Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
keesje wrote:I would prefer a forum dedicated to Helicopter & VTOL and/or UAV over a forum on politics.
Because
- this is an aviation site
- these areas could generate interesting new topics
- it could attract new members and sponsors
keesje wrote:Politics (coming soon) This forum is the ONLY forum on the website in which political comments or discussions may take place, even if they are aviation related.
I would prefer a forum dedicated to Helicopter & VTOL and/or UAV over a forum on politics.
Because
- this is an aviation site
- these areas could generate interesting new topics
- it could attract new members and sponsors
atcsundevil wrote:keesje wrote:Politics (coming soon) This forum is the ONLY forum on the website in which political comments or discussions may take place, even if they are aviation related.
I would prefer a forum dedicated to Helicopter & VTOL and/or UAV over a forum on politics.
Because
- this is an aviation site
- these areas could generate interesting new topics
- it could attract new members and sponsors
The politics forum has been requested by a large number of users, because political subjects have completely dominated the Non Aviation Forum for quite some time. There's a very active group of users who participate in Non Av, but are tired of being inundated with politics. Splitting it into a dedicated forum would ensure that only users wanting to see political discussion would be exposed to it. A helicopter/UAV forum is an interesting idea, but this is literally the first time I've heard that suggested. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but we'd need to see a significant interest in the idea before we could consider it. Some users are already upset when topics are moved from Civ Av to a more appropriate forum, so a further splitting of aviation topics might not be very popular.
keesje wrote:atcsundevil wrote:keesje wrote:Politics (coming soon) This forum is the ONLY forum on the website in which political comments or discussions may take place, even if they are aviation related.
I would prefer a forum dedicated to Helicopter & VTOL and/or UAV over a forum on politics.
Because
- this is an aviation site
- these areas could generate interesting new topics
- it could attract new members and sponsors
The politics forum has been requested by a large number of users, because political subjects have completely dominated the Non Aviation Forum for quite some time. There's a very active group of users who participate in Non Av, but are tired of being inundated with politics. Splitting it into a dedicated forum would ensure that only users wanting to see political discussion would be exposed to it. A helicopter/UAV forum is an interesting idea, but this is literally the first time I've heard that suggested. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but we'd need to see a significant interest in the idea before we could consider it. Some users are already upset when topics are moved from Civ Av to a more appropriate forum, so a further splitting of aviation topics might not be very popular.
Hi I suggested the helicopter forum already many times & got support. The tragically passed away owner even got convinced at some point. IMO it would be a valuable contribution. Few dedicated helicopter topics while it is a broad interesting aviation field.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1323199
atcsundevil wrote:keesje wrote:atcsundevil wrote:The politics forum has been requested by a large number of users, because political subjects have completely dominated the Non Aviation Forum for quite some time. There's a very active group of users who participate in Non Av, but are tired of being inundated with politics. Splitting it into a dedicated forum would ensure that only users wanting to see political discussion would be exposed to it. A helicopter/UAV forum is an interesting idea, but this is literally the first time I've heard that suggested. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but we'd need to see a significant interest in the idea before we could consider it. Some users are already upset when topics are moved from Civ Av to a more appropriate forum, so a further splitting of aviation topics might not be very popular.
Hi I suggested the helicopter forum already many times & got support. The tragically passed away owner even got convinced at some point. IMO it would be a valuable contribution. Few dedicated helicopter topics while it is a broad interesting aviation field.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1323199
14 years ago is probably why I don't remember it! The site has obviously changed a lot since then, so we'd need to gage interest from current members. Like I said, I'm not against the idea, but we'd need to make sure enough people would engage in the forum before going through the effort to make changes. I would recommend making a new thread in Site Related to start the discussion.
keesje wrote:atcsundevil wrote:keesje wrote:
Hi I suggested the helicopter forum already many times & got support. The tragically passed away owner even got convinced at some point. IMO it would be a valuable contribution. Few dedicated helicopter topics while it is a broad interesting aviation field.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1323199
14 years ago is probably why I don't remember it! The site has obviously changed a lot since then, so we'd need to gage interest from current members. Like I said, I'm not against the idea, but we'd need to make sure enough people would engage in the forum before going through the effort to make changes. I would recommend making a new thread in Site Related to start the discussion.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1385281
Cubsrule wrote:In addition, I'm not sure that banning political discussions from CivAv is appropriate or workable. How do we discuss things like merger approvals without discussing the politics that informs those approvals? Or would merger approval discussions have to go in the Politics forum?
