Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:42 am
davem wrote:richkolasa wrote:Glyn wrote:davem wrote:
I don't come here to read about Boeing 777 wing testing, your uncle Wally (who served so honorably) passing on the weekend, that oh so funny vid on YouTube, airliners crashing into the Hudson, or much of the non-Warbird dribble that seems to creep into the forum on a regular basis. The web is full of places for such things - there really is only one good international warbird forum and we all joined because of that.
Exactly! Well said. Far too many on this forum act like undisciplined juveniles. I am also sick and tired of the patrioteering and boasting as well as the appalling ignorance of some posters and that is why I am leaving WIX. There are some star posters, and I wish them well. Goodbye.
Sorry, but anyone's Uncle Wally, who served honorably, is what the Warbird movement is all about! Also, I find it ironic, because I consider it juvenile and narcissistic to announce to [mostly] total strangers that you are leaving a message board.
Besides their sad passings, I'd like to hear about anyone's Aunt Millie who helped build WW2 aircraft, or Aunt Nellie who ferried them overseas.
Carry on.
Rich
Sorry guys, what I was referring to were the recent posts of totally non-warbird related passing’s and the odd Hollywood superstar that just don't belong here. I was in no way being trying to be disrespectful, rather pointing out this is not the place - obviously the Mods agree if you scan back a few of the topic pages you will see many obits have been moved as being off topic.
Straying off topic just hurts the forum, I supposed we could have discussions about the downfall GM as they built Warbirds in WWII but that does nothing to enhance the forum or the reason it exists.
I have donated cash to Scott and supported this forum since inception as I value it as a resource for my projects and interests. In the past few months, I have seen it getting better and stronger - apparently behind the scenes this may not be the case and this saddens me.
Dave, there is an OT forum specifically for this. If you don't like em, don't read em
Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:12 am
'Boots, the operative phrase in DaveM's post, "having been moved", points to the original posts were placed outside
of their proper forum. Ya know..like opening a "Band of Brothers" or "CAC Model Aircraft", etc., discussions in the
Warbird Hangar?
Edit
of their proper forum. Ya know..like opening a "Band of Brothers" or "CAC Model Aircraft", etc., discussions in the
Warbird Hangar?
Edit
Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:00 pm
125 in favour of moderation and six (not saying anything or why) against.
Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:31 pm
Consider me #126 for mods. I'm going to think on it before commenting on how or why. Good to hear from you again JDK.
Doug Ratchford, Canso42
Doug Ratchford, Canso42
Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:49 pm
Yes! Moderation!
I would also like to go on
recordas
being in favor of drinking in
moderation while WIXing at post.
WHat was the question again?
I would also like to go on
recordas
being in favor of drinking in
moderation while WIXing at post.
WHat was the question again?
Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:21 pm
i haven't voted here, to me this is a hobson's choice. moderation has to exist on the forum but in what form is the real question
Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:01 pm
I'm sorry troops, but this is getting to the point of being pretty funny.
Let me be as succinct as I know how...
Votes are meaningless. This ain't no democracy.
IT'S SCOTT'S CHOICE.
I'm gonna' go out on a limb and predict that without moderators, there won't be a WIX forum.
IMHO we've beat this subject to death!
Would someone please lock this thread so we can start using our time for more productive pursuits.
Mudge the practical
Let me be as succinct as I know how...
Votes are meaningless. This ain't no democracy.
IT'S SCOTT'S CHOICE.
I'm gonna' go out on a limb and predict that without moderators, there won't be a WIX forum.
IMHO we've beat this subject to death!
Would someone please lock this thread so we can start using our time for more productive pursuits.
Mudge the practical
Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:15 am
As an ex-moderator, Mudge, that might've been appropriate to point out to those complaining to me that their freedom of speech (including crossing rules, the start of those conversations) - were being crushed a month or two back.
I set the poll to run for a week, when voting closes. Just a few days might've been better, doesn't matter.
After it closes, we might see. Sometimes process provides useful evidence even if the conclusion is obvious. Already we've shown a 90% plus preference, and no comments (and a few votes) against. That's useful, for us, Scott and future conversations.
If you don't tell us what you think, we won't know. Hence the invite at the front to add your thoughts. Please do.
I was interested to see if there really was a strong bias to agreeing with some form of moderation; here we are.
There are some other things that kind of appear from here, and my experience, which may be of interest.
We have, at current count, six votes against. However none of those six voters have added any 'why not' thoughts. Is that because a) it's just a smartass vote b) they're scared to say so (seems a self-contradiction to me) c) it's too hard to come up with an articulated view d) something else?
Secondly most people are in favour, as brucev's said of 'some form of moderation'. Point is, some people can't see that it ultimately boils down to sticking to the rules for everyone. It's kind of amusing to see us showing the mindset that rules are great for everyone else, but because I'm special, they don't apply to me. We've all done it.
Perhaps another thought is that if you agree we need moderating on the forum, it's good to support the mods. Trust me - most of the noise they hear is negative, from the posters who spend quality time over the line.
