scbriml wrote:

By definition nothing in "non-av" is aviation related, so why not get rid of it all? It's just another step towards the inevitable.

IMO, all you are pointing out is the rationale for killing political discussions needs some polishing, which I also have stated. IMO this is a community so it makes sense to have more than just aviation discussions. Presumably many of us have been to actual airfields for spotting or flying or whatever and we don't just talk about aviation there. Presumably atcsundevil goes to work at ATC and those people actually talk about aviation along with various hobbies, popular culture, and (gasp) from time to time, politics.

I get it that politics creates an unwanted and unmanageable workload for the mods. There is an old rule, gentlemen don't discuss sex, religion or politics. It just gets too contentious. But IMO we do discuss other things, and the announcement is not saying non-av will close, it is saying politics will be banned in non-av like it is elsewhere is unfortunate but understandable.

scbriml wrote:

The photography forums are so quiet simply because far fewer people are uploading and even viewing photos here now. Sadly (for this site), competitors are seeing significantly more uploads and views than here. I blame the lack of interest on the owners who are clearly not interested in investing in this site and only keep it ticking over for the ad revenue.

At the end of the day, it's their train set. I'm not convinced a bunch of investment in the photo side of the forum would have produced positive ROI. Apparently no one else is either otherwise they would have bought out the site. I think the model of people uploading photos to aviation-specific sites to gain the recognition of other aviation fans has largely faded below the horizon. Most people with cool airplane pics just post them to the non-aviation social media outlets that their friends follow them on.

atcsundevil wrote:

As I said earlier, I am genuinely sorry that it has come to this for those of you who participate in political threads with a desire for genuine discussion, respectful debate, and communication. These rules aren't because of users like you, they're because of the minority of users that have spoiled the forum over the last several years. Unfortunately there's no way to pick and choose who can participate.

You've said that part of the motivation for this decision is that the moderators are here for aviation, and don't want to deal with the conflict in the political discussions. While I understand that, may I ask if you have considered appointing a dedicated moderator for that purpose, to free yourselves of it?

I think there might be those here who value these discussions sufficiently, to serve in that role.

For what it's worth, I participate in another technical forum where this is also an issue. The moderators are constantly trying to kill political discussion, because they don't want to deal with the conflicts that result. But there as here, bad behavior is the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of threads may contain arguments, but they are mostly civil.

In that forum, the users have appealed to the admins, and at least until now, the admins have said they don't want to suppress all political discussion, they just want it to be reasonable. The moderators have argued that it's inevitable that the threads will blow up. And while that does happen, it's by far in the minority of threads. Most threads just peter out as the topic fades, without moderator intervention.

Also in that forum, there is a timeout feature, in that a rambunctious user can be blocked for a period of hours or days, to cool things down. If they receive too many times outs, they are booted. There is no provision for thread locking, as there is here. Instead the moderators time out the offenders and tell the others to calm down. That seems to be effective because no one wants to be timed out, and excluded from the discussion. But of course there as here, moderators feel they shouldn't have to fulfill that role.

Just wondering if there is another solution here. I realize that from the perspective of the moderators, this section is more trouble than it's worth. Again I'm not discounting that viewpoint. But from the perspective of the users, it's among the best alternatives there is.

My view has always been, that the undercurrent of technical proficiency here, due to the aviation interests of the users, is the reason why. Users here more or less follow the rules of logic and science and debate. Not everyone to be sure, but the majority do.

That is actually a very valuable attribute. I've had other users here ask me privately, where can we go if this ends? And the truth is, I don't have a good answer.

So…… it’s goodbye Non Aviation then?……..What the heck am I going to read while having my morning breakfast now…. You guys sure were entertaining.

hh65man wrote:

So…… it’s goodbye Non Aviation then?……..What the heck am I going to read while having my morning breakfast now…. You guys sure were entertaining.

You and others seem to not be reading the actual announcement at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1483343 correctly.

The key paragraph is:

As a result, the Moderators in consultation with the Community Manager have determined that political discussion without an aviation context should no longer have a place in these forums. Political discussions in the Non Aviation Forum will no longer be permitted, and posts made to all forums may only include political comments related to the overall aviation topic. These posts may not be politically biased or intended to be inflammatory — they must be constructive to the topic.

Nowhere in this does it say non-av is going away. It's just that in this thread the rationale was stated as politics are being banned because is an aviation specific site. This was said to justify the banning of politics, but it leads to the obvious response: then why not just get rid of non-av?

Yet in this thread we also have:

atcsundevil wrote:

No, we actually do understand. It was our way of changing the rule to allow limited political discussion within an aviation context and without partisan language. It bans purely political discussion, which in my opinion only serves as a detriment to the forums and to users. Non Av can certainly encompass a range of other discussions not related to aviation. There are, indeed, things to be discussed outside of politics.

So, IMO the rationale being given in this thread is somewhat inconsistent and needs some polishing.

IMO it's ok to just say the contentious and often inflammable nature of political discourse goes beyond this site's ability to police it and the site administrators have made the decision to ban it, and not say it's due to the aviation focus of the site, specifically because that does suggest non-av will be nuked when that is not the intention.

I've seen other sites make similar decisions. Often they are just announced with immediate effect and without discussion, at least here there will be a transition period.

atcsundevil wrote:

We haven't determined all of the nuances yet, but newsworthy events can still be posted. We just won't allow political debate or biased comments. It will take us time to determine what is considered acceptable. Discussion regarding the coronation will certainly be allowed.

That's going to be a Sisyphean task, I think impossible, to be honest. Who is to determine what is a biased comment? Already entire pages of threads in NonAv are just summarily deleted without warning, post that moderation has occurred, etc. Well-meaning posts are deleted because a user quoted it and flamed the poster. (Ex. one of mine deleted because someone made a crack about Cambridge, MA... nothing factual, just a one-liner, and my entire post was deleted)

I think we need confirmation that if this goes forward, that's going to stop. I know it's come up in my head "why bother replying, you know it's just going to get deleted," it kind of makes the NonAv forum completely superfluous if we're down to the DeleteMaster's sole determination of what a biased comment is.

