Discussion: If you could change one thing about VATSIM...

[Kirk Christie]

Actually, after having though more in-depth about Arthur's point, I've come up with something that maybe should've been suggested since the beginning.

 

Just like there is a VATSIM server in which the only connections allowed are for ATC & Mentors during training with simulated pilots (aka. SweatBox), maybe it would be a good idea to add another one for the completely opposite people: pilots. Something like a server in which there is no ATC, but only pilots who want to fly together or just train some of their skills before actually getting on the rest of the network. If it is looked at closely, it would somehow also be a "solution" to the rest of the suggestions regarding clueless pilots flying, as it would be an environment in which basic flying lessons could also be carried out, without interfering with others who already know better what they are doing.

 

What do you guys think about this?

 

To close this conversation off, there is a place where you can do that, its called Project Fly

[Cillian O Luing 1032602]

Before this thread gets locked I feel it important that I should weigh in from the developer's standpoint.

 

My primary suggestion is to UPDATE THE BACK-END, but naturally it divides into a few areas, two of which (codec & latency) have already been discussed at length.

 

Having to choose randomly from a list of text files every few minutes in order to get the latest traffic information as the primary flight tracking method? All fields delimited by colons? ATC and Pilots not even differentiated so you get lots of this garbage ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::" where an ATC obviously doesn't have an altitude or a heading, etc? This was a bad approach to take when it was developed, not to mention now when we have REST and JSON, but, I imagine, it was retroactively hacked together. Somebody mentioned earlier in the thread about lack of adequate flight logging compared to IVAO: is this a surprise?

 

It's not easy to advertise events either. We shouldn't have to post on forums at this stage like we were doing 10 years ago: there should be a centralised repository of events (Like this link here, in fact) accessible by everyone through a REST API. If there is such a system then why hasn't it been made available or obvious to us in the vACCs? Why isn't there .ics integration with smartphones and calendar apps? Why isn't there an official VATSIM app with all of this stuff to make it easy to see where the ATC is going to be that evening?

 

The IDStatus system is a total jokeshop; another hackfest, I imagine. I can only cower in terror at the idea of the server overhead it takes to generate all these files anew every night/week/month, especially where the system runs an update on a member's record without needing to do so. From a technical standpoint it is ironic that I was chastised by a supervisor 10 years ago for having my visrange at 51 on a TWR position when the server resources are being wasted like this.

 

The way the ratings are stored in the database is a mess. The number of "real rating" controllers (that is, non-administrative ratings) we have in our database as "suspended" because the ratings are stored in plain text (or similar), or because the US system doesn't correlate with the European one---or whatever---is no fewer than 10 of the active membership. Another retroactive hackfest?

 

The lack of any clear support for developers of vACC or VA websites is a sticking point. There is no standard template available for vACC websites with pre-built SSO integration* and chart links on the homepage, and so on. Your argument: "but the average person doesn't know how to write code in PHP/Ruby/Node/etc". Call me a bit shallow, but having developed a website with TS, forum, calendar system, training system, etc integrated, I can't help but think why I had to do it in the first place. Why isn't there a joomla-style centrally-hosted generic template that vACCs can add officially-supported VATSIM-developed widgets to? Developing this system took me years, in fact, before everything was sufficiently hacked together so the system would have basic functionality.

"But every vACC has its own flavour of individuality and needs to manage its own affairs". That is true: but wide divisions between everybody, everywhere, all the hundreds of pages of regulations nobody reads, and so on, is what sucks the fun out of this for everybody. How on earth can VATSIM honestly expect to police GDPR "forget me" requests when each vACC/division HAS to store its members' data for itself out of necessity?

On this point: the VATSIM data is generated in multiple different formats, coming from different endpoints (some of which are legacy, as above), managed by different people, on different servers, etc etc. With all the caching and everything we had to do in order to do all this basic stuff we had to take the VPS route, which adds overhead with managing SSL certs and all the fun we have complying with GDPR; not to mention the financial overhead. This isn't cheap. It shouldn't be necessary to hack everything together to get basic functionality up and running.

