Alexandra Robison

Voice ATISes have not been the most reliable lately. If you double click on the ATIS in your pilot client, you will get the text version.

This is false. It's there. Rating 6. We just don't use it. Same thing with I2. Rating 9. It's there.

...

No disrespect to FH, as he was a valuable member of VATSIM and his name and legacy will live on forever, but you CANNOT keep referring to something that happened in 2005 as substantial evidence for 2021. The network is COMPLETELY different now than it was then. Seems your one crutch throughout this entire discussion is "once upon a time in 1878." Are we writing a policy for 10, 15 years ago? Or a policy for now?

I'm fairly certain this is the acceptable standard that we have all spend time debating.

Citation needed. Can the BoG provide data that controllers who have been downgraded leave vs remediate? If not, this is all conjecture and should be thrown out.

My VATSIM credentials only show me as a VATUSA controller. I don't have a subdivision. You can see for yourself here: https://api.vatsim.net/api/ratings/999230/ So, by that data and your logic, I'm good to open NY_CTR.

Still, you're splitting hairs, so I am too. If there are truly no rosters, I guess I'm gonna go hop on NY_CTR now. @Karl Mathias Moberg you cool with that? Oh wait, that's ridiculous. Subdivisions have been maintaining rosters since the beginning of VATSIM. I can literally go back to 2004 on the Wayback machine and see a roster on the ZAB website. Just stop.

CERT doesn't exist anymore (outside of the name of the database).

I'm sorry, what? A SUP will absolutely remove someone from a position if they are not on a facility's active roster. I know this, because I have had multiple people removed off ZAB positions for not being on our roster. Why even have a roster to begin with?

This is my exact concern. We need something quantifiable to hit, or the response is always going to be "you need more proof". @Matthew Bartels has made it abundantly clear that they want to "remove restrictions", so that someone who is "good enough" can continue to control. 8.06(b) is just lip service at this point.

Agree. My avatar actually has an expletive in it that I specifically edited out for use on public forums like this.

Writing policy by implication is the wrong idea. If you want something to be in policy, write it down. Gray area has no room here.

Again, just remove the mandate altogether and let the subdivisions dictate what they want. You still have not provided me with any real example of a time the BoG had to step in on an overbearing activity policy. And even if someone does at some point, handle it case-by-case. Stop acting like this is a necessary policy.

You still aren't listening. This isn't a public comment period, this is a "here's what you get, like it or leave" period. That attitude that you so tongue-in-cheek mentioned yesterday that the BoG has, you have right now. It's pretty apparent that you have no intention on listening to the class and adjusting to what we are suggesting (1 hour per month). What's the point of this entire forum then?