Part of the issue here is that moderation is a black box - reasons aren't given, feedback isn't given, the traditional "warning post" isn't given anywhere in NonAv. You aren't setting limits, so the raptors are testing the fences, and the crazy people that believe the Nazis invaded the moon in 1945, or the space laser killed their tomato plant, are totally fine with posting crackpot ideas without fear of deletion.

There are better ways to do it, but this is the easiest one. Up to you, but I still don't think it's the right call. Now, siphoning it off to a subforum, maybe recruiting an "only politics" mod or two, and seeing how that keeps the rabble down in 60 days? That's what I would do. Workshop it a little, before killing it.

Revelation wrote:

hh65man wrote:

So…… it’s goodbye Non Aviation then?……..What the heck am I going to read while having my morning breakfast now…. You guys sure were entertaining.

You and others seem to not be reading the actual announcement at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1483343 correctly.

The key paragraph is:

As a result, the Moderators in consultation with the Community Manager have determined that political discussion without an aviation context should no longer have a place in these forums. Political discussions in the Non Aviation Forum will no longer be permitted, and posts made to all forums may only include political comments related to the overall aviation topic. These posts may not be politically biased or intended to be inflammatory — they must be constructive to the topic.

Nowhere in this does it say non-av is going away. It's just that in this thread the rationale was stated as politics are being banned because is an aviation specific site. This was said to justify the banning of politics, but it leads to the obvious response: then why not just get rid of non-av?

Yet in this thread we also have:

atcsundevil wrote:

No, we actually do understand. It was our way of changing the rule to allow limited political discussion within an aviation context and without partisan language. It bans purely political discussion, which in my opinion only serves as a detriment to the forums and to users. Non Av can certainly encompass a range of other discussions not related to aviation. There are, indeed, things to be discussed outside of politics.

So, IMO the rationale being given in this thread is somewhat inconsistent and needs some polishing.

IMO it's ok to just say the contentious and often inflammable nature of political discourse goes beyond this site's ability to police it and the site administrators have made the decision to ban it, and not say it's due to the aviation focus of the site, specifically because that does suggest non-av will be nuked when that is not the intention.

I've seen other sites make similar decisions. Often they are just announced with immediate effect and without discussion, at least here there will be a transition period.

Matey it’s all good, I read the initial announcement, my reply was just my dry wit showing. I do agree with most peoples sentiments here though.

I have not yet seen a well founded argument that favours this new policy.
I too, had been an admin and administrator of a large technically minded forum. Very civil. Politics certainly allowed. (But no racism, sexism or other discrimination, obviously).

The Mods tireing of non-av politics, is not a sign that it should go, but a sign off Mod burn-out.
That happens. Even without the politics. And it happens to all forums. Find someone else to deal with it. This forum is full of level headed contributors, some of which would gladly get up from the trenches to keep a fair and reasonable eye on it all. I believe this is a decision that should be turned around, and that some better solution should be found.

Avatar2go wrote:

You've said that part of the motivation for this decision is that the moderators are here for aviation, and don't want to deal with the conflict in the political discussions. While I understand that, may I ask if you have considered appointing a dedicated moderator for that purpose, to free yourselves of it?

I think there might be those here who value these discussions sufficiently, to serve in that role.

For what it's worth, I participate in another technical forum where this is also an issue. The moderators are constantly trying to kill political discussion, because they don't want to deal with the conflicts that result. But there as here, bad behavior is the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of threads may contain arguments, but they are mostly civil.

In that forum, the users have appealed to the admins, and at least until now, the admins have said they don't want to suppress all political discussion, they just want it to be reasonable. The moderators have argued that it's inevitable that the threads will blow up. And while that does happen, it's by far in the minority of threads. Most threads just peter out as the topic fades, without moderator intervention.

Also in that forum, there is a timeout feature, in that a rambunctious user can be blocked for a period of hours or days, to cool things down. If they receive too many times outs, they are booted. There is no provision for thread locking, as there is here. Instead the moderators time out the offenders and tell the others to calm down. That seems to be effective because no one wants to be timed out, and excluded from the discussion. But of course there as here, moderators feel they shouldn't have to fulfill that role.

Just wondering if there is another solution here. I realize that from the perspective of the moderators, this section is more trouble than it's worth. Again I'm not discounting that viewpoint. But from the perspective of the users, it's among the best alternatives there is.

My view has always been, that the undercurrent of technical proficiency here, due to the aviation interests of the users, is the reason why. Users here more or less follow the rules of logic and science and debate. Not everyone to be sure, but the majority do.

That is actually a very valuable attribute. I've had other users here ask me privately, where can we go if this ends? And the truth is, I don't have a good answer.

We have actually thought about it, but absolutely none of us want to be dedicated to moderating Non Av, and frankly I'd be weary of taking on a new moderator that did. Irrespective of that, it still wouldn't absolve us of the criticism and attacks that we're biased and pushing agendas. I don't care if people accuse me of something so long as I'm confident that I've done the right thing and that I retain the confidence of the moderating team, but it honestly does wear you out to hear these things on a regular basis for years. One former user in particular contacts us on a near weekly basis with threats and profanity to the point that we've had to get VS's legal team involved, particularly after he tracked down my personal information. That's not what any of us signed up for, and I can't think of a logical way to separate us from dedicated Non Av moderators just to keep political discussions going. It isn't worth it.

We have warnings and bans that we can issue. Heck, we can permanently ban people. But when it's a free membership, there's not much of a consequence. It's like playing whack-a-mole with some users. Our most notorious generally only come here for political discussions. We deal with it in the aviation forums too, but they're typically easier to track. It's just another layer of complexity that we don't really want to be involved with. It was much easier to deter bad behavior when there was a membership fee. Maybe they'd try creating a new account, but they can't keep that up forever. When there's no buy-in, it's difficult to stop.

