Some reflections and a thank you

With the problem and some suggestions put forward, and some of the on-board and off-board comment discussed, its time for me to wrap my contributions up.

In arriving at this thread, I’ve found the Webmasters and the Flypast Editor responsive, whether by action or by direct reply. My thanks to those here who spent some time with thought-out points, whether here or to me.

The most difficult bit, as expected, was addressing the more wilful misinterpretations with least repetition and some attempt at freshness.

These boards have standards: they are yours, all of you. Do they fail these standards? Those failures, too, are yours. Have they treasures, too, to share? These also be yours.

I’ll follow-through with a summary to the Webmaster in my own time.

Public comment vs Denial of Service

It has been kindly pointed out to me that a post proposing a Denial of Service attack on an email account or website is one thing (abhorrent, in my view), while one proposing that users write or email their views on a particular aviation issue to an agency is quite another (admirable -or potentially admirable- in my view).

There are at least two cases of this second, “public comment” or “petition”, sort in play on Historic Aviation at the moment:
The DC2 at Albury, and
The insurance impost issue
These are clearly perfectly legitimate calls to express a view.

Equally clearly, there have very recently been related attempts here and regrettably, on a private board (of exemplary standard in content and style) to mount a Denial of Service attack on a particular matter already discussed in this thread. The prompt action of the Webmasters in each case voided these attempts. (Crikey Frank, its turgid writing without the aid of links or external references!)

Key Publishing’s Aviation Forums Webmaster and voluntary moderators are the creators and custodians of the standards applying on these Forums. Having suggested a life ban, I’d like to make clear that I propose this only for Denial of Service attacks. May I suggest that the Webmaster and Moderators consider this in reviewing the Code of Conduct and its application, so that legitimate encouragement to public comment or petition doesn’t get inadvertently roped in to slotting Denial of Service attacks and their perpetrators.

I’ll take a lead from the opening line of thought. There a clearly a number of users who are forming, or have formed, their own private views about the current standard of the boards under the existing published standards. From the nature of GD (as shown by this thread!) they may well prefer to express their views privately direct to the Webmaster. Perhaps the moderators will permit me to post his contact address: [email]webmaster@keypublishing.com[/email]
Alternatively, you will find it under the Contact Us link at the foot of the Forums index page here
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/index.php?

Back on track

Having dispatched a fallacious sidetrack not with headkicking but by forthright reasoned rebuttal followed with judicious use of the “ignore” function, let us then return to the matter at hand.

The terms agreed to by all users on registration are plain:
“By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.”

The Code of Conduct http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=27963 also agreed to on registration is reasonably plain but could be plainer.

We are all, within those rules, entitled to reasonably formed and reasonably expressed views, and firm prompt moderation consistent with those rules. The position could hardly be plainer or simpler.

Posters and Moderators both operate voluntarily. They may do so in public or private. The current tenor of the boards, if somewhat improved, remains deplorable and unfit for minors.

Bad habits make bad examples, and a poor benchmark to judge improvement from. The warning system plainly doesn’t work, from the number of regulars who are repeat offenders here. The Webmaster has recognised this here: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39967
No warnings but an instant 2 week ban. Hmm. Peace, Moggy, but it is (Gawd ‘elp us) for Slander (sic)!

Returning to my suggestions….
Rules: Groom the rules to utmost simplicity.
Suggestion: No personal attacks. No bad language, disguised or not. No unsourced pictures. No slander, no innuendo. Stay on topic. If you wouldn’t want your Mum to read what you are about to post, don’t post it. Report ALL bad posts.

From Frank’s moderation it seems the moderators would now wish to add: no links or reference to contentious postings from other boards. That’d be for you to judge, though my view is that a poor precedent was set. Bear in mind, the whole of my original post (since moderated!) was passed direct to the Webmaster first and met with complete silence!

Warnings: These I’ve groomed a little in the light of comments and experience.
First offence: 1 month ban (period chosen to give the most determined offender pause for thought & the board a welcome period of fresh air!).
Second offence: 3 month ban.
Third offence: life ban.
Threat to swarm another board, site or users email address: instant life ban.

Apply these firmly and consistently to every case, including those who like cute keyboard tricks to void the rules.

Remarks about sterility, freedom of speech, fascism, unfair this that and the other, second guessing etc. are pretty much empty flourishes. Posting and moderation within the standards, as we have seen here, can be both vigorous and prompt. Both require some work. Do as you would be done by, perhaps.