 

On this last point perhaps a VATSIM technical renaissance is indeed in order? Pilot training is generally a qualitative parameter of the network, even where pilot ratings are involved, but how on earth are we meant to provide a good """user experience""" for people when the quantitative stuff is impossible (to the average vACC director) to provide? Feedback forms. Who's online. Charts repository. Integrated booking system. Integrated & distributed events system. No, or at least very little, support for us.

 

I think IVAO might have the right idea in terms of division (or, more properly, I suppose, unity) of the web resources. Centralised servers take the control away from those power-hungry wallet-wielding members of the vACCs who stay at the top because they're the ones financing the vACC's operations. Centralised services would allow easy replication of core vACC services, the management thereof being coordinated by a team of people who are willing to do it.

 

Our website docs has an overview of the functionality of our website, in case anybody is curious. I apologise that this post has exceeded the average length.

 

* Kieran has done a great job on the SSO side of things, however, using his examples still requires users to know how to write [good, logical] code. This code then needs to be smarter than sending a user to the SSO site multiple times for authentication with different parts of the site: Website, Forum, Teamspeak, Training Systems, Live Stream dashboards, etc etc.

[Richard McDonald Woods]

Perhaps only a very brave decision to restart VATSIM software development from scratch will suffice. There would, of course, need to be a lengthy requirements agreement phase first to ensure the new direction.

[Cillian O Luing 1032602]

Perhaps only a very brave decision to restart VATSIM software development from scratch will suffice. There would, of course, need to be a lengthy requirements agreement phase first to ensure the new direction.

Exactly: lack of a cohesive philosophy seems to be the issue with this in the first instance.

 

If the org/VATSIM/staff structure is hierarchically cohesive and everyone upstream of the technology/vACC/staff member is on the same page then it's fine; but as we saw earlier in the thread with the "as-real-as-it-gets" charade this doesn't seem to be the case: in a big organisation such as this the hierarchy has to have a unifying effect so everyone can enjoy the hobby as much as the next person. Codec, support for vACCs, pilot training, controller training, how criticism is accepted or not &c all feed in to this. I don't mean that there should be homogeneity across vACCs; I mean instead that the core philosophy of providing a fun flying and controlling experience for everyone and what this means should be agreed at the levels above the vACC and VAs. Call it sematics; call it philosophy. Development of "lengthy requirements agreement" are necessary when the organisational philosophy encourages a rhizomatic structure rather than a hierarchically unisonous one. Maybe VATSIM wants its organisational philosophy to be the rhizomatic type; but so long as this is arrived at by deliberate decision then we can better understand how it is vACCs and VAs are expected to function. But if the rhizomatic approach is a by-product of bad communication or retroactively doing something to make something work (as the web technologies seem to suggest) or just legacy "ways of doing things" from ten years ago then there are more serious issues to be discussed here.

 

We should absolutely continue to support text-only pilots and controllers. Some of our members have learning difficulties or are deaf or hard of hearing, or have speech impediments. To exclude somebody on medical grounds because it will make livestreams more realistic or a controller's life easier during an event has as much to do with the organisational and technical design philosophy of the network as it does on what it means to have "fun". The way these things are approached by VATSIM management is very important and should be addressed, because the number of controllers that moan when a text-only pilot flies in is unacceptable. Likewise we had to make an exception for a blind member to be allowed to control solo on a delivery position (local rules are too complicated to go into here: usually they need to be validated as an S1 or have an S2 tower rating to control solo). We shouldn't have had to have applied to the level above to make an exception in this case: there should be a network-wide philosophy of welcome for members with disabilities. This is all about the network philosophy.

 

Once again I'm sorry I've gone beyond the requirements of the thread.