Regards,
I set the poll to run for a week, when voting closes. Just a few days might've been better, doesn't matter.
After it closes, we might see. Sometimes process provides useful evidence even if the conclusion is obvious. Already we've shown a 90% plus preference, and no comments (and a few votes) against. That's useful, for us, Scott and future conversations.
brucev wrote:i haven't voted here, to me this is a hobson's choice. moderation has to exist on the forum but in what form is the real question
If you don't tell us what you think, we won't know. Hence the invite at the front to add your thoughts. Please do.
I was interested to see if there really was a strong bias to agreeing with some form of moderation; here we are.
There are some other things that kind of appear from here, and my experience, which may be of interest.
We have, at current count, six votes against. However none of those six voters have added any 'why not' thoughts. Is that because a) it's just a smartass vote b) they're scared to say so (seems a self-contradiction to me) c) it's too hard to come up with an articulated view d) something else?
Secondly most people are in favour, as brucev's said of 'some form of moderation'. Point is, some people can't see that it ultimately boils down to sticking to the rules for everyone. It's kind of amusing to see us showing the mindset that rules are great for everyone else, but because I'm special, they don't apply to me. We've all done it.
Perhaps another thought is that if you agree we need moderating on the forum, it's good to support the mods. Trust me - most of the noise they hear is negative, from the posters who spend quality time over the line.
Regards,
Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:11 am
Is JDK calling us out of the bunker?
The problem with needing moderators is the tight grip of control people like to have on the other members. It's probably too much ego, and the insecurity of not being in control of everyone and everything around them.aka "control freaks", (not the most fun people to hang out with).
Moderators are needed in my opinion if every discussion goes south and degenerates. There hasn't been much of that going on. So no need. A little slip up, blurb, suggestion, or annoyance shouldn't be a problem, it becomes a problem if a discussion becomes nasty and outrageous diatribe to the point that every post turns out having 10 pages, and maybe 9 of them are nasty and hateful, sort of like one of Mussolini's or Kim Jong mentally Ills screaming speeches.
There are "Common Trolls" looking to thrive off of "getting a rise" out of somebody, but that can pretty much be overcome by posting in a careful and whitty way to "outflank" them.
Then there are the "Ego-Driven Trolls": I saw an example of one yesterday. He called another member a "deutch bag", pretty unbecoming and crass. They generally attract other trolls, and form a sort of "WIX gang" feeding off of eachother's negative energy like pigs rolling in mud. Most of them seem to feel that they themselves are fighter pilots, but they have a little problem-they don't fly warbirds themselves. They wear the leather jacket and might fly a Cessna 150 once in a while. However, they usually are malcontents who ride in the back of somebodys warbird, and then think they are Chuck Yeager. No amount of Moderating can stop these, because the"attitude" doesn't go away. These are most obnoxious and the worst, and little can be done but to avoid and totally ignore.
Then there are others who aren't really trolls, but have an intense personality. These can be tolerated-no problem.
Anyway, the immature posters want moderators, because they can't handle not having control of what everybody or the various trolls say. I'll use Hellcat as an example, he couldn't deal with JDK when JDK said some things he didn't like. Let me add too, that the rather annoying "Ego-Driven Trolls" were on him like vultures while he was posting that the CAF Hellcat was somehow connected to him. His skin was too thin to handle it.
Anyway, this lesson and examples are true in real society as well, there are all kinds of people out there, but you can only control one, yourself.
The problem with needing moderators is the tight grip of control people like to have on the other members. It's probably too much ego, and the insecurity of not being in control of everyone and everything around them.aka "control freaks", (not the most fun people to hang out with).
Moderators are needed in my opinion if every discussion goes south and degenerates. There hasn't been much of that going on. So no need. A little slip up, blurb, suggestion, or annoyance shouldn't be a problem, it becomes a problem if a discussion becomes nasty and outrageous diatribe to the point that every post turns out having 10 pages, and maybe 9 of them are nasty and hateful, sort of like one of Mussolini's or Kim Jong mentally Ills screaming speeches.
There are "Common Trolls" looking to thrive off of "getting a rise" out of somebody, but that can pretty much be overcome by posting in a careful and whitty way to "outflank" them.
Then there are the "Ego-Driven Trolls": I saw an example of one yesterday. He called another member a "deutch bag", pretty unbecoming and crass. They generally attract other trolls, and form a sort of "WIX gang" feeding off of eachother's negative energy like pigs rolling in mud. Most of them seem to feel that they themselves are fighter pilots, but they have a little problem-they don't fly warbirds themselves. They wear the leather jacket and might fly a Cessna 150 once in a while. However, they usually are malcontents who ride in the back of somebodys warbird, and then think they are Chuck Yeager. No amount of Moderating can stop these, because the"attitude" doesn't go away. These are most obnoxious and the worst, and little can be done but to avoid and totally ignore.
Then there are others who aren't really trolls, but have an intense personality. These can be tolerated-no problem.