Revelation wrote:

So, IMO the rationale being given in this thread is somewhat inconsistent and needs some polishing.

IMO it's ok to just say the contentious and often inflammable nature of political discourse goes beyond this site's ability to police it and the site administrators have made the decision to ban it, and not say it's due to the aviation focus of the site, specifically because that does suggest non-av will be nuked when that is not the intention.

I've seen other sites make similar decisions. Often they are just announced with immediate effect and without discussion, at least here there will be a transition period.

I'm not pretending that we have this all figured out yet. It's easier to lay down a blanket ban and then determine where the line of acceptability lies. We just know that we're at our wit's end with this crap. That said, we felt that we owed it to everyone — but the longtime and respectful users in particular — to have a transition period and to be open with our rationale. I think that it will take time to work out how best to approach these discussions. If nothing else, a cleanse for a little while might provide the reset needed to bring some civility to the forum. For now, we'll do what we need to do and go from there.

bluecrew wrote:

Well-meaning posts are deleted because a user quoted it and flamed the poster. (Ex. one of mine deleted because someone made a crack about Cambridge, MA... nothing factual, just a one-liner, and my entire post was deleted)

We don't have any flexibility on this. We hate doing it, I know I certainly do, but we don't have flexibility. I have requested work-arounds in the past, like editing the referenced comment to replace it with "deleted", but the other moderators and head moderators believe that we will be open to further criticism for editing posts, and they're not wrong. If we remove a comment, we are required to remove all references. There's not much else that can be done.

bluecrew wrote:

Workshop it a little, before killing it.

We've been discussing this for six years. We're a little past workshopping. This was far from a spur of the moment decision, this is something we've discussed for years and only recently received approval.

So recently a town near me, the city of Huntington Beach, made some minor news for voting to no longer fly the LGBT pride flag on city flagpoles, because it is "divisive." Too political, they say.
https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pil ... ch-timesoc

The proposal, introduced by newly elected Councilman Pat Burns, a conservative, will allow only flags representing the United States, state of California, Orange County, city of Huntington Beach, POW/MIA and the U.S. military to be displayed on city property.

The agenda item, without spelling it out in so many words, effectively targeted the Pride flag because it was the only previously city-approved banner that was barred from city-owned flagpoles going forward.

So the pride flag is designated political, and the POW/MIA flag is not - but that is, itself, a political decision made by local politicians. I bring this up not to discuss the specifics of what Huntington Beach did, but to point out the position that a.net moderators are putting themselves in. Deciding which types of commentary on current events are political, and at what point a politics-adjacent aviation discussion has become too political, is expressing a political stance, because deciding what is and isn't politics is not a politically neutral decision. How much of a difference is it going to make, for the average free user, whether their post was deleted because it violated rules against inflammatory language, or because it violated rules against political discussion? If they want to see biased moderators, that is what they'll see regardless. It seems desperately naive to me to think that the lunatics who are willing to harass moderators for their alleged political bias are going to perceive a difference between "censoring all politics" and "censoring my politics."

Will news discussions about the Trump criminal trial, the war in Sudan that might be starting now, and the current war in Ukraine be allowed as long as there is no political bias to it.

M564038 wrote:

I have not yet seen a well founded argument that favours this new policy.
I too, had been an admin and administrator of a large technically minded forum. Very civil. Politics certainly allowed. (But no racism, sexism or other discrimination, obviously).

The Mods tiring of non-av politics, is not a sign that it should go, but a sign off Mod burn-out.
That happens. Even without the politics. And it happens to all forums. Find someone else to deal with it. This forum is full of level headed contributors, some of which would gladly get up from the trenches to keep a fair and reasonable eye on it all. I believe this is a decision that should be turned around, and that some better solution should be found.

I would tend to agree. I've felt the moderators have been burned out, even before this ruling, based on other interactions with them. And again, while I understand that and respect their position, I think other solutions are feasible. Certainly it is done successfully in other forums.

The user behavior cited by Atcsundevil, is unquestionably reprehensible, but again, is not characteristic of the majority of users. Nor frankly, is it likely to end with the termination of political discussion. The people who are here for mischief, will continue to be here for that reason.

In the end, I think this is being done for and by the moderators. Against the wishes of the users, and apparently with reluctance by the admins. Which as noted, I have seen develop in other forums as well.

Avatar2go wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I have not yet seen a well founded argument that favours this new policy.
I too, had been an admin and administrator of a large technically minded forum. Very civil. Politics certainly allowed. (But no racism, sexism or other discrimination, obviously).

The Mods tiring of non-av politics, is not a sign that it should go, but a sign off Mod burn-out.
That happens. Even without the politics. And it happens to all forums. Find someone else to deal with it. This forum is full of level headed contributors, some of which would gladly get up from the trenches to keep a fair and reasonable eye on it all. I believe this is a decision that should be turned around, and that some better solution should be found.

I would tend to agree. I've felt the moderators have been burned out, even before this ruling, based on other interactions with them. And again, while I understand that and respect their position, I think other solutions are feasible. Certainly it is done successfully in other forums.

The user behavior cited by Atcsundevil, is unquestionably reprehensible, but again, is not characteristic of the majority of users. Nor frankly, is it likely to end with the termination of political discussion. The people who are here for mischief, will continue to be here for that reason.

In the end, I think this is being done for and by the moderators. Against the wishes of the users, and apparently with reluctance by the admins. Which as noted, I have seen develop in other forums as well.