Political Discussion
1. 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 aviation forums. Political commentary must serve a purpose in aviation forums.
2. Political discussion unrelated to aviation, or aviation topics primarily rooted in politics are limited to the Non-Aviation Forum.
Cubsrule wrote:I remain concerned about some of the delineation between fora and inconsistent moderation. Do posts about operational meltdowns (DL at ATL, WN at MDW) belong in CivAv or TechOps? Moderators have put them both places recently.
Cubsrule wrote:In addition, I'm not sure that banning political discussions from CivAv is appropriate or workable. How do we discuss things like merger approvals without discussing the politics that informs those approvals? Or would merger approval discussions have to go in the Politics forum?
atcsundevil wrote:Cubsrule wrote:I remain concerned about some of the delineation between fora and inconsistent moderation. Do posts about operational meltdowns (DL at ATL, WN at MDW) belong in CivAv or TechOps? Moderators have put them both places recently.
I agree that more consistency is needed, but please understand that in many cases, our decision will make people unhappy regardless of what we do. Sometimes threads like that are phrased in such a way that makes them applicable to either forum. If we leave it in Civ Av, we get hell from users who think it belongs in Tech Ops. If we move it, we get hell from users who think it should have stayed in Civ Av. Sometimes we're forced to make a decision and stick with it, because everyone has different interpretations of forum delineation. I'm not sure how to improve that delineation, but we're certainly open to ideas.
atcsundevil wrote:I agree that more consistency is needed, but please understand that in many cases, our decision will make people unhappy regardless of what we do. Sometimes threads like that are phrased in such a way that makes them applicable to either forum. If we leave it in Civ Av, we get hell from users who think it belongs in Tech Ops. If we move it, we get hell from users who think it should have stayed in Civ Av. Sometimes we're forced to make a decision and stick with it, because everyone has different interpretations of forum delineation. I'm not sure how to improve that delineation, but we're certainly open to ideas.
2. Threads that have been inactive for six (6) months or more (meaning the last post in the thread was made six months or more from the current date) are not to be commented on, and should remain permanently dormant unless the user first seeks approval from a Moderator to post in that thread.
atcsundevil wrote:Cubsrule wrote:I remain concerned about some of the delineation between fora and inconsistent moderation. Do posts about operational meltdowns (DL at ATL, WN at MDW) belong in CivAv or TechOps? Moderators have put them both places recently.
I agree that more consistency is needed, but please understand that in many cases, our decision will make people unhappy regardless of what we do. Sometimes threads like that are phrased in such a way that makes them applicable to either forum. If we leave it in Civ Av, we get hell from users who think it belongs in Tech Ops. If we move it, we get hell from users who think it should have stayed in Civ Av. Sometimes we're forced to make a decision and stick with it, because everyone has different interpretations of forum delineation. I'm not sure how to improve that delineation, but we're certainly open to idea.
MSPbrandon wrote:Why is swearing not allowed ? As long as a poster isn't using swear words to insult someone,I don't think there should be a problem with it. I feel it's over-censoring. Besides, it's 2018, not 1958.
redngold wrote:2. Head Moderator: headmoderators@airliners.net
Check this e-mail address. Shouldn't it be headmoderator@airliners.net (no plural) or is it really plural as an established account?
enilria wrote:The rules here baffle me. On the one hand I posted a thread last night from a newspaper article about how SY is laying off 20% of its employees. It's deleted. There is no dupe thread. I can only guess that it is being discussed inside some other thread and how would anyone know that?
enilria wrote:Meanwhile, I post my OAG thread each week and in the headline list the notable route changes. For example, "DL Adds SEA-XXX". Within half a day there is a thread specific to the new route from my thread title and the mods just let it go. Why do I even bother these schedule changes so people can scoop them up and start their own threads with the info?
enilria wrote:Similarly, there was a thread posted on Airbus engine problems and it was deleted, Reposted. Deleted. This happened like 12 times and finally on the 13th try it was allowed. ???
atcsundevil wrote:enilria wrote:The rules here baffle me. On the one hand I posted a thread last night from a newspaper article about how SY is laying off 20% of its employees. It's deleted. There is no dupe thread. I can only guess that it is being discussed inside some other thread and how would anyone know that?