Anyway, the immature posters want moderators, because they can't handle not having control of what everybody or the various trolls say. I'll use Hellcat as an example, he couldn't deal with JDK when JDK said some things he didn't like. Let me add too, that the rather annoying "Ego-Driven Trolls" were on him like vultures while he was posting that the CAF Hellcat was somehow connected to him. His skin was too thin to handle it.
Anyway, this lesson and examples are true in real society as well, there are all kinds of people out there, but you can only control one, yourself.
Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:57 am
A2C wrote:Anyway, the immature posters want moderators, because they can't handle not having control of what everybody or the various trolls say. I'll use Hellcat as an example, he couldn't deal with JDK when JDK said some things he didn't like. Let me add too, that the rather annoying "Ego-Driven Trolls" were on him like vultures while he was posting that the CAF Hellcat was somehow connected to him. His skin was too thin to handle it.
Anyway, this lesson and examples are true in real society as well, there are all kinds of people out there, but you can only control one, yourself.
Registering my strong disagreement with this.
First, is it really an example of being an "immature poster" to want a moderator??? I don't think so. It's a realization that someone needs to be able to enforce law and order because of obvious issues on the forum. I don't "want control" of what some troll might say - I want to see the rules followed, especially when things degenerate to name calling, endless arguing over pointless debates, and general stupidity that drags this forum down.
As to your last point - Sure, ultimately self-control is what is most desired, and right and good, however, some people just do not have self-control and when prodded in that direction are not willing to take up that discipline to themselves. There IS a need in society for the enforcement of law and justice. We can debate the best means for it, but if you have law-breakers, you need an enforcement mechanism, and in a private setting like Scott's forum, the best way for that to work is for Scott to BAN people for breaking the rules (and he then has to listen to people whine all the time about it), or for a slightly gentler approach with US respecting the moderators, being self-controlled, and being decent to other members, even in disagreement.
Ryan
Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:02 am
I`ll add another vote for responsible moderation, without which this forum would unfortunately degenerate into another bun fight - as it has so many times in the past.
I`ll also say that although I don`t agree with every thing JDK has said in the past he has done an excellent job of a thankless task.
If this poll was an election James would appear to have a clear mandate to continue as a mod and I personally wish he would.
Dick Simpson (long time lurker on this forum)
I`ll also say that although I don`t agree with every thing JDK has said in the past he has done an excellent job of a thankless task.
If this poll was an election James would appear to have a clear mandate to continue as a mod and I personally wish he would.
Dick Simpson (long time lurker on this forum)
Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:23 pm
Ryan Short wrote:
Law enforcement is used when people steal, and break things. I don't see that happening here. In real society we have the constitution which allows free speech, which is all that happens here.
I addressed your other point already here:
First, is it really an example of being an "immature poster" to want a moderator??? I don't think so. It's a realization that someone needs to be able to enforce law and order because of obvious issues on the forum. I don't "want control" of what some troll might say - I want to see the rules followed, especially when things degenerate to name calling, endless arguing over pointless debates, and general stupidity that drags this forum down.
Law enforcement is used when people steal, and break things. I don't see that happening here. In real society we have the constitution which allows free speech, which is all that happens here.
I addressed your other point already here:
Moderators are needed in my opinion if every discussion goes south and degenerates. There hasn't been much of that going on. So no need. A little slip up, blurb, suggestion, or annoyance shouldn't be a problem, it becomes a problem if a discussion becomes nasty and outrageous diatribe to the point that every post turns out having 10 pages, and maybe 9 of them are nasty and hateful, sort of like one of Mussolini's or Kim Jong mentally Ills screaming speeches.
Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:38 pm
A2C wrote:Law enforcement is used when people steal, and break things. I don't see that happening here. In real society we have the constitution which allows free speech, which is all that happens here.
It sounds to me like what you're saying is: law enforcement is used when people "break the rules".
On this forum, the moderators are the LEOs.
I rest my case.
Mudge the brief
Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:40 pm
It sounds to me like what you're saying is: law enforcement is used when people "break the rules".
On this forum, the moderators are the LEOs.
They're not needed at this time, just as my post says. I lay out why they're not needed at this time.
??
Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:19 pm
""Let me add too, that the rather annoying "Ego-Driven Trolls" were on him like vultures while he was posting that the CAF Hellcat was somehow connected to him. ""
Quite possibly the first thing I agree on with Chris.
I don't know if anyone recalls but Mark's original handle was HellcatPilot not Hellcat. After his very first post ever he was accused of being a fraud for proclaiming himself a Hellcat pilot when he was not one. In fact he chose it to honor his dad. Well welcome aboard mate!!!!!
Quite possibly the first thing I agree on with Chris.
I don't know if anyone recalls but Mark's original handle was HellcatPilot not Hellcat. After his very first post ever he was accused of being a fraud for proclaiming himself a Hellcat pilot when he was not one. In fact he chose it to honor his dad. Well welcome aboard mate!!!!!