I don't agree that we're burned out, but we are burned out on this subject. I also don't think it's fair to say that we're only doing this for ourselves either. To an extent that's true, but I see it as necessary to remove some of the increasingly pervasive toxicity in Non Av. Those occasionally divisive and flamebait comments have found themselves in the aviation forums with increasing regularity. That's why we had to get the developers up turn off the signature line feature, because too many users were using it to advertise political positions. It has become a forum-wide issue for quite some time. That's just not what this site is about.

As I said previously, I see this as more of a reset. We can always reevaluate later on what is permissible and where we need to draw the line, and we can do that with input from the community. But for now, we feel strongly that we need to put our foot down on this issue. We aren't trying to punish anyone, we're just using this as a very clear message that this site is called airliners.net, and we're here to discuss aviation in a like-minded community. It's that simple.

I'd also like to point out that it would have been much easier to post the notice with the new rules and implement it immediately without discussion. That's not what we've done. There's an adjustment period, and I've spent a significant amount of my yesterday and today time addressing questions and concerns, and I will continue to do so. While the responses might not be to everyone's liking, the point is that we're not making these decisions from the shadows. We're aware of the concerns and that not everyone agrees with this decision, but we're not leaving anyone in the dark with unanswered questions. We aren't taking the easy route because this isn't an easy problem with an easy solution.

atcsundevil wrote:

I don't agree that we're burned out, but we are burned out on this subject. I also don't think it's fair to say that we're only doing this for ourselves either. To an extent that's true, but I see it as necessary to remove some of the increasingly pervasive toxicity in Non Av. Those occasionally divisive and flamebait comments have found themselves in the aviation forums with increasing regularity. That's why we had to get the developers up turn off the signature line feature, because too many users were using it to advertise political positions. It has become a forum-wide issue for quite some time. That's just not what this site is about.

As I said previously, I see this as more of a reset. We can always reevaluate later on what is permissible and where we need to draw the line, and we can do that with input from the community. But for now, we feel strongly that we need to put our foot down on this issue. We aren't trying to punish anyone, we're just using this as a very clear message that this site is called airliners.net, and we're here to discuss aviation in a like-minded community. It's that simple.

I'd also like to point out that it would have been much easier to post the notice with the new rules and implement it immediately without discussion. That's not what we've done. There's an adjustment period, and I've spent a significant amount of my yesterday and today time addressing questions and concerns, and I will continue to do so. While the responses might not be to everyone's liking, the point is that we're not making these decisions from the shadows. We're aware of the concerns and that not everyone agrees with this decision, but we're not leaving anyone in the dark with unanswered questions. We aren't taking the easy route because this isn't an easy problem with an easy solution.

I basically agree on the first two paragraphs. But on the last one, I think there is little difference in the timing of the implementation. If you used that period to solicit user comments and opinions, for consideration before the final decision, that would be a valid point. That is how we are trying to use this period, by having a discussion with you. But you continue to assert the decision is already made, and is irreversible. So it's a unilateral decision, that was made amongst yourselves.

The frustration that stems from that, is the moderators are the minority group here, not the majority. It would be nice for the majority to have a voice. I think I and others here, have demonstrated that we are sympathetic to your cause. We aren't trying to exclude or dismiss your concerns. We recognize that they are valid. But so too, are our concerns, and ideas for alternate means for how to address them.

Avatar2go wrote:

The frustration that stems from that, is the moderators are the minority group here, not the majority. It would be nice for the majority to have a voice. I think I and others here, have demonstrated that we are sympathetic to your cause. We aren't trying to exclude or dismiss your concerns. We recognize that they are valid. But so too, are our concerns, and ideas for alternate means for how to address them.

I recognize that, and I understand the frustration. My only counter to that is we'd never have a consensus here regardless of how much discussion took place, so ultimately we have to be the ones to decide which direction to go in some instances. Despite what some might think, we genuinely do have the best interests of the forum and the community in mind with the decisions we make. I fully realize that does not satisfy any frustrations, and while we can and should solicit opinions in many cases, in others, it's not always practical. We could have created a thread to discuss this issue prior to making a decision, but we'd just go around in circles and probably end up in the same place.

atcsundevil wrote:

I recognize that, and I understand the frustration. My only counter to that is we'd never have a consensus here regardless of how much discussion took place, so ultimately we have to be the ones to decide which direction to go in some instances. Despite what some might think, we genuinely do have the best interests of the forum and the community in mind with the decisions we make. I fully realize that does not satisfy any frustrations, and while we can and should solicit opinions in many cases, in others, it's not always practical. We could have created a thread to discuss this issue prior to making a decision, but we'd just go around in circles and probably end up in the same place.

I recognize that the decision is made and we can't change it. So it's useless to argue. But I will point out that you have presupposed the outcome here. I don't think it's assured at all that the majority could not agree on some resolution. Would it be unanimous, certainly not, there is a wide spectrum of opinion here. But I think enough users value the freedom to discuss politics sufficiently, that we would accept some compromise.

The pattern of the moderators that emerges, is that other ideas won't work and needn't be considered. Our assessment is comprehensive and needn't be expanded. I think that's a bit arrogant. There is value in the breadth of the user base here, in their knowledge and experience. It feels like that is being dismissed.

With that I'll leave it, as there is no point in contention for contention's sake, if there is no possibility of change.

Does the ban cover e.g. Discussion of Olympic corruption scandal, Discussion of CAHSR construction controversy, Discussion of visa free travel rule related political decision, ?

c933103 wrote:

Does the ban cover e.g. Discussion of Olympic corruption scandal, Discussion of CAHSR construction controversy, Discussion of visa free travel rule related political decision, ?

I'm not going to get involved in specific examples, because we could do that all day. All I can do is point to the line in the rule that says, "Political commentary without aviation context, with the purpose of being inflammatory or injecting political bias, or comments which are fundamentally a political discussion will be removed in all forums." If there's inflammatory or biased language, or if the topic itself exists to be political (referring to election discussion, politician scandals, culture wars, etc.), then it won't be allowed. I can't say where an exact line is yet, because we need to determine first if the change is effective in restricting political bickering.

c933103 wrote:

Does the ban cover e.g. Discussion of Olympic corruption scandal, Discussion of CAHSR construction controversy, Discussion of visa free travel rule related political decision, ?