Your thread wasn't deleted, it was merged. A quick search of your posts should have led you to it. I wasn't the Moderator that took this action, but if you email us, you can receive an explanation.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1371407&p=20189805#p20189805enilria wrote:Meanwhile, I post my OAG thread each week and in the headline list the notable route changes. For example, "DL Adds SEA-XXX". Within half a day there is a thread specific to the new route from my thread title and the mods just let it go. Why do I even bother these schedule changes so people can scoop them up and start their own threads with the info?
Everyone appreciates your work on the OAG threads. No one is questioning that. It's not fair, however, for all route discussion contained in the OAG thread to be limited to the OAG thread. If other users want to have a separate discussion about a specific route or affects on an airport/airline from those changes, then it isn't our place to tell them they can't do that. It's not a duplicate topic, it's a split discussion. It's not fair for a user to effectively claim ownership over a blanket set of topics. There's plenty of discussion that happens in the OAG threads already, so it's not like your thread is receiving any less attention with there being offshoots of the discussion.enilria wrote:Similarly, there was a thread posted on Airbus engine problems and it was deleted, Reposted. Deleted. This happened like 12 times and finally on the 13th try it was allowed. ???
I don't know anything about this, but maybe another Moderator does. If you have an issue with something, then email us so we can answer when it happens.
enilria wrote:But why is SY laying off 20% of their workforce not worthy of its own thread, but "DL Adds SEA-XXX" is worthy of two titled threads? I don't get it.
csturdiv wrote:The forums just got better for me. Despite the rule of no political discussions, there is a user with a signature that contains some political and social comments that seem to want to ignite debates and pushes a view. Found out that you can hide signatures, nice. I do not need to see those revelations.
atcsundevil wrote:A.Net Community,
It is important to us to get user feedback before these rules go "live". None of the changes fundamentally impact how things work on this forum; instead, our attempt is to better define rules and policies to bring clarity, particularly to new users.
These new rules will be effective on March 1, 2018. Until that time, we encourage all users to read through and provide any constructive comments or criticism. Unhelpful, unconstructive, or otherwise disrespectful comments may be removed at the discretion of Moderators -- we want actual feedback that will enhance the user experience on this site.
We appreciate your feedback.
Moderators
qf789 wrote:csturdiv wrote:The forums just got better for me. Despite the rule of no political discussions, there is a user with a signature that contains some political and social comments that seem to want to ignite debates and pushes a view. Found out that you can hide signatures, nice. I do not need to see those revelations.
As per the rules political commentary will not be allowed in a user's signature. If you come across a signature that has political commentary please report the post so we can take a look and take further action if required
VapourTrails wrote:
Also, a great initiative of separating out the political discussion from the other discussion (in Non-Aviation) given the amount in that forum nowadays.
Posting in the Discussion forum g. Thread Bumps has now been addressed in the replies here, but is the locking of threads entirely a manual-based system now? Gives mods more control over it perhaps, but also more work is then required by the Moderators?
h. Thread Titles – Is there a character limit for the Thread Titles? I appreciate it is much more generous here now than the old site, but I have seen Thread Titles that are in excess of 100 characters. This is really good for Trip Reports, but how long is too long?
p. Use of Signatures and Avatars – 3. “They also may not be used to misrepresent the user, or imply that the user has an alternate identity.” Can you provide some clarification, or an example on this? Most users don't have their actual photo or their real identity on the site? Sorry, got confused here with the meaning of this rule.
On another note, cartoons are OK to use as avatars?
q. Continuous Threads - 2. & 4. “The thread will be locked by Moderators.” But then – “These threads will not be locked and recycled based on post of page count.” May just be me, but I got lost here at 4. – it seems a bit ambiguous, or at the very least, unclear – what does this mean?
