PDA

View Full Version : Forums culture, etc. (Split from Glider thread)



Floatsflyer
01-21-2013, 04:58 PM
Floats, you ask a fair question, but you're not going to get a meaningful response when you pepper it with snide comments about VIP tents; if those are still an issue for you, then the proper place for that is: feedback@eaa.org.

I know we're following the story, and I'll ask our advocacy folks if they have anything to add when I'm back in the office tomorrow.

Hal, imo, not a "snide" comment but a fair one given that I'm puzzled(others I'm sure) why the 2nd largest sport aviation/pilots organization has not responded publicly in any manner almost 1 week after the story broke.

BTW, the tents as a singular subject is not an issue for me, it's mentioned as context and nuance only. I do appreciate feedback from the advocacy dept.

Hal Bryan
01-21-2013, 06:56 PM
As I said, the question *was* a fair one; the suggestion that we haven't published anything about this story because we're "...too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents" was the comment I was referring to. That kind of thing just isn't going to be tolerated around here anymore.

Flyfalcons
01-21-2013, 07:11 PM
Hey the EAA has opened themselves up to the criticism.

Hal Bryan
01-21-2013, 07:19 PM
Questions and constructive criticism are fine - necessary, even. That's why I fight regularly to keep these forums open.

rwanttaja
01-21-2013, 08:06 PM
BTW, the tents as a singular subject is not an issue for me, it's mentioned as context and nuance only.
It makes you come across as a jerk. If that was your intention, congratulations.

Ron Wanttaja

rwanttaja
01-21-2013, 08:08 PM
Hey the EAA has opened themselves up to the criticism.
Ab-so-gol-darn-lutely. But how does the tent issue connect to the issue regarding the overzealous cops? Shouldn't they be discussed separately?

Ron Wanttaja

Floatsflyer
01-21-2013, 08:21 PM
As I said, the question *was* a fair one; the suggestion that we haven't published anything about this story because we're "...too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents" was the comment I was referring to. That kind of thing just isn't going to be tolerated around here anymore.

Whoooooooooo baby, I didn't expect that kind of ruthless response. In my initial reply to you, I thought I was perfectly clear in knowing the comment you were referring to. I think you didn't(or won't) understand what I said.

Hal, I think you need to re-read your own post from Aug. 3, 2012 entitled EAA Forums- My Long Winded Thoughts on the Culture, Etc. In fact, I think everybody on this forum should do that. Because there's some serious hypocracy now going on here. I re-read it just to be sure. I thought (and you wrote) that rude comments and personal attacks would not be tolerated(and that's fair and agreed to). Now you've arbitrarily extended the definition of intolerance to include satire and sarcasm. That's very autocratic and despotic and undemocratic of you. So EAA will no longer tolerate satire or dare I say dissent. Is that the new "Love Us or Leave Us" secretive initiative? Hal, when did the rules change, I didn't get the memo. And who said you could change the rules in the middle of the game.

Sorry Hal, I was civil and respectful and did not provide a rude or personal attack(unlike Ron Wanttaja above-hey, how about a sanction there-again I refer to your Aug. post). An organization that puts itself above satirical comment is arrogant and self-righteous. Your newly acquired intolerance does not jive with "That's why I fight to keep these forums open." If this is THE NEW EAA, then.......you fill in the rest!

rwanttaja
01-21-2013, 10:12 PM
Sorry Hal, I was civil and respectful and did not provide a rude or personal attack....
Actually, you're making a common newbie mistake.

Human communications is visual as well as aural. Let's assume you meant the phrase, "Must be too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents" as sarcasticly or satirically. If you were speaking it to someone, you would have provided visual cues that you weren't being strictly literal... like arch your eyebrows, grin a bit, wink, etc. In that way, witnesses to your statement know you're kidding, know you didn't mean it 100% seriously.

But what happens when the visual cues are removed? You probably made the same sorts of gestures while you were typing "Must be too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents" into your computer...but of COURSE, it doesn't come across. You *know* you were kidding....but no one reading the bare words knows that.