In closing, I’d like to say that I’ve been quite taken aback by the warmth of responses from several old hands whose work and approach I greatly respect – very much appreciated. Not that we all agree on all points, mind!

I’ll leave you with it.

Reply to R Rohr

Mr Rohr,

Thank you for your remarks. Firstly, your claim here
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=666538&postcount=11
about your deleted posts is quite misleading. On or about 12 May you posted this thread on GD:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42519 (non-working link as now deleted)

In it, you brought to GD a dispute (yep, the Mustangs Affair) from another board: the private board where you are a regular poster. In it, you threatened and encouraged a swarming attack against the party in dispute on that other board. Your GD post was adversely commented on briefly here then (quite rightly) removed after complaint. This you appear to have forgotten.

Not only that: in my post I was making fair and reasonable comment about comparative board content. In your post, you set out to threaten the other party! Got that? Within the last 2 weeks you have actually done here what you are now wrongly accusing me of! Leaves you nowhere to stand as far as criticising my approach.

Lastly, on your most recent remarks, it seems that you do not wish to recognise that I have already addressed your questions. There is no point in repeating those answers.

It also seems that you do not wish to keep to the main topic (the standard of Aviation Forums posts and moderation), nor to address its essentials. As this sort of side-tracking is a key part of your usual style of argument, I regret that there is no point in responding further to your posts.

Thank you for your views. Let us attempt to remain focussed on the main issues at hand, here:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=664832&postcount=1
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=666328&postcount=9

To summarise:
These are public forums sponsored by a major publishing house. In registering, each user agrees to meet certain standards, and the Forum Sticky Guidelines.

When responsible adults invite such a forum into their home, they are entitled to expect that the content will meet the stated standards and thus be fit for viewing, including by minors.

With respect, against that plain and unavoidable foundation, remarks about sterility, fascism, tolerance and freedom of speech are simply empty decorations over a weak, if not untenable position. Posting to those standards and moderating to those same standards is simply not a big ask.

The analogy with a walk down the street does not hold water. The net, and discussion boards, are like a low-grade TV channel or talk-back radio. Even they have standards.

I’d like to take this opportunity to particularly thank those old hands who, here and personally, have made warming remarks about my views while differing with some elements of the issues put. Much appreciated.

As I said at the outset, the chance of success in raising the standard of these boards seems slim indeed. Was it the Mahatma who said “Whatever you do will make very little difference. But it is important that you should try”?

General reply (moved)

Thank you all for your views. A general response covering most of the points raised follows.

Williams: Agreed, pre-moderation. Agreed, an inept and unprincipled researcher (from direct personal contact) and a repeated offender elsewhere. However, a vigorous and reasoned rebuttal could have been made without the disgusting tenor of the kicking delivered here and on his own site by a number of experienced users.

Aviation Artist: Agreed, pre-moderation. Whatever the perceived deficiencies of his work, potentially actionable accusations of fraud on the part of the artist (and of his Guild) were uncalled for, as was the gleeful “swarming” of his site.

Greer pre-moderation: The thread was in fact resurrected, post-moderation. Agreed: the content was extremely offensive originally. Post-moderation it was added to in equally appalling, potentially actionable terms. However unwise her position, the scatological and sexual insults and threats offered here by experienced users aiming to refute her were uncalled for. Removed but only after repeated and vigorous complaint.

Vulcan: Recent. Insinuations were made that VTTS were failing to keep financial records, a suggestion made in ignorance and potentially libellous. Within the last week or so, irresponsible accusations of the licensed engineering firm “lining their pockets” with Lottery funds have been made. Again made in ignorance. All uncalled for and readily avoided with a little research and forethought.

Threats: Within the last 2 weeks, the repeated offender Rohr made an attempt to initiate an email and website “swarm” of the style used against the Aviation artist, on a matter dragged in from another forum altogether. Indefensible. It was promptly removed after complaint.

Welcome at shows: I’m pleased to hear it, although I was referring to board response to new posters with views differing to the mainstream. The recent kicking delivered to the first-time photo poster whose “handle” I forget is a particularly sad case in point. A dubious welcome. However, far worse are the current threads on violent threats, including an instance at an airshow.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42905
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42958
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43045
However unwise these postings, they serve to underline the dreadful current state of the boards and the attitudes of some regular users.

