ZHU/VATSIM in the News

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Reuben, i think you are missing we're trying to give ya the benefit of doubt on this. if you guys knew the end result then VATSIM may have to seriously have a meeting with the ZHU staff in regards to these things in the future

[Reuben Prevost 1279585]

Reuben, i think you are missing we're trying to give ya the benefit of doubt on this. if you guys knew the end result then VATSIM may have to seriously have a meeting with the ZHU staff in regards to these things in the future

 

More patronizing. I understand what you all are trying to do. But if I have to choose between receiving your benefit of the doubt or maintaining my intelligence, then I choose my

intelligence.

 

I do not speak for ZHU's staff. But to my knowledge, VATSIM has no policy on these things. But beyond this, maybe you can tell us how this hinders the

growth of VATSIM's image?

 

With Sincerity,

Reuben.

[Daniel Hawton]

which is yet another good example why these things need to go through the proper channels with folks that actually know how to handle those situations

 

the intention was good, but never ever think youll be able to get one over on the media. a little clever editing is all it takes to make their point come across, not yours

 

You're trying to enforce a policy that only works when you're an employee of an employer. When you're talking of a gaming community, it is incorrect to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that you can tell anyone "You cannot speak about this game you bought and use!" If I were approached and asked my opinion of VATSIM or FSX, I will tell them outright how I feel, just as any other consumer of any other industry/market. This is no different than a shopper at Target being told "You cannot make comments about Target or your shopping experience, redirect them to Target's Marketing Director."

 

All I can say is, good luck.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

thatll be up to the VATGov's, BOG's, and other staff to address with ZHU in private

 

as far as how does it hinder VATSIM, that should be as clear as day what bad publicity or a bad image can do to any organization. thats why they tend to not let folks just go off and do those types of things without it being reviewed. ive been in several volunteer groups and businesses where even doing that had about a 10 page publication to teach members/employees how to properly handle it within the organization/company limits, beyond that, you cut the interview and refer them to the organization.

 

one reason you hear a lot of people say "i cant answer that" etc.. on TV. thats a good sign they have such things in place or simply so you dont incriminate yourself or the organization unintentionally.

 

Edit: Daniel, you might be surprised some companies are now doing this with consumers as well, one cereal company just started that one, if you engage with the company, either through social media, or even purchasing the product, you are now agreeing to the companies terms, one of which you give up any right to sue them also you arent purchasing anything from VATSIM, you are however a member of the organization, what you are describing is for consumers. members are a different ball game, right on the same page as employees

[Reuben Prevost 1279585]

as far as how does it hinder VATSIM, that should be as clear as day what bad publicity or a bad image can do to any organization.

 

I'm asking you how, specifically, did my words hinder VATSIM.

They quoted me saying that I don't think VATSIM is a security risk. They also quoted me saying that I could land a 777 in an emergency situation.

 

So how would my words hinder VATSIM?

 

Thanks Dan. I like your Leroy project too BTW.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Reuben, once again, nobody has said anything that you said was "incorrect". we've said that several times. what was wrong was the spin the media put on it, which also according to you, you and the ARTCC knew they would do, that part was wrong. if you guys knew that was going to happen then the interview shouldve never happen or simply been referred up to VATSIM

Edited April 20, 2014 at 08:17 PM by Guest

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I don't think anything you said specifically hindered VATSIM, but participating in an interview that was clearly part of a sensationalistic scare piece wasn't a great idea. VATSIM is fairly obscure, and yellow journalism isn't the best place for people to be introduced to it.

[Reuben Prevost 1279585]

Reuben, once again, nobody has said anything that you said was "incorrect". we've said that several times. what was wrong was the spin the media put on it, which also according to you, you and the ARTCC knew they would do, that part was wrong. if you guys knew that was going to happen then the interview shouldve never happen or simply been referred up to VATSIM

 

I don't think you understand.

With "the spin [that] the media put on it," how would this hinder VATSIM?

 

I don't think anything you said specifically hindered VATSIM, but participating in an interview that was clearly part of a sensationalistic scare piece wasn't a great idea. VATSIM is fairly obscure, and yellow journalism isn't the best place for people to be introduced to it.

 

If you look at the comments on the story webpage, you will see that no one is falling for their "flight sims are security risks" theme.

[Chad Vienna 1195499]

I agree with Ernesto.

 

Thank God it was a local Houston station, if it had been major news network, being watched by millions of inherently stoopid and panicky viewers; some politician would now be sponsoring a bill requiring a back-ground check and 7-day waiting period to purchase FSX, XP, etc., and yokes, throttles, pedals, etc. should only be purchased through Federally Licensed Peripheral Dealers..