News flash, laddie: If you want people to understand you, you can't just transcribe what you might say verbally. You have to provide other cues as to context.

That's how "emoticons" came about. The "Smiley" :-) started out as a way to indicate that the writer was not totally serious. In fact, back in the dawn o' time when I joined the Internet, it wasn't a "smiley." It was "tongue in cheek" symbol. Other emoticons were developed, until the whole practice had been watered down.

If you had typed, "Must be too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents :-)" or even "Must be too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents, ha ha," people would have known that you were kidding, like you indicated in a later post. But you didn't.

The other factor is, of course, your use of a handle. I have no objection to folks using a handle vs. their real names. There are good reasons to do so. However, when you chose to attack EAA...or anyone else...behind the anonymity of a handle, in my opinion, you don't deserve any respect. I've never used a handle; even after I got sued over things I said online (oooh, there's Hal's hand quivering over the "delete post" command again :-).

The fact is, based on how you phrased your post, I don't believe you were civil to EAA or to Hal. That's my opinion, if you don't like it, well, that's your right. If you were kidding when you claimed EAA was ignoring the issue in favor of finding new ways to get money from rich folks, you certainly didn't make that clear.

I'm figuring it was just a newbie mistake. But, of course, since you don't use your name, there's no way of telling.

So, for those who have hung on so far: What should EAA's response to the police action be?

Ron Wanttaja

Floatsflyer
01-21-2013, 10:57 PM
Thanks for the linguistics lesson Fly Baby. I filed it under "G". I had no idea that a polyglot was on the forum. FYI, that's not a bad word, but you'll probably have to look it up. You must go stark raving apoplectic when reading books, newspapers, and periodicals without pictures, illustrations and emoticons. I'm sympathetic...must set off a lot of anxiety not to know when an author is being satirical without actually having to shout it out.

"Newbie mistake"? I don't think so...but you just keep "figuring".

So you've gone from calling me a "jerk" to calling me "laddie". Without the requisite "emoticon" as you say Fly Baby, I can only conclude that you are a rude and uncivil person.....with your lesson how could I do anything but.

How many times have you been sued for libel? Inquisitive minds would like to know.

rwanttaja
01-22-2013, 12:27 AM
Thanks for the linguistics lesson Fly Baby. I filed it under "G". I had no idea that a polyglot was on the forum. FYI, that's not a bad word, but you'll probably have to look it up. You must go stark raving apoplectic when reading books, newspapers, and periodicals without pictures, illustrations and emoticons. I'm sympathetic...must set off a lot of anxiety not to know when an author is being satirical without actually having to shout it out.
Actually, authors of books, newspapers, and periodicals *know* there are no non-verbal cues, and know they have to spell out exactly the points they want to make. If they don't, editors don't buy their work and they don't get published. So I have little trouble keeping track of what the authors mean.

That's the difference between "writing" and engaging in discussions on the Internet. Most internet discussions are merely written versions of what a person might say verbally in response to another person's comments. And that's where the problems occur, with the loss of the non-verbal nuances. This works fine, in most cases in the informal context of the Internet. It's just sometimes folks lose track of what they're saying vs. what they mean, and, as in your case, don't understand why.


"Newbie mistake"? I don't think so...but you just keep "figuring".
I've been online for almost 30 years; my original Internet email address didn't have a dot-anything ("wanttaja@ssc-vax"). I'm guessing you came around well after Eternal September.


So you've gone from calling me a "jerk" to calling me "laddie". Without the requisite "emoticon" as you say Fly Baby...
My apologies, ma'am. But had I been kidding, I would have added an emoticon.


How many times have you been sued for libel? Inquisitive minds would like to know.

Not libel per se, but "Conspiracy to Defame." It was a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, basically just harassment to try to silence me and some other folks). For some reason, the guy who sued me thought I was irritating. One of my co-defendants was a lawyer. Dismissed quickly, didn't cost me a dime.

So, now that the pleasantries are out of the way, what SHOULD the EAA do about Sheriff Bubba?