If your job was to enforce the rules, would you allow them?

It seems like the "aviation context" clause will be problematic. Does Olympics discussions have aviation context? Kinda if you accept most people will fly to the Olympics, and often times airlines sponsor the Olympics in some way. It's hard to say that a construction controversy has some aviation context, no? Maybe if building an airport? Visas imply travel which sort of imply airlines, no?

Some of these things can possibly be discussed in a way that they are not "fundamentally a political discussion", but some seem like they surely and rapidly will become one.

For reference:

a. As some aviation topics relate to politics, political statements related to aviation are permitted, provided the political discussion is merely to provide context to the discussion. Political commentary without aviation context, with the purpose of being inflammatory or injecting political bias, or comments which are fundamentally a political discussion will be removed in all forums. Political commentary must serve a purpose in all forums.
b. Political discussion unrelated to aviation is not permitted in any forum, including the Non Aviation Forum.
c. Political comments made in any forum which are deemed not to be constructive to the discussion are subject to deletion, and posts deemed to be purposely inflammatory may be subject to a warning or ban.

EDIT to add, since we were writing at the same time:

atcsundevil wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Does the ban cover e.g. Discussion of Olympic corruption scandal, Discussion of CAHSR construction controversy, Discussion of visa free travel rule related political decision, ?

I'm not going to get involved in specific examples, because we could do that all day. All I can do is point to the line in the rule that says, "Political commentary without aviation context, with the purpose of being inflammatory or injecting political bias, or comments which are fundamentally a political discussion will be removed in all forums." If there's inflammatory or biased language, or if the topic itself exists to be political (referring to election discussion, politician scandals, culture wars, etc.), then it won't be allowed. I can't say where an exact line is yet, because we need to determine first if the change is effective in restricting political bickering.

Interesting that you didn't apply the "aviation context" clause in a way I would have expected after reading the written rules. I point this out again to suggest the rules may still need polishing in this regard. Not sure how I'd rewrite them to capture things better, but it seems the intent is to avoid politically sensitive topics more so than to require aviation context. I think I would rewrite "without aviation context" as "unrelated to aviation" to broaden the scope of the clause, or even better yet, get rid of the clause entirely since the previous sentence covers the intent.

[twoid][/twoid]

Revelation wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Does the ban cover e.g. Discussion of Olympic corruption scandal, Discussion of CAHSR construction controversy, Discussion of visa free travel rule related political decision, ?

If your job was to enforce the rules, would you allow them?

It seems like the "aviation context" clause will be problematic. Does Olympics discussions have aviation context? Kinda if you accept most people will fly to the Olympics, and often times airlines sponsor the Olympics in some way. It's hard to say that a construction controversy has some aviation context, no? Maybe if building an airport? Visas imply travel which sort of imply airlines, no?

Some of these things can possibly be discussed in a way that they are not "fundamentally a political discussion", but some seem like they surely and rapidly will become one.

For reference:

a. As some aviation topics relate to politics, political statements related to aviation are permitted, provided the political discussion is merely to provide context to the discussion. Political commentary without aviation context, with the purpose of being inflammatory or injecting political bias, or comments which are fundamentally a political discussion will be removed in all forums. Political commentary must serve a purpose in all forums.
b. Political discussion unrelated to aviation is not permitted in any forum, including the Non Aviation Forum.
c. Political comments made in any forum which are deemed not to be constructive to the discussion are subject to deletion, and posts deemed to be purposely inflammatory may be subject to a warning or ban.

Problem is what count and do not count as political, since the word have many layer of meaning
Like corruption of Olympic, I guess it can be said as about politic of how a sport organization is to be operated? CAHSR about the politics of transportation and infrastructure policy? Visa free travel about the politics on border control? But on the otherhand they can also be viewed as matter of whether the sport organizations are healthy, situation of transportation in California, and how easier or harder it is now to travel around the world. So I feel like there is a lack of clarity on what level of discussions are to be considered political for this purpose, or would it ultimately depend on how thread OP frame and construct their discussion?

c933103 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

a. As some aviation topics relate to politics, political statements related to aviation are permitted, provided the political discussion is merely to provide context to the discussion. Political commentary without aviation context, with the purpose of being inflammatory or injecting political bias, or comments which are fundamentally a political discussion will be removed in all forums. Political commentary must serve a purpose in all forums.
b. Political discussion unrelated to aviation is not permitted in any forum, including the Non Aviation Forum.
c. Political comments made in any forum which are deemed not to be constructive to the discussion are subject to deletion, and posts deemed to be purposely inflammatory may be subject to a warning or ban.

Problem is what count and do not count as political, since the word have many layer of meaning
Like corruption of Olympic, I guess it can be said as about politic of how a sport organization is to be operated? CAHSR about the politics of transportation and infrastructure policy? Visa free travel about the politics on border control? But on the otherhand they can also be viewed as matter of whether the sport organizations are healthy, situation of transportation in California, and how easier or harder it is now to travel around the world. So I feel like there is a lack of clarity on what level of discussions are to be considered political for this purpose, or would it ultimately depend on how thread OP frame and construct their discussion?

I think from the rules and some comments here the "lack of clarity" is intentional, it gives some room for latitude. Also there is no way to be clear on what is or is not political, it's impossible. And despite my comments on improving the rules they do indicate to me at least that things do "ultimately depend on how thread OP frame and construct their discussion".

So, I guess I'd step back and say these topics aren't "fundamentally a political discussion" but if the participants ended up "being inflammatory or injecting political bias" their threads would get locked.

Again I ask, how would you apply the rules as written? Do you find them impossible to apply?

From the commentary by the moderator here, it seems very clear that political topics are not desired. I will interpret that as a full ban.

