Forums culture, etc. (Split from Glider thread)

[Floatsflyer]

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]

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]

Hey the EAA has opened themselves up to the criticism.

[rwanttaja]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Hal Bryan]

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]

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]

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.