Should the Experimental Aircraft Association should do anything at all? Note that I deliberately spelled out the organization's name... what does the problem described have to do with promoting or operating Experimental Aircraft? Whether the aircraft had an experimental certificate had nothing to do with the incident.

Definitely, this is an overall aviation advocacy issue. However, from other comments on the Forums, there's a lot of opposition towards EAA extending its activities beyond building and certifying homebuilt aircraft. EAA has only a certain amount of money available for Government Advocacy. How much of their budget should they spend going after Sheriff Bubba, vs. fighting the very real threats the federal organizations pose to the homebuilt aircraft movement?

Would it more worthwhile making Sheriff Bubba's face even redder, or to fight the fact that the NTSB wants to have homebuilt aircraft airworthiness certificates cancelled whenever the plane is sold?

Then again, maybe if EAA sold a chalet or two extra next summer, they could do both....:-)

One also gets to the practical issues. What *can* EAA do? There are no legal charges, so it's not like they could help the man in court. The pilot waived his right to sue (though some discussion say it couldn't really stick). So other than publicly wring its hands, what can EAA do in this case? Is this whole controversy over EAA not saying, "Oh, that's awful" fast enough?

Ron Wanttaja

WLIU
01-22-2013, 07:00 AM
I will offer and "atta boy" to Ron for a clear, well reasoned, and patient explanation of the hazards and drawbacks of typed communication in the internet age. I too predate the web and I can report that learning to write my thoughts with what I hope is the intended level of emotional emphasis did not come naturally. I know that I have learned that when writing about a topic, if you really want folks to discuss your point, leave out editorial distractions that can offer your audience the opportunity to take the discussion in other directions. Focus grasshopper.

So on the topic of EAA's response to the sailplane incident, I will agree that I do not see that EAA needs to get all excited. EAA does a bunch of things well in a world where if you try to do everything, you just fail at everything and get nothing done. My 35 years of observation leaves me with the impression that AOPA is where the lawyers are. They can cover this issue adequately. AOPA is welcome to the credit. I encourage EAA to focus on facilitation the invention of unleaded avgas. If I don't get that, I will likely not be able to fly around where I make my local nuke plant staff nervous.

Perhaps it is my age, but these days I try to be really good at a few things rather than so-so at many. I don't know whether that is mature wisdom or merely fatigue. Your mileage may vary.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Hal Bryan
01-22-2013, 08:44 AM
Whoooooooooo baby, I didn't expect that kind of ruthless response.

Fair enough - my intent was to be concise, and there was certainly some time pressure to intervene before things got out of hand. Combine that with the fact that the only connected device I had at the time was my phone which doesn't lend itself to long, articulate posts. I definitely could have been more polite, so you have my apology there.



Hal, I think you need to re-read your own post from Aug. 3, 2012 entitled EAA Forums- My Long Winded Thoughts on the Culture, Etc. In fact, I think everybody on this forum should do that. Because there's some serious hypocracy now going on here. I re-read it just to be sure. I thought (and you wrote) that rude comments and personal attacks would not be tolerated(and that's fair and agreed to). Now you've arbitrarily extended the definition of intolerance to include satire and sarcasm. That's very autocratic and despotic and undemocratic of you. So EAA will no longer tolerate satire or dare I say dissent. Is that the new "Love Us or Leave Us" secretive initiative? Hal, when did the rules change, I didn't get the memo. And who said you could change the rules in the middle of the game.

Let me put this another way. My goal with this forum is simple: to facilitate connection and conversation, making sure that people with questions find answers, and that people with information to share are able to do so. You had a a question - as I've said more than once, a very fair one - but your comment, be it snide, sarcastic, satirical, or whatever, weakened my ability to get you the response you deserved. A lot of people here view these forums as negative or even toxic. A few weeks ago, I spent several days rereading every thread in the preceding 90 days and compiling data for our senior leadership team that proved otherwise. The overwhelming majority of discussions here involve people helping each other with flying / building questions.

This was very well received, and helped start shifting the perspective and getting more staff to understand the real value here. But all that can be undone, or at least driven backwards a few steps, when someone can't ask a straightforward question without throwing in a baseless dig at us for the policies of someone who doesn't even work here anymore.

