This is specific to India related threads. Indian government is testing the limits of corruption and nepotism. Giving away public assets to friends of administration, forcing others to sell airports to friends of administration. List includes railways, steel plants to temples and everything in between.

If anyone questions, post gets reported as politics in Civil Aviation and gets deleted, or worse the poster gets board warning.

When I posted BOM airport was forced to sell, I got a board warning saying it is an unsubstantiated claim. The claim was made by an registered Indian regional TV news channel. Even if I post the link how a moderator will be able to verity which is in some Indian regional language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2B9CqEnios&t=335s

Are rules being used to scrub facts? Isn't this counterintuitive?

I can't comment on the specific issue and I did not fond any recent deletions of posts made by you in the Indian Aviation thread, but my understanding is the problem is its much more politics rather aviation, hence it gets deleted for being off topic, so I would not see any issues if you start such a thread in Non-Aviation backed up by your sources.

SQ22 wrote:

I can't comment on the specific issue and I did not fond any recent deletions of posts made by you in the Indian Aviation thread, but my understanding is the problem is its much more politics rather aviation, hence it gets deleted for being off topic, so I would not see any issues if you start such a thread in Non-Aviation backed up by your sources.

So corruption impacting aviation is off-topic because corruption is politics?

dtw2hyd wrote:

So corruption impacting aviation is off-topic because corruption is politics?

It all depends on how you choose to present the facts. We both know that threads involving India (regardless of forum) are some of the most passionate and heated discussions on this site. Many of the users who regularly participate in these threads frequently utilize the report post function, so the issues are more regularly brought to our attention compared to other topics, and they often require more of our attention because of how intense the discussions can become.

When politics and aviation collide outside of Non Av, it creates a difficult balancing act for us. Most users agree that they appreciate the generally apolitical nature of our aviation forums (as do we, since we are ultimately users first), so it's important to us that we respect that to the extent possible.

If your post is framed as putting the aviation discussion first, discussing the political angle in a relatively independent/unbiased manner, and most importantly avoid flamebait language, then I think most moderators would consider that more than acceptable. If blatant political statements are being made or there's flamebait that will drag the thread off topic, that's when it changes the dynamic for us.

Addressing corruption isn't inherently flamebait, but the problem is with how other users respond to those comments. If it drags the rest of the thread off topic with purely political discussion, then sometimes our only option is to go to the root of the problem to drag the discussion back on topic. It's not fair of users to blow up threads because they're mad about the political element of an otherwise good post, but unfortunately some users are rather skilled at that tactic, and there's only so much that we can realistically do to stop it. Yes, we have various tools to mitigate that behavior, but we can't just ban everyone and expect that to fix the problem.

If we remove a post, we always do so with a justification based on the rules. I will often offer remedies on how to fix posts when asked, and I know other moderators will as well. Ultimately, the safest place for political discussion is in Non Av, but we are permissive of it on a limited basis in the aviation forums. If a post of yours has been removed, then I would encourage you to reach out to us to ask why, and ask how your post could be amended. We don't want to silence you, we just want the thread to stay under control, particularly with as heated as Indian threads often become. I fully understand your frustration, but hopefully you can see that it's not a black and white issue for us — dealing with gray area and trying to keep threads civil and productive is a neverending challenge for us, and we try our best to handle these issues appropriately.

atcsundevil wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

So corruption impacting aviation is off-topic because corruption is politics?

It all depends on how you choose to present the facts. We both know that threads involving India (regardless of forum) are some of the most passionate and heated discussions on this site. Many of the users who regularly participate in these threads frequently utilize the report post function, so the issues are more regularly brought to our attention compared to other topics, and they often require more of our attention because of how intense the discussions can become.

When politics and aviation collide outside of Non Av, it creates a difficult balancing act for us. Most users agree that they appreciate the generally apolitical nature of our aviation forums (as do we, since we are ultimately users first), so it's important to us that we respect that to the extent possible.

If your post is framed as putting the aviation discussion first, discussing the political angle in a relatively independent/unbiased manner, and most importantly avoid flamebait language, then I think most moderators would consider that more than acceptable. If blatant political statements are being made or there's flamebait that will drag the thread off topic, that's when it changes the dynamic for us.

Addressing corruption isn't inherently flamebait, but the problem is with how other users respond to those comments. If it drags the rest of the thread off topic with purely political discussion, then sometimes our only option is to go to the root of the problem to drag the discussion back on topic. It's not fair of users to blow up threads because they're mad about the political element of an otherwise good post, but unfortunately some users are rather skilled at that tactic, and there's only so much that we can realistically do to stop it. Yes, we have various tools to mitigate that behavior, but we can't just ban everyone and expect that to fix the problem.

