angry and resorts to name calling or press the crew call button. The only way to keep the discussion civil, not to say anything.

The rule just exists to promote civil discussion. You're free to make allegations in support of your opinion. When we say "pejorative term", we mean nicknames like "orange menace", "sleepy Joe", "Obummer", etc. Names like that serve no purpose other than to rile people up and start arguments. That creates a tremendous amount of work for us, particularly in the past year. Let's not forget, this is an aviation forum, so the time and effort that political discussions require will always take a backseat to other priorities.

At the end of the day, we don't really care what people say, so long as they're being respectful to other users and not purposely trying to incite arguments. We have quite a bit of tolerance for most other rules, but there's a very good reason that our first rule is this:

1a. Respecting Other Users
1. Please respect the opinions of others and choose your words wisely. Each user has their own point of view, and these views must be respected.
2. Please word all criticism, whether of another user's opinion, a photograph, crew member, a political topic, etc., in a constructive manner. Criticism which serves no purpose other than to incite or insult other members will be deleted and your account possibly suspended.

That's our priority, and a lot of the other rules, like the flamebait rule, are in support of that. Just because keyboard warriors engage in disrespectful discussion doesn't make it acceptable, and that's why we keep emphasizing that people let us know about it. We want you all to have respectful, productive discussions with as little interference from us as possible. I don't agree that the only way to keep discussions civil is to not have them, because the majority of users here are indeed capable. The problem is the minority of posters who come here to stir the pot and spoil threads, which is why we need help from users to point them out so we can handle it accordingly. It isn't about balance so much as this is all feel we can do — taking a laissez-faire approach isn't acceptable to us, nor do we (by and large) want to ban political discussion outright. I think we all generally have an innate sense of right and wrong, which includes respectful and disrespectful behavior, which is why I don't think that applying that basic standard is in any way unreasonable.

Hopefully that somewhat answers your question.

Like I said in the past, Rule 1a is the most violated rule on a.net, when one cannot make any logical debate

Here are a couple of examples, someone calling me bootlicker

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1454705&sid=8aea259623a7869a730a303f32bb8f41#p22536011

and stupid conspiracy theorist

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1454705&sid=8aea259623a7869a730a303f32bb8f41#p22536011

There are several others. Only consolation, this troll army uses a lot worse phrases on Facebook and WhatsApp, this they are being nice.

I hope it didn't infiltrate a.net like it did with Facebook and WhatsApp moderator teams.

https://time.com/5883993/india-facebook ... peech-bjp/
https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/app ... 575358.cms
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-h ... 1597423346

dtw2hyd wrote:

Like I said in the past, Rule 1a is the most violated rule on a.net, when one cannot make any logical debate

Here are a couple of examples, someone calling me bootlicker

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1454705&sid=8aea259623a7869a730a303f32bb8f41#p22536011

and stupid conspiracy theorist

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1454705&sid=8aea259623a7869a730a303f32bb8f41#p22536011

There are several others. Only consolation, this troll army uses a lot worse phrases on Facebook and WhatsApp, this they are being nice.

I hope it didn't infiltrate a.net like it did with Facebook and WhatsApp moderator teams.

https://time.com/5883993/india-facebook ... peech-bjp/
https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/app ... 575358.cms
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-h ... 1597423346

Unfortunately you copied the same post twice, but I was able to remove one of them. We say it constantly, and I know it's been said before, but if you don't report posts like that, then the odds of us finding and removing it are low. There are far more posts made here than we can conceivably review, so if people don't help us find them, then we can't promise it'll ever be read by a moderator. If people say these things to you and you don't report them, then you can't honestly blame us when someone attacks you. In the words of Jerry Mcguire, "Help me help you."