The rules haven't changed - they're the same as they've been since we first launched our online forums on the old site in July of 2009.



Sorry Hal, I was civil and respectful and did not provide a rude or personal attack(unlike Ron Wanttaja above-hey, how about a sanction there-again I refer to your Aug. post).

That's true - I'll be following up with Ron as well.



Your newly acquired intolerance does not jive with "That's why I fight to keep these forums open."

I misspoke; what I meant to say was "That's why I fight to keep these forums in existence.​"

WLIU
01-22-2013, 09:30 AM
Hal,

I hope that these forums are a good tool to learn the positives and negatives of using the internet to keep in touch with the membership. It looks to my eye that you have just enough participation to learn how open forums work, but not too much for you and whomever works with you to be overwhelmed. Looking at other internet forums, there is clearly the tendency for discussions to get out of hand and heat to greatly exceed the amount of light provided.

I am sure that you recognize that the challenge is to balance the amount of time and $$ spent moderating vs the value to EAA and the members. That said, I will suggest that more EAA info get posted. For instance, folks would be much less inclined to criticize Mac M if he regularly participated rather than post his EAA content on his personal blog elsewhere. All of the internet and other electronic media provides an opportunity for an organization like EAA to A) make the members feel more connected, and B) let the members know what's going on, even if the details will be published in the magazine.

Anyway, thanks for the restrained manner in which you have been moderating the forums. EAA can't have the lunatics running the asylum and the designated adult hardly ever gets the appreciation that they deserve.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Anymouse
01-22-2013, 10:58 AM
A forum ain't a forum without a good dust up from time to time.

Looks like this one might be over so I'm going to go back to thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents.

Floatsflyer
01-22-2013, 01:49 PM
Hal,

I accept your genuine explanations and your apology where indicated. Let's just all move on! Life's too short......eat dessert first.

Hal Bryan
01-22-2013, 03:54 PM
Works for me!

rwanttaja
01-23-2013, 10:54 PM
I think most folks don't realize how forums such as this one are on the razor's edge.

Several years ago, the online aviation magazine Avweb got sued over comments made by forum users regarding a certain attorney. Avweb itself had only posted a factual story about an ongoing lawsuit; users then posted negative public comments about the plaintiff's lawyer. The lawyer sued the users, as well as Avweb for not policing the comments. Avweb had to post a public apology.

Avweb, being a small company with very few assets, didn't have much to lose. EAA, on the other hand, is a pretty big corporation with some heavy-duty assets. A MUCH riper target for a lawsuit.

So, consider: One day Hal gets called into Jack Pelton's office. A company is upset about negative things said about their product in the EAA Forums, and is threatening to sue.

Forget whether the lawsuit has any merit. Because Pelton is going to ask Hal one key question:

"What value does EAA derive by hosting these forums?" Maybe he's paged through the various forums, and has noticed several examples of less-than-stellar behavior by the participants (coughautoenginescough). He finds insults to EAA's sponsors, its advertisers, and its own employees. He's going to want to know why EAA should put their corporate logo on these comments.

"What value does EAA derive by hosting these forums?" How's Hal supposed to answer? Put a dollar value on it, since the bean-counters aren't going to care about fuzzy touchy-feely stuff. Just getting the lawyers to investigate the corporation's vulnerability to a theatened lawsuit will probably cost five thousand bucks. Does EAA get $5,000 worth of benefit from the forums in a month? In a year?

For twenty years, the company I work for had a internal set of unmoderated forums (basically USENET newsgroups with company-only distribution). The legal department found out about it, looked at the content, and forced it to shut down. All in one day.

Keep that in mind the next time you want to complain about a product, insult the EAA staff, or wax nasty about politics on EAA's nickel.

Speaking of Hal, keep in mind that he doesn't set EAA policy. He does a great job trying to chase down answers for us, but if EAA doesn't want to make a statement, there's nothing Hal can do about it. Hounding him won't help.

Ron Wanttaja