To do otherwise, would be to invite board warnings for which there is no remedy or recourse. You'll just get the same answer we have gotten here.

So proceed at your own risk.

Avatar2go wrote:

From the commentary by the moderator here, it seems very clear that political topics are not desired. I will interpret that as a full ban.

To do otherwise, would be to invite board warnings for which there is no remedy or recourse. You'll just get the same answer we have gotten here.

So proceed at your own risk.

I agree. Given the ambiguities in the rules I wouldn't invest much time in starting a thread that can be seen to be political, nor would I invest much time in writing a post to such a thread. It's the same way I treat civ-av now, since the heavy hand can and does strike without warning and with little recourse.

I think this is sad. I do not recognize the descriptions of division. I think the fright of politics is completely and dead wrong back-wards. The whole situation is glaringly obvious about mod burn out. No one can mod a large forum for years and years and years without a break. Take a step back. Smell the spring. The only ones irreplaceable here are the user community. Use someone else to mod the non av. It's easily seen from the outside, but the Mod posts on this thread reeks of having stayed put for too long. Don't bring the ship down with you.

I am not saying this as a personal critique. I did the same thing myself in my forum. I left it for others after 10 years. No particular reason other than me feeling a bit stale and grumpy and wanting to decide what others should be allowed to discuss. I made small issues uneccesary large and important. Started reading people the wrong way.
Again: The only ones irreplaceable here are the user community.

It kind of says it all when it has been made clear that this decision has been made purely by the mods. Not the site owners. Not the users. The mods also don't trust taking on anyone else to mod the forums they don't want to mod.

Respect for what you've done to date, but zero respect in what you're doing now.

M564038 wrote:

Use someone else to mod the non av.

I've already addressed this at least twice.

M564038 wrote:

It's easily seen from the outside, but the Mod posts on this thread reeks of having stayed put for too long. Don't bring the ship down with you.

I get it. You think I'm burnt out. I'm sure all burnt out moderators are willing to spend hours of their time addressing questions while showing genuine empathy over the situation. I think you can give up on this argument, because it's not holding up. If I were burnt out, I wouldn't have bothered spending my time in this thread over the last three days, I would have locked it and told everyone to live with it. What we're tired of is babysitting discussions that don't relate to the purpose of this website, but that hardly means we're burnt out on this website and fulfilling our role here. There's a big difference, and surely you must see that.

atcsundevil wrote:

I get it. You think I'm burnt out. I'm sure all burnt out moderators are willing to spend hours of their time addressing questions while showing genuine empathy over the situation. I think you can give up on this argument, because it's not holding up. If I were burnt out, I wouldn't have bothered spending my time in this thread over the last three days, I would have locked it and told everyone to live with it. What we're tired of is babysitting discussions that don't relate to the purpose of this website, but that hardly means we're burnt out on this website and fulfilling our role here. There's a big difference, and surely you must see that.

Are you sure? The choice of the word "babysitting" has some pretty telling connotations.

Newark727 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

I get it. You think I'm burnt out. I'm sure all burnt out moderators are willing to spend hours of their time addressing questions while showing genuine empathy over the situation. I think you can give up on this argument, because it's not holding up. If I were burnt out, I wouldn't have bothered spending my time in this thread over the last three days, I would have locked it and told everyone to live with it. What we're tired of is babysitting discussions that don't relate to the purpose of this website, but that hardly means we're burnt out on this website and fulfilling our role here. There's a big difference, and surely you must see that.

Are you sure? The choice of the word "babysitting" has some pretty telling connotations.

They have to watch these political discussions because people in them can't behave themselves.

If the discussions didn't get so heated and go into personal attacks then they might have remained.

leader1 wrote:

It probably would have been a lot easier to just ban the users who make a ruckus. It's usually the same few anyways. Each time they get involved in a thread, it spirals out of control. I guess this is a way of not discriminating against anyone.

They just come back with a new username. Several of them have two or more accounts at any given time for just this situation.

atcsundevil wrote:

[...]What we're tired of is babysitting discussions that don't relate to the purpose of this website, but that hardly means we're burnt out on this website and fulfilling our role here. There's a big difference, and surely you must see that.

I'll clip this and pick on this a moment. I get the "babysitting" part is annoying and frustrating. But the whole point of NON-AVIATION is to discuss non-aviation topics. I am certain that as of next week the thread "Robert Kennedy running for President" will be deemed not allowed and locked so no further discussion can be had. But it is decent enough conversation that is going on. And it is not terrible flamey (though the invisible hands of moderators may be making it just seem that way). I come her for those discussions. And I participate generally respectfully. I do not want to see decently respectful conversations like this end here.

But again, this new rule bans respectful political conversation. (Instead of banning disrespectful posters.)

Regardless if this is an aviation fan/hobbyist/admirer/aficionado site, the range of conversations are broad in non-av. And if anything I would say just make the banhammer harder. Ban people for two weeks, then a month, then permanently if they violate the rules (to which I would advocate that the proposed/soon to be implemented rule be adjusted to state that PEOPLE would be deleted (banned) instead of threads, for violating the rules). As you note, people can sign up for free again if they so wish, they lose nothing... except most kinda like their online persona and want it to persist (I do), so most people will learn fast once posters are removed.

Anyway, I am not expecting to be able to make you reverse the decision (hoping and wishing, yes) but I will have to see how it is implemented for how it will affect my enjoyment and participation here. Ultimately I have concerns that I will not be able to post as I genuinely enjoy good conversation that involves strident viewpoints, which basically is what politics is. So I am not confident of my continued involvement.

Tugg

Okay, at this point, most comments directed at me are no longer part of a productive conversation. I've made our thought process fairly clear on this issue, and I'm not going to get in the weeds and analyze every potential situation. I will address any new questions or concerns that have not already been addressed, but I'm not going to continue answering the same questions or responding to expert analysis of my mood and word choices. I was happy to continue my participation in this thread while it was productive and constructive, but that no longer appears to be the case.

