MSPbrandon wrote:

salttee wrote:

A scenario that has slipped through the rules occurs when a poster presents intentional false information as fact in thread title or text.

There currently is a post in non-av that makes a bold claim in the title and is repeated in the text of the OP, but the link provided to support the claim is clear in stating otherwise (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1387733&p=20209637#p20209529) (upon being called out, the OP has now changed the title but left the false claim in the text.)

This is not the only instance of such behavior I have encountered here, and I consider the attempt to pass off false information to be a serious violation of forum integrity. A history forum I have posted on for years has a policy of issuing a permanent ban for a first offense of willful fudging of facts. I would like to see the same policy here in all the forums.

I didn't intentionally present false info. I was just tired and almost half-asleep when posting. Simple mistake.

Just for the record, you did not make the mistake you think you did, it actually was reported as you posted early on in the news cycle. The media was wrong. As for the man making the complaint, pot, kettle, black.

Partisan moderation certainly can be a problem. Deleting multiple replies to a factually false and inflammatory post, but refusing to delete the original inflammatory post, which happened to reinforce the moderator's personal viewpoint, was one recent example.

"A history forum I have posted on for years has a policy of issuing a permanent ban for a first offense of willful fudging of facts. I would like to see the same policy here in all the forums."

That would be like the death sentence. Easy but no recourse for errors on the judgement side.
( which is probably one reason for popularity of the DS.? wrong judgement and make it stick.)

Does "thread bumping" count for active threads? I have a piece of information regarding construction at CMH relevant to the current conversation I wasn't aware of until well after I made the last post in the thread which, at this point, is the last post in the thread.

In other words, does double-posting = thread bumping and do I have to wait until someone else says something to post again?

DeltaRules wrote:

Does "thread bumping" count for active threads? I have a piece of information regarding construction at CMH relevant to the current conversation I wasn't aware of until well after I made the last post in the thread which, at this point, is the last post in the thread.

In other words, does double-posting = thread bumping and do I have to wait until someone else says something to post again?

Thread bumps are two things:
1. Replying to a thread that hasn't been posted to in more than six months (you can email the moderators to get around this, so we can approve it on a case-by-case basis)
2. Replying to your own thread with the purpose of eliciting responses

If the thread is still active, and you have something relevant to post, then it's not a thread bump.

atcsundevil wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Does "thread bumping" count for active threads? I have a piece of information regarding construction at CMH relevant to the current conversation I wasn't aware of until well after I made the last post in the thread which, at this point, is the last post in the thread.

In other words, does double-posting = thread bumping and do I have to wait until someone else says something to post again?

Thread bumps are two things:
1. Replying to a thread that hasn't been posted to in more than six months (you can email the moderators to get around this, so we can approve it on a case-by-case basis)
2. Replying to your own thread with the purpose of eliciting responses

If the thread is still active, and you have something relevant to post, then it's not a thread bump.

Great, thanks!

I posted a response to a comment on a thread that was disapproved for being off topic. How can the comment I was responding to be on topic when a response to it is off topic? What a great introduction to this website.

ClaudBing wrote:

I posted a response to a comment on a thread that was disapproved for being off topic. How can the comment I was responding to be on topic when a response to it is off topic? What a great introduction to this website.

It's best if you report the post being "Off Topic" and we will gladly remove it if need be. There is no need for you guys to comment whether a post is on or off topic, that is the moderators job. You are more than welcome to report the post.

Thanks

jetmechanicdave wrote:

ClaudBing wrote:

I posted a response to a comment on a thread that was disapproved for being off topic. How can the comment I was responding to be on topic when a response to it is off topic? What a great introduction to this website.

It's best if you report the post being "Off Topic" and we will gladly remove it if need be. There is no need for you guys to comment whether a post is on or off topic, that is the moderators job. You are more than welcome to report the post.

Thanks

I think he was saying that the original post wasn't deleted but his response to the post was deleted, for being off topic.

DDR wrote:

jetmechanicdave wrote:

ClaudBing wrote:

I posted a response to a comment on a thread that was disapproved for being off topic. How can the comment I was responding to be on topic when a response to it is off topic? What a great introduction to this website.

It's best if you report the post being "Off Topic" and we will gladly remove it if need be. There is no need for you guys to comment whether a post is on or off topic, that is the moderators job. You are more than welcome to report the post.

Thanks

I think he was saying that the original post wasn't deleted but his response to the post was deleted, for being off topic.

The user's post wasn't deleted, it just wasn't approved as he/she is a new user. New user posts require Moderator approval before going live, and are thus subject to more scrutiny. We expect new users to have a basic understanding of our rules and basic decorum, so as not to upset existing users.

atcsundevil wrote:

DDR wrote:

jetmechanicdave wrote:

It's best if you report the post being "Off Topic" and we will gladly remove it if need be. There is no need for you guys to comment whether a post is on or off topic, that is the moderators job. You are more than welcome to report the post.

Thanks

I think he was saying that the original post wasn't deleted but his response to the post was deleted, for being off topic.

The user's post wasn't deleted, it just wasn't approved as he/she is a new user. New user posts require Moderator approval before going live, and are thus subject to more scrutiny. We expect new users to have a basic understanding of our rules and basic decorum, so as not to upset existing users.

Thanks for keeping us safe and not upset.

atcsundevil wrote:

DDR wrote:

jetmechanicdave wrote:

It's best if you report the post being "Off Topic" and we will gladly remove it if need be. There is no need for you guys to comment whether a post is on or off topic, that is the moderators job. You are more than welcome to report the post.