[Alex Long]

Having to choose randomly from a list of text files every few minutes in order to get the latest traffic information as the primary flight tracking method? All fields delimited by colons? ATC and Pilots not even differentiated so you get lots of this garbage ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::" where an ATC obviously doesn't have an altitude or a heading, etc? This was a bad approach to take when it was developed, not to mention now when we have REST and JSON, but, I imagine, it was retroactively hacked together. Somebody mentioned earlier in the thread about lack of adequate flight logging compared to IVAO: is this a surprise?

 

As a division developer, I agree that a JSON data file would be a good idea. JSON is easily human readable in its original format and is easy to work with.

 

The IDStatus system is a total jokeshop; another hackfest, I imagine. I can only cower in terror at the idea of the server overhead it takes to generate all these files anew every night/week/month, especially where the system runs an update on a member's record without needing to do so. From a technical standpoint it is ironic that I was chastised by a supervisor 10 years ago for having my visrange at 51 on a TWR position when the server resources are being wasted like this.

 

I'd also like to see the IDStatus system get a JSON format in addition to the XML. I'd also like to see the divisions get access to some additional information about controllers, mostly the dates of rating upgrades. Various VATSIM policies are reliant on the date of a rating upgrade, and instead of having to dig thru a cert record, would be nice to be able to pull it from ID Status.

 

The lack of any clear support for developers of vACC or VA websites is a sticking point. There is no standard template available for vACC websites with pre-built SSO integration* and chart links on the homepage, and so on. Your argument: "but the average person doesn't know how to write code in PHP/Ruby/Node/etc". Call me a bit shallow, but having developed a website with TS, forum, calendar system, training system, etc integrated, I can't help but think why I had to do it in the first place. Why isn't there a joomla-style centrally-hosted generic template that vACCs can add officially-supported VATSIM-developed widgets to? Developing this system took me years, in fact, before everything was sufficiently hacked together so the system would have basic functionality.

"But every vACC has its own flavour of individuality and needs to manage its own affairs". That is true: but wide divisions between everybody, everywhere, all the hundreds of pages of regulations nobody reads, and so on, is what sucks the fun out of this for everybody. How on earth can VATSIM honestly expect to police GDPR "forget me" requests when each vACC/division HAS to store its members' data for itself out of necessity?

On this point: the VATSIM data is generated in multiple different formats, coming from different endpoints (some of which are legacy, as above), managed by different people, on different servers, etc etc. With all the caching and everything we had to do in order to do all this basic stuff we had to take the VPS route, which adds overhead with managing SSL certs and all the fun we have complying with GDPR; not to mention the financial overhead. This isn't cheap. It shouldn't be necessary to hack everything together to get basic functionality up and running.

 

On this last point perhaps a VATSIM technical renaissance is indeed in order? Pilot training is generally a qualitative parameter of the network, even where pilot ratings are involved, but how on earth are we meant to provide a good """user experience""" for people when the quantitative stuff is impossible (to the average vACC director) to provide? Feedback forms. Who's online. Charts repository. Integrated booking system. Integrated & distributed events system. No, or at least very little, support for us.

 

I do agree there's poor support from the network as a whole in terms of guidance or resources available for those who are in need of, or are in the staff positions responsible for web services. I had attempted to create a "FIR in a box" which was going to be basically a premade website with everything a FIR would need to run a website, and extensive docomeentation so that someone who doesn't have a whole lot of experience would be able to navigate it and get things setup. It didn't end up going far at the time for various reasons, but something like this would be an ideal solution. That, or a "code library" with all the resources needed already created into stand alone applications (without needing composer or other things. A simple drag and drop into the directory and navigate to an install URL). Things like hours logging, training requests and notes, etc. I'd be willing to help with something like this.

 

I think IVAO might have the right idea in terms of division (or, more properly, I suppose, unity) of the web resources. Centralised servers take the control away from those power-hungry wallet-wielding members of the vACCs who stay at the top because they're the ones financing the vACC's operations. Centralised services would allow easy replication of core vACC services, the management thereof being coordinated by a team of people who are willing to do it.