[Reuben Prevost 1279585]

I agree with Ernesto.

 

Thank God it was a local Houston station, if it had been major news network, being watched by millions of inherently stoopid and panicky viewers; some politician would now be sponsoring a bill requiring a back-ground check and 7-day waiting period to purchase FSX, XP, etc., and yokes, throttles, pedals, etc. should only be purchased through Federally Licensed Peripheral Dealers..

 

I hope this is you being facetious.. lol. Because obviously that wouldn't have happened.

[Daniel Hawton]

Edit: Daniel, you might be surprised some companies are now doing this with consumers as well, one cereal company just started that one, if you engage with the company, either through social media, or even purchasing the product, you are now agreeing to the companies terms, one of which you give up any right to sue them also you arent purchasing anything from VATSIM, you are however a member of the organization, what you are describing is for consumers. members are a different ball game, right on the same page as employees

 

Good luck enforcing that to them, as that is unenforceable. And yes, I am a non-paying consumer. VATSIM provides a service I consume. That makes me a consumer. As far as your example, that will NEVER hold up in court. Other companies have tried that and failed, and you're living under a rock if you think so.

 

I agree with Ernesto.

 

Thank God it was a local Houston station, if it had been major news network, being watched by millions of inherently stoopid and panicky viewers; some politician would now be sponsoring a bill requiring a back-ground check and 7-day waiting period to purchase FSX, XP, etc., and yokes, throttles, pedals, etc. should only be purchased through Federally Licensed Peripheral Dealers..

 

I hope this is you being facetious.. lol. Because obviously that wouldn't have happened.

 

Pretty sure Chad is. They tried this before with "violent video games", and as well all know nothing with that has changed.

[Callum McLoughlin]

Edit: Daniel, you might be surprised some companies are now doing this with consumers as well, one cereal company just started that one, if you engage with the company, either through social media, or even purchasing the product, you are now agreeing to the companies terms, one of which you give up any right to sue them also you arent purchasing anything from VATSIM, you are however a member of the organization, what you are describing is for consumers. members are a different ball game, right on the same page as employees

 

Good luck enforcing that to them, as that is unenforceable. And yes, I am a non-paying consumer. VATSIM provides a service I consume. That makes me a consumer. As far as your example, that will NEVER hold up in court. Other companies have tried that and failed, and you're living under a rock if you think so.

 

I think there is a very clear division between can and should. Yes, anybody can talk to the press about almost anything they like, however when presenting something such as an organisation such as ours, should they do so without first talking to those who have a clearer, broader vantage point so everybody's interests can be served better? The law says you can. Established community practices and expectations don't translate into should.

 

This is not my party from a staff perspective, but if this had of happened in Europe I'd have been disappointed to find out there was no Division/Region/BoG knowledge of it beforehand.

 

Reuben, I think your energy is good and welcome. It would be more effective if you worked as part of a larger team on these things. That is what people are saying. Reach out, use your wider network, look wider than just the ARTCC that you're a member of.

[Chad Vienna 1195499]

Edit: Daniel, you might be surprised some companies are now doing this with consumers as well, one cereal company just started that one, if you engage with the company, either through social media, or even purchasing the product, you are now agreeing to the companies terms, one of which you give up any right to sue them also you arent purchasing anything from VATSIM, you are however a member of the organization, what you are describing is for consumers. members are a different ball game, right on the same page as employees

 

Good luck enforcing that to them, as that is unenforceable. And yes, I am a non-paying consumer. VATSIM provides a service I consume. That makes me a consumer. As far as your example, that will NEVER hold up in court. Other companies have tried that and failed, and you're living under a rock if you think so.

 

I agree with Ernesto.

 

Thank God it was a local Houston station, if it had been major news network, being watched by millions of inherently stoopid and panicky viewers; some politician would now be sponsoring a bill requiring a back-ground check and 7-day waiting period to purchase FSX, XP, etc., and yokes, throttles, pedals, etc. should only be purchased through Federally Licensed Peripheral Dealers..

 

I hope this is you being facetious.. lol. Because obviously that wouldn't have happened.

 

Pretty sure Chad is. They tried this before with "violent video games", and as well all know nothing with that has changed.

 

'maybe not all peripherals.. just throttle quadrants capable of controlling more than one engine. <--- Humor

 

.. and yes, I was putting a facetious (BTW great word) spin on the topic.

 

Wishing everyone a great week!