If we remove a post, we always do so with a justification based on the rules. I will often offer remedies on how to fix posts when asked, and I know other moderators will as well. Ultimately, the safest place for political discussion is in Non Av, but we are permissive of it on a limited basis in the aviation forums. If a post of yours has been removed, then I would encourage you to reach out to us to ask why, and ask how your post could be amended. We don't want to silence you, we just want the thread to stay under control, particularly with as heated as Indian threads often become. I fully understand your frustration, but hopefully you can see that it's not a black and white issue for us — dealing with gray area and trying to keep threads civil and productive is a neverending challenge for us, and we try our best to handle these issues appropriately.

Out of curiosity do a.net crew observe troll armies and their techniques, or the word itself is offensive. I know a.net is a relatively small operation with volunteer crew, does it make immune to these.

About (mass)reporting, given a chance they will report Jack to Twitter security to get a tweet deleted. I am not worried about abuse of reporting function, but by gaming the rules they are able to obfuscate the facts.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Out of curiosity do a.net crew observe troll armies and their techniques, or the word itself is offensive. I know a.net is a relatively small operation with volunteer crew, does it make immune to these.

About (mass)reporting, given a chance they will report Jack to Twitter security to get a tweet deleted. I am not worried about abuse of reporting function, but by gaming the rules they are able to obfuscate the facts.

We generally have a pretty good idea of who engages in trolling behavior here. Most of us have been on the moderating team for at least a few years, and it's easy to establish posting patterns. I would say there's no simple solution to trolling either. Certainly we're aware if they're the same person posting under different aliases, and that's quite easy for us to act on. When it's a trolling "movement" (for lack of a better term), it's more difficult for us to get a handle.

At least when it comes to various India related topics, I would say there's an added layer of complexity for many of us in that we aren't always familiar with what's being discussed. For me personally, it isn't that I'm being wilfully ignorant of the references being made, but as I'm sure you can understand, it can be difficult to moderate when the discussion isn't always clear. Combine that with the fact that they're always very spirited discussions, and anyways have clear divisions in terms of viewpoint (political or otherwise). Picking up on trolls in discussions on western politics, for example, are generally much more straightforward to us. It would be fantastic for us to have a more diverse moderating team to defer to when the discussion isn't always clear, but we're limited based on the users that choose to apply. Until someone volunteers to help us, all we can do is try our best to keep discussions civil.

atcsundevil wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Out of curiosity do a.net crew observe troll armies and their techniques, or the word itself is offensive. I know a.net is a relatively small operation with volunteer crew, does it make immune to these.

About (mass)reporting, given a chance they will report Jack to Twitter security to get a tweet deleted. I am not worried about abuse of reporting function, but by gaming the rules they are able to obfuscate the facts.

We generally have a pretty good idea of who engages in trolling behavior here. Most of us have been on the moderating team for at least a few years, and it's easy to establish posting patterns. I would say there's no simple solution to trolling either. Certainly we're aware if they're the same person posting under different aliases, and that's quite easy for us to act on. When it's a trolling "movement" (for lack of a better term), it's more difficult for us to get a handle.

At least when it comes to various India related topics, I would say there's an added layer of complexity for many of us in that we aren't always familiar with what's being discussed. For me personally, it isn't that I'm being wilfully ignorant of the references being made, but as I'm sure you can understand, it can be difficult to moderate when the discussion isn't always clear. Combine that with the fact that they're always very spirited discussions, and anyways have clear divisions in terms of viewpoint (political or otherwise). Picking up on trolls in discussions on western politics, for example, are generally much more straightforward to us. It would be fantastic for us to have a more diverse moderating team to defer to when the discussion isn't always clear, but we're limited based on the users that choose to apply. Until someone volunteers to help us, all we can do is try our best to keep discussions civil.

Makes sense. If you are interested have a quick glance at recent State Dept., Freedom House and Swedish V-Dem Institute reports. With lack of press freedom, it is difficult find a source with facts, makes it difficult to prove dissenting opinion.

DoS INDIA 2020 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/upload ... REPORT.pdf

India is rated Partly Free in Freedom in the World 2021, Freedom House's annual study of political rights and civil liberties worldwide.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/india

Autocratization Turns Viral DEMOCRACY REPORT 2021
https://www.v-dem.net/files/25/DR%202021.pdf

There are very passionate posts bith sides of the Indian thread where everything must be rebutted.

We moderators will not moderate the truth. That stops discussion as what level of truth. I tell you right now, the level of truth the opposition must provide is a high bar (both ways).

We discuss who is trolling, who is over-using the reporting function.

Often both sides accuse us of bias, that must be doing something right.

Lightsaber