✈️ atcsundevil

I'm no better informed as to how this rule is going to work than I was at the beginning of this thread, and it's clear that there was no intention of getting anyone's input or feedback to alter the content of the decision anyhow, but I suppose my definition of "productive" may not be quite the same as yours.

atcsundevil wrote:

Okay, at this point, most comments directed at me are no longer part of a productive conversation. I've made our thought process fairly clear on this issue, and I'm not going to get in the weeds and analyze every potential situation. I will address any new questions or concerns that have not already been addressed, but I'm not going to continue answering the same questions or responding to expert analysis of my mood and word choices. I was happy to continue my participation in this thread while it was productive and constructive, but that no longer appears to be the case.

✈️ atcsundevil

Apologies of I am part of that. Not intended but rather the result of your being the only Mod participating and putting their thoughts in writing. And I was responding to what you wrote. Anyway (again), as I said we will have to wait and see how the rule(s) affect effective discussion in non-av before we will know the results.

Thank you for spending your time here replying as you did.

Tugg

atcsundevil wrote:

Okay, at this point, most comments directed at me are no longer part of a productive conversation. I've made our thought process fairly clear on this issue, and I'm not going to get in the weeds and analyze every potential situation. I will address any new questions or concerns that have not already been addressed, but I'm not going to continue answering the same questions or responding to expert analysis of my mood and word choices. I was happy to continue my participation in this thread while it was productive and constructive, but that no longer appears to be the case.

✈️ atcsundevil

With all due respect to you as a moderator, this is an example of the attitudinal problem we are trying to convey to you. You don't want to be criticized for not incorporating participation of the governed, into the role of governance. But that is in fact what you have done, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

You mentioned that you are burned out on this issue, and believe me, it shows. That results in a bunker mentality wherein you perceive us as the problem. When in fact, we are almost entirely on your side. Most of us would like to see the problems you cited be resolved. The main difference is, whether other options than banishment, might be explored or considered.

Just as an example, which is not intended as criticism but rather for expository purposes, one approach might be to gather statistical data on the issues and present it to the forum. Here is the workload we are experiencing. Here are the number of deletions we have to undertake. Here are the number of users that try to circumvent bans. As a percentage of the total traffic & posts & users. That quantifies the problem, fosters understanding within the user base, and enlists the aid of the users in determining a resolution. We want to help you.

If you instead perceive the issue as only you have the power to resolve it, that precludes most of the solution space. And that's a perception you are again taking unilaterally, which is consistent with the general theme I've outlined here.

Lastly to clarify, I'm using the collective "you" here, as in the moderators, not as in "you" personally. This is not a personal issue, it's a conflict of perception and inclusion. Are we the problem, or are we a resource? We have elements of both, for sure. But if you only see one, you cut yourself off from the other.

Can we get a confirmation if the Ukraine war threads will still remain active ? This is the biggest story in the world right now and it would be a huge mistake to shut them down.

alberchico wrote:

Can we get a confirmation if the Ukraine war threads will still remain active ? This is the biggest story in the world right now and it would be a huge mistake to shut them down.

For now, I'll say the news feed thread can continue, but probably not the discussion thread. Obviously it isn't only my decision to make, so it will be up to whatever the moderating team decides.

atcsundevil wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Can we get a confirmation if the Ukraine war threads will still remain active ? This is the biggest story in the world right now and it would be a huge mistake to shut them down.

For now, I'll say the news feed thread can continue, but probably not the discussion thread. Obviously it isn't only my decision to make, so it will be up to whatever the moderating team decides.

Expect site visits to go way down... This should clear the forum for those very informative posts on museum ships, places to eat at in Tokyo and the most important post offices and water faucets.

johns624 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Can we get a confirmation if the Ukraine war threads will still remain active ? This is the biggest story in the world right now and it would be a huge mistake to shut them down.

For now, I'll say the news feed thread can continue, but probably not the discussion thread. Obviously it isn't only my decision to make, so it will be up to whatever the moderating team decides.

Expect site visits to go way down... This should clear the forum for those very informative posts on museum ships, places to eat at in Tokyo and the most important post offices and water faucets.

That's the point, that stuff is easy to moderate.

Hi all. Just a quick question. Is it really necessary to have so many political threads running? When I first joined (paid membership) I remember NON AV being a fun place to visit. Lots of silly posts that were great fun. Personally, I have no interest in politics. Surely we can all live without the continuous political debate. I'm not taking any sides here, but, I would love to see more 'silly' topics. Take Care. John

I would argue you are probably going to have more work as a mod after these new rules are imposed. It's almost impossible to not stumble into a political debate on any subject that's how divided this country is right now, It really won't affect me much I spend most of my time on suspension anyway and or my threads deleted,

Who cares if the discussions get heated? This is overkill on the part of the moderators. If you don't like the political discussions, then don't participate.
This whole thing is a joke.

Maybe this discussion is getting a bit too serious? The Non-Aviation forum for me is a fun place to visit. If some thread gets out of hand politically (and some do) I simply ignore it. Unless there are threats of bodily harm or property damage, and this would seem like a very extreme case, who cares? (in a good sense) If there is some easy way for the moderators to limit someone to X posts a day (e.g., X=1) that could be a useful step, it would seem. Maybe the Non-Aviation forum could be unmoderated, or with very minor moderation, i.e., come at your own risk, stay at your own risk. I wouldn't make it a big deal.

IADFCO wrote:

Maybe this discussion is getting a bit too serious? The Non-Aviation forum for me is a fun place to visit. If some thread gets out of hand politically (and some do) I simply ignore it. Unless there are threats of bodily harm or property damage, and this would seem like a very extreme case, who cares? (in a good sense) If there is some easy way for the moderators to limit someone to X posts a day (e.g., X=1) that could be a useful step, it would seem. Maybe the Non-Aviation forum could be unmoderated, or with very minor moderation, i.e., come at your own risk, stay at your own risk. I wouldn't make it a big deal.