[Daniel Hawton]

Edit: Daniel, you might be surprised some companies are now doing this with consumers as well, one cereal company just started that one, if you engage with the company, either through social media, or even purchasing the product, you are now agreeing to the companies terms, one of which you give up any right to sue them also you arent purchasing anything from VATSIM, you are however a member of the organization, what you are describing is for consumers. members are a different ball game, right on the same page as employees

 

Good luck enforcing that to them, as that is unenforceable. And yes, I am a non-paying consumer. VATSIM provides a service I consume. That makes me a consumer. As far as your example, that will NEVER hold up in court. Other companies have tried that and failed, and you're living under a rock if you think so.

 

I think there is a very clear division between can and should. Yes, anybody can talk to the press about almost anything they like, however when presenting something such as an organisation such as ours, should they do so without first talking to those who have a clearer, broader vantage point so everybody's interests can be served better? The law says you can. Established community practices and expectations don't translate into should.

 

This is not my party from a staff perspective, but if this had of happened in Europe I'd have been disappointed to find out there was no Division/Region/BoG knowledge of it beforehand.

 

Reuben, I think your energy is good and welcome. It would be more effective if you worked as part of a larger team on these things. That is what people are saying. Reach out, use your wider network, look wider than just the ARTCC that you're a member of.

 

I think there is a BIG difference between discussing with someone a bit about the network from a user's perspective, and representing the network. No where did I see anything where he acted as a representative of the network. I did see, however, comments from a user. This is my issue with it, no where did he say "I work for" or "I represent". I feel bad for this user, being told he cannot express his viewpoints as a user and being hounded and attacked for representing his viewpoints as a user.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

again, nobody is "hounding or attacking" him in any way for doing the interview. that point has been clearly repeated several times

 

what we are questioning is the decision making process

[Daniel Hawton]

again, nobody is "hounding or attacking" him in any way for doing the interview. that point has been clearly repeated several times

 

what we are questioning is the decision making process

 

You definitely are through this thread. It may not have been meant, but because tones are not conveyed very well online, it can (and in some instances, did) come across that way. The decision making process shouldn't be up for discussion. 1) someone approached him asking for an interview of flight simulation, 2) he talked about his views as a user of a game he owns and plays. Whether his views are ones portrayed by those who work for the organization are up to them, however, as it is HIS game, HIS computer and HIS views he is free to discuss them so long as they are HIS views and not portrayed as the views of VATSIM.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

no i definitely was not, as you said, the tone was picked up solely by the reader. when people put their walls up, that tends to happen, but i guarantee i was not, would be no point in doing so.

 

also just to clear it up, at least to what some of the ZHU staff have mentioned (and as he mentioned earlier in the topic), they didnt approach him directly, according to them. the station approached the ARTCC, the ARTCC asked him to do it. as such he was there as a representative of the ARTCC and VATSIM at that point

 

we are not discussing his opinions, he did nothing wrong with sharing that. its the spin that the station did around it thats the issue and also knowing fully, according to him, they would do that would be an issue. he basically walked into a situation that was beyond his control knowing fully what the outcome would be. i dont think thats his fault, but it is a major failure in the decision making hierarchy

[Ross Carlson]

I had to go and watch the video again ... and I still don't see what all the fuss is about here. The media will sensationalize anything they can, and a few sound bytes from a VATSIM member isn't going to change anything. I don't see how this interview is going to hurt VATSIM in any way. Does anyone really think that a potential VATSIM member, someone sincerely interested in virtual aviation, is going to think twice and *not* pursue the hobby of online flying because VATSIM was briefly discussed in the context of MH370? And does anyone think that if a VATSIM staff member with experience dealing with the media did the interview, it would have made any difference in the sensationalism found in that story? The sensationalized bits didn't even come from Reuben's interview anyway. The juicy stuff came from the guy that said flight sims are definitely a security risk.

 

If anything, this story paints VATSIM in a good light because it highlights the realism factor.

 

Much ado about nothing.

[Brighton McMinn]

Again, I and ZHU knew exactly what the story was going to be about.

 

ZHU did not know that MH370 would be brought up or discussed. The story may have had a negative spin on it and we're all going to have to deal with that. Nothing we can do now. I guarantee that if this had been a story in positive light, none of this discussion would have ever taken place.

 

Excellent points, Ross.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Good post, Ross. Absolutely my opinion. Anyone here can talk to the media, there was no negative effect on VATSIM and we must not go down the path of coming up with stuff like a "Media Policy". This is a hobby, not a job...

[Daniel Hawton]

Good post, Ross. Absolutely my opinion. Anyone here can talk to the media, there was no negative effect on VATSIM and we must not go down the path of coming up with stuff like a "Media Policy". This is a hobby, not a job...

 

Absolutely agree here.

[Nicola Felini]

Stay tuned for more... But until then, thanks for playing.