Shooting from the lip, libel, and potentially actionable accusations: These are not the stuff of vigorous discussion and debate or fun. They are crude substitutes for vigorous reasoning and a little homework, and are a blot on discussion and the repute of the boards and Key Publishing.

Foul language in plain text or disguised: This, too, is not the stuff of vigorous discussion and debate, nor is it “fun”. Merely a habit of the ignorant, the slipshod, and the bully when allowed to get away with it: the common stock of drunken yahoos and sozzled fishwives. The language on these boards continues to be appalling, and the odd aster, e, @, and ! in place of vowels in words (as well known to the under 15s as to the supposed adults here) will not do. All are a clear breach of Board rules. Try a keyword search on one or two and prepare to be taken aback by the frequency and disgusting tenor of the results. Then there are the offensive user names and signatures: one or two of which have recently been removed but again, only after complaint. As a side issue, the * filter effectively means no wildcard search is possible.

Moderation to a sterile, militaristic or fascist degree: These are rhetorical flourishes that avoid the issue. Every user agrees to the registration rules. Every user is pointed to the forum sticky guidelines. Foul language calls for an instant ban, but is never enforced. Rules frequently flouted only encourage further excess. On the other hand, self-control and common courtesy under these rules is neither sterile, militaristic nor fascist. Nor is firm consistent prompt moderation in their absence, as the rules already provide.

Moderation by volunteers: a common enough practice. It is to be valued and nurtured. If you need more moderators to carry out the task promptly then raise it with Key and the Webmaster. By all means moderate in private. Please be prompt and consistent.

Posting in General Discussion as a safety valve to keep other forums “clean”: I disagree strongly. Only serving to perpetuate the bad example, this reasoning is a symptom of failure to promptly and consistently moderate under the existing rules.

My posting in General Discussion: the appropriate choice, surely, for a post on the general standard of all the boards and proposing the end of GD in particular. As for slander vs libel, touché. You got my point.

As the situation stands, the boards have improved slightly, however, the prevailing standard was so appalling that over-exposure to it seems to have resulted in an over-rosy view of the current modest improvement. Sadly, the current examples show that the situation remains unacceptable. The Aviation Forums collectively are not a fit place for unaccompanied children, and GD in particular should be closed until it can be cleaned up.

My apologies for the length of this reply: despite their current state, these boards are a potentially valuable resource about which I feel strongly. It is not a big ask to suggest that users be responsible, abide by the standards set, and that moderation be firm, prompt and consistent. It must be possible to set a better example, on every level, to the children and new users who come here. Any further improvement that the users, the moderators, the Webmaster and Key Publishing can make will be welcome.

Mr Rohr,
Thank you for your views. With respect, the contribution of the **edited – this is not a place to discuss other forums – Frank** main board (or of yourself) to aviation preservation in the United States of America is not at issue here.

Nor is the state of the **edited – this is not a place to discuss other forums – Frank** board, other than as a passing comparison of like with like in illustrating a very similar problem here. Still, as I have mentioned **edited – this is not a place to discuss other forums – Frank** and you by name below, as a matter of courtesy I turn to your points.

You will be aware that aggression and bad language are sadly quite commonplace on the **edited – this is not a place to discuss other forums – Frank** main board. That is why registration was introduced there, as you will recall, and (since registration) you yourself have been banned there for that reason. You have also been banned here, and had posts deleted here for similar reasons. I am sorry if you are offended by that, however, I have made a reasonable (if blunt) observation of fact, not an attack. Any user or browser of public boards has a right to form and express a reasoned and reasonable opinion on their content. That’s freedom of speech.

As to your personal questions, yes I have posted at **edited – this is not a place to discuss other forums – Frank** in the unregistered days on matters relevant to my particular field of research and on other issues. Though few enough, readily found by the Search function.

As a registered user, I was deeply disappointed to find the tenor of the main board little improved and accordingly requested of Scott Rose that my registration be terminated, and I am grateful to him for promptly doing so. As a matter of courtesy, I have now alerted Mr Rose to this General Discussion thread.

As for the **edited – this is not a place to discuss other forums – Frank** as such, having made a submission to the Registry to correct and amplify some content rather distantly related to my own field of research, beyond that I have no view on the **edited – this is not a place to discuss other forums – Frank** as such, nor have I remarked upon it here.

May I suggest it is time to return to the real topic at hand: the standard of content and moderation on the Key Publishing Aviation Forums in general and of the General Discussion board in particular. to aid that process, I have moved my General reply to follow these remarks.