We feel that it's supposed to be a fun place to visit. Some people believe that should entail heated political debates, but we as a moderating team disagree with that. Unfortunately there's no way to limit who posts where or how frequently. It's either active or inactive through an account ban. I don't think that we're prepared to allow the forum go unmoderated, and I'm guessing that VerticalScope wouldn't be happy with that either. They don't play any role in how we moderate the forum, but I think there's a good chance they'd take issue with a hands-off approach.

The "political" nature of the Non Aviation forum is nothing compared to what it used to be. As someone who faced years of harassment and even bullying for my political positions in that forum, which spilled over into my personal life for years, I still don't see why you'd essentially neuter what is now a much healthier discussion.

Why not create another Non Aviation P/R forum. Other sites separate off topic like that, so I don't see a reason to do anything different.

The thing is that discussing politics outside the echo chamber is 100% a good thing.
People that agree in the politics disagree on other issues and vice versa. There is a certain poster which agree almost 100% with in political matters, that I listen a bit extra to in aviation matters because I know he/she is smart and have their heart in the right place. Even though I almost always disagree. And very often the other way around. It is easier to put myself in someone’s political shoes when I know they do brilliant analysis on some very complicated aviation matters. This is the opposite of divisive.
We need more of this. Not less.

It is a shame that the moderators do not seem to realize that the non-aviation forum was unique in that you could discuss politics and other non-aviation topics with people who share the same interest in aviation as you. That is not available anywhere else.

Together with the degeneration of the civil aviation forum over the past years into mostly a bunch of generic threads (Cleveland Aviation Thread, Porter Airlines Aviation Thread, Airbus A330 and A340 Movements Thread, <Fill in your own niche> Thread, etc), there are not many reasons left for me to visit this site.

But all good things must come to an end, and I certainly understand that moderating the non-aviation forum was not fun at all.

To all posters who I have had interesting and respectful discussions with, thank you and all the best.

AeroVega wrote:

It is a shame that the moderators do not seem to realize that the non-aviation forum was unique in that you could discuss politics and other non-aviation topics with people who share the same interest in aviation as you. That is not available anywhere else.

Together with the degeneration of the civil aviation forum over the past years into mostly a bunch of generic threads (Cleveland Aviation Thread, Porter Airlines Aviation Thread, Airbus A330 and A340 Movements Thread, <Fill in your own niche> Thread, etc), there are not many reasons left for me to visit this site.

I agree, the heavy handed moderation is what has made this site a sea of boring content, with only occasional outbreaks of interesting content that usually gets snuffed out in a day or so by (you guessed it) heavy-handed moderation.

AeroVega wrote:

It is a shame that the moderators do not seem to realize that the non-aviation forum was unique in that you could discuss politics and other non-aviation topics with people who share the same interest in aviation as you. That is not available anywhere else.

Together with the degeneration of the civil aviation forum over the past years into mostly a bunch of generic threads (Cleveland Aviation Thread, Porter Airlines Aviation Thread, Airbus A330 and A340 Movements Thread, <Fill in your own niche> Thread, etc), there are not many reasons left for me to visit this site.

But all good things must come to an end, and I certainly understand that moderating the non-aviation forum was not fun at all.

To all posters who I have had interesting and respectful discussions with, thank you and all the best.

100% agree, there were good and spirited debates, and I don't hold a grudge against anyone.
Some very interesting conversations that unfortunately have been snuffed out.

I really wish there was another solution than a hard ban.

atcsundevil wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Can we get a confirmation if the Ukraine war threads will still remain active ? This is the biggest story in the world right now and it would be a huge mistake to shut them down.

For now, I'll say the news feed thread can continue, but probably not the discussion thread. Obviously it isn't only my decision to make, so it will be up to whatever the moderating team decides.

Please don't take this as a personal issue, but that's clearly a nonsensical situation. Given these two threads:

Discussion thread - over one million views and over 13,200 posts
News Feed thread - less than 60,000 views and barely 200 posts and last post a month ago

you're suggesting keeping the pointless news feed thread and trashing the discussion thread?

I fully accept that we don't know how much moderation is or has happened in the discussion thread, but the tone of the thread is very different to most other "political" and I'd argue that most of the posts in there are far from political.

It's beyond sad if the Ukraine war discussion thread gets canned.

scbriml wrote:

It's beyond sad if the Ukraine war discussion thread gets canned.

Absolutely true!

That said, it would not surprise me at all if the usual politically obsessed posters highjacked the thread and got it closed regardless, should the thread be kept open.

I guess I’ll spend more time over at Reddit then at this site. Ooh well, I’ve had a good 20+ year run here. Who knows what will happen when traffic at non-av declines.

scbriml wrote:

I fully accept that we don't know how much moderation is or has happened in the discussion thread, but the tone of the thread is very different to most other "political" and I'd argue that most of the posts in there are far from political.

It's beyond sad if the Ukraine war discussion thread gets canned.

The question is, what do the moderators consider "political"?
Is it "political" to talk about a war at all? Would it be ok to just discuss technological aspects, like whether tank A can beat tank B? Or is "political" just day-to-day US domestic politics, including discussions about who wants to support Ukraine?

Even mundane topics are easily political. A car is just a vehicle, and discussions about its powerplant are not necessarily political. However, the policies that let one technology become more or less advantageous, as well as the political ramifications of the use of some technology, both domestic (e.g. unemployment) and foreign (e.g. resource exploitation), are closely tied to the technological discussion.

Of course we can discuss whether steak should be eaten well done or raw, and yet there are important political discussions to be had regarding where meat comes from, how much meat is sustainable and healthy, and also why certain foods are popular or safe to eat in some places but not in others.