7. Communication with Moderators b. Contacting Moderators via Private Message (PM) – Should 2. be listed before 1.? - it reads better. Sorry, may be a formatting issue here, but 2. seems more important in regard to having the rule there in the first place.
c. Communication with Moderators – Chat Operators? There is no chat room, or will not be for the foreseeable future, this role is obsolete?
Finally, thank you for allowing enough time to look through the rules and request and address the feedback from users.
VapourTrails wrote:Finally, thank you for allowing enough time to look through the rules and request and address the feedback from users.
CCGPV wrote:No politics in signatures but dead children in avatars are just fine? I've seen one user have a photo of a drowned, dead child in theirs for over a year.
qf789 wrote:727LOVER wrote:k. Links to Competing Sites
1. Do not post links or references to other sites which compete directly with or seek to diminish the mission of Airliners.net.
I didn't realize this site had competitors.
I've actually done this quite a bit.
What if it's relevant to a thread?
If the thread is about Eastern 401...and I want to show a pic? Well guess what?...there aren't any on this site.
What is wrong with linking it from another aviation site as opposed to a news site?
If it is relevant to the thread I would suggest emailing us for permission to post first and that is providing the picture is not available on a.net. We would prefer you to use the picture off a news site if the picture is not available here. This rule is in place to protect the Airliners.net brand, obviously we want to promoting Airliners.net and not other competing sites
Indy wrote:qf789 wrote:727LOVER wrote:k. Links to Competing Sites
1. Do not post links or references to other sites which compete directly with or seek to diminish the mission of Airliners.net.
I didn't realize this site had competitors.
I've actually done this quite a bit.
What if it's relevant to a thread?
If the thread is about Eastern 401...and I want to show a pic? Well guess what?...there aren't any on this site.
What is wrong with linking it from another aviation site as opposed to a news site?
If it is relevant to the thread I would suggest emailing us for permission to post first and that is providing the picture is not available on a.net. We would prefer you to use the picture off a news site if the picture is not available here. This rule is in place to protect the Airliners.net brand, obviously we want to promoting Airliners.net and not other competing sites
I can see not wanting people to advertise a competing website, but overall this rule comes across as a bit petty. If you want to maintain the quality of posts on this site, you are going to get posts and pictures from sites you deem to be competitors. I'd rethink this one. It is a poor rule as written and needs to be reworked.
w. Do not post links or references to other sites which compete directly with or seek to diminish the mission of https://www.airliners.net. Similarly, do not embed photographs from competing websites in forum posts.
atcsundevil wrote:In any case, it doesn't actually come up that often. We just don't want people linking to other competing forums in a way that causes us to potentially draw our users away.
Pictures from other websites is a whole other deal, because that can run into copyright issues, so we generally discourage it in the first place.
Indy wrote:As an example... I see links to FlyerTalk fairly often. Is that considered a competing site? You certainly wouldn't want to frown on people posting those links because sometimes FT gets the story first. Better to share the link than to not cover the story here. FT is also used as a rumor reference.
Indy wrote:When it comes to images I would say it depends. Obviously hot linking is frown upon pretty much globally unless the originating sources has provided tools for hot linking as some do. Copyrights are always a sensitive area and people should use good judgement. My thinking has always been.... if in doubt don't post it.
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.
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.
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.
flyinggoat wrote:Overall, I’d say the mods do a good job on this site, however, I do feel that there is some inconsistency in what is allowed/not allowed, particularly in the political or religious topics. Hateful comments towards Christians, Conservatives, or Jews seem to be tolerated more than hate comments directed towards other groups (Muslims, minorities, liberals, etc). The Billy Graham thread had some pretty hateful rhetoric in it, but rather than deleting these posts, the topic was locked instead.
I would ask for more consistency in the political or religious threads, but otherwise, you mods have done a splendid job. Thank you.
slider wrote:The flippin United States Constitution has fewer words!!
These rules are bollocks unless you remove the arbitrary and capricious nature of enforcement by the mods. Far too often, especially in political context, threads and posts are selectively and curiously deleted on the whims of a mod, who, coincidentally, would share the same political viewpoint.
Moreover, there are way too many thin-skinned people here who whine to moderators because their snowflake feelings were hurt. Grow up, get over it and deal with the fact there are other opinions--and sometimes strongly voiced--other than your own.