Thanks

I think he was saying that the original post wasn't deleted but his response to the post was deleted, for being off topic.

The user's post wasn't deleted, it just wasn't approved as he/she is a new user. New user posts require Moderator approval before going live, and are thus subject to more scrutiny. We expect new users to have a basic understanding of our rules and basic decorum, so as not to upset existing users.

Ok, got it. And I agree with the rule too.

What happened to the "American Airlines AAirpass" thread?

william wrote:

What happened to the "American Airlines AAirpass" thread?

Users that have threads deleted will either be contacted by a moderator, or must contact us via email. In this case, the former occurred. It is longstanding policy that will not discuss deletions in an open forum.

Sorry I've probably been in violation of these rules, having created four network threads on my own, and posting into a ~2 year old timetable thread. On the network threads DL/UA/WN/F9, does that mean that those should be moderator created then? Sorry, I hadn't realized these rules (back) then.

SumChristianus wrote:

Sorry I've probably been in violation of these rules, having created four network threads on my own, and posting into a ~2 year old timetable thread. On the network threads DL/UA/WN/F9, does that mean that those should be moderator created then? Sorry, I hadn't realized these rules (back) then.

With regard to the threads, that's more of the case that we want to be responsible for managing the threads when they cycle, i.e. a 2018 thread being locked and a 2019 thread started. We had some users who would start new threads whenever they wanted, which didn't fit with our system of cycling threads on predetermined time intervals. It also leaves two threads of the same topic unlocked until we get to it, which is messy. We phased that in at the start of 2017, and fully implemented it for 2018, so some people are still getting used to it. Most users seem pretty happy with it, because it makes things organized, and in the future, it will make it easier to reference archived discussions.

If users want to create new general topics that don't already exist (city, state, region, country, airline, aircraft type, etc.), anyone is free to do so. We encourage it, in fact. It helps us if you start it with the same format as other general topic threads, because otherwise we'll end up changing it anyway. For example, "Northwest Florida Aviation Thread - 2018" or "Business Jet Discussion Thread - 2018". All new threads will be on one year intervals unless there's enough demand to warrant it cycling more frequently, but that's a determination that we'll make. At the end of the year, we'll lock your thread, and we'll be responsible for starting a new one.

As for thread bumps, we've been enforcing the six month rule for a while, but it's only recently been added specifically to the rules. The old site locked dormant threads after a few weeks, but we don't do that on the new site. If users want to post to old threads inactive for longer than six months, we just ask that you get our permission first. Some users get very grouchy about thread bumps, because the autolock feature on the old site created an expectation that threads always contain current information. Old news being bumped can sometimes cause unintended clickbait, so people get upset when they realize they've been duped by an old thread. We would prefer that users just start a new topic if a thread doesn't exist or isn't current, and they can always link to or reference from the old topic.

atcsundevil wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

Sorry I've probably been in violation of these rules, having created four network threads on my own, and posting into a ~2 year old timetable thread. On the network threads DL/UA/WN/F9, does that mean that those should be moderator created then? Sorry, I hadn't realized these rules (back) then.

Thank you, sorry again for that.

I would like to ask that the Moderators and anyone else who controls this site take RESPONSIBILITY for thread titles. At present, thread titles are written in sucha manner that sometimes they are unintelligible, or are written in the worst possible English. I don't want to be a grammar policeman, but it is flagrantly horrible to see titles where fundamental English language rules are broken!

The last time I remarked on a thread title (today), my post was deleted very quickly, and the awful English thread title is still there! I don't know the TORs of a moderator, but just deleting a post that may be off topic but points up a valid error in the thread title seems a bit unbalanced, to say the least!

sassiciai wrote:

I would like to ask that the Moderators and anyone else who controls this site take RESPONSIBILITY for thread titles. At present, thread titles are written in sucha manner that sometimes they are unintelligible, or are written in the worst possible English. I don't want to be a grammar policeman, but it is flagrantly horrible to see titles where fundamental English language rules are broken!

The last time I remarked on a thread title (today), my post was deleted very quickly, and the awful English thread title is still there! I don't know the TORs of a moderator, but just deleting a post that may be off topic but points up a valid error in the thread title seems a bit unbalanced, to say the least!

May I remind you that not everyone here is a native English speaker and instead of making a post in the respective thread please report it to moderators so we can have a look at it.

sassiciai wrote:

I would like to ask that the Moderators and anyone else who controls this site take RESPONSIBILITY for thread titles. At present, thread titles are written in sucha manner that sometimes they are unintelligible, or are written in the worst possible English. I don't want to be a grammar policeman, but it is flagrantly horrible to see titles where fundamental English language rules are broken!

The last time I remarked on a thread title (today), my post was deleted very quickly, and the awful English thread title is still there! I don't know the TORs of a moderator, but just deleting a post that may be off topic but points up a valid error in the thread title seems a bit unbalanced, to say the least!

Just report the post and we'll fix it if we don't see it first. Posting comments correcting a user's writing is off-topic and can sometimes come off as rude; we delete it because, as previously mentioned, not everyone here is a native English speaker, and there are no forum requirements to be a perfect writer. People make mistakes according to their own abilities, and it's often unfair to be critical of those mistakes. Obviously we'll delete unintelligible posts, but we can't expect everyone to post with flawless spelling, grammar, and punctuation. If there's a mistake in the title, we would like to fix it, but there's no need to call them out publicly. Just report it, suggest a replacement title, and we'll handle it accordingly. However, posts that are critical of a user's writing abilities will continue to be deleted, as it has nothing to do with the topic.