 

I wouldn't say web control needs to be "taken away" from "power hungry wallets". At least the side of the network I'm from, it's usually the FIR/ARTCC ATM that has the responsibility for the financial burden of the hosting and then the search for the web talent. I do think for various security reasons the website and hosting should move to the division level for the division to maintain, but still issue out required access. I do also think it's a good idea to maintain many of these services on the division level. I also developed a team of people in my division who are responsible for development and upkeep of these services and it's been working well.

 

 

We should absolutely continue to support text-only pilots and controllers. Some of our members have learning difficulties or are deaf or hard of hearing, or have speech impediments. To exclude somebody on medical grounds because it will make livestreams more realistic or a controller's life easier during an event has as much to do with the organisational and technical design philosophy of the network as it does on what it means to have "fun". The way these things are approached by VATSIM management is very important and should be addressed, because the number of controllers that moan when a text-only pilot flies in is unacceptable. Likewise we had to make an exception for a blind member to be allowed to control solo on a delivery position (local rules are too complicated to go into here: usually they need to be validated as an S1 or have an S2 tower rating to control solo). We shouldn't have had to have applied to the level above to make an exception in this case: there should be a network-wide philosophy of welcome for members with disabilities. This is all about the network philosophy.

 

I agree fully. When I first joined the network, every controller had to earn their voice certification to control using voice. You were text only before that. I think the art of controlling via text has been lost. Controllers need better training on the use of their alias files to increase their skills in text controlling.

[Callum McLoughlin]

I’ve seen this kill the hirearchy thing come up a few times over the course of this thread, but I’d like to get an idea of how one thinks this can be accomplished.

 

Shake up the Executive Committee. It contributes the square root of sod all and has done so since I became a member 10 years ago. I've worked on region staff and have seen first hand the inactivity, lack of vision, lack of care. I've worked on Division staff and have the same impression from that side of things too.

 

What progress has the EC made against its KPIs in the past 10 years? I know the answer is close to zero.

 

Does it have potential? Sure.

 

Most of the staff 'fat' is actually in the lower levels. The events coordinator of Timbuktu airfield etc. The BoG and a properly staffed, active and driven EC isn't actually the issue. Look at the Divisions and vACCs/ARTCCs for inspiration. People forget that titles aren't needed to contribute to VATSIM.

[Arthur Melton]

If you talk like that they will delete you from the forum like they did me

[Tom Stian Bjerk 853618]

Hi

 

Ive been flying online since SATCO and then VATSIM.

 

And Im now a bit concerned when POSCON was announced. I like to stay with VATSIM, but I "fear" many users will switch over. And make less traffic on VATSIM (and IVAO). I dont think the community is big enough for 3 free networks.

 

I really hope to see some changes on VATSIM in the very near future.

Especially the voice codec. My main reason for being a "text-pilot" is because of the poor sound quality. The new codec/filter that PilotEdge has now for x-plane sounds awesome.

 

Another thing is people flying online without using UNICOM. I often contacting them and ask them politely to remember to use UNICOM next time they fly. (with a smiley). So something to school the pilots to use (and how to use) UNICOM would be great.

 

And the forums could also be updated a bit. It feels very old and outdated

 

VATSIM will always be in my heart and I hope to see some modernization to clients and the network in the near future.

 

Good luck.

 

Regards

Tom Stian

[Kirk Christie]

Another thing is people flying online without using UNICOM. I often contacting them and ask them politely to remember to use UNICOM next time they fly. (with a smiley). So something to school the pilots to use (and how to use) UNICOM would be great.

 

Yes they are required to set the radio to 122.800 or other designated unicom frequency, but they are only required to monitor that.

 

The problem with unicom is there is varying levels of belief on how it is to be used, some people want to tell their life story on it and other usless information like reaching their cruise altitude, others carry on conversations with people, some make announcements and dont mention the airport they are at, some guy announces his/her intention to land on a runway, and then ten others decide its their duty to advise that person that runway is not in use today/closed/under repair/A320's never land on that runway ect, I've made announcements that I was on approaching an airport, what cuircit directions I was on, only to have some one who was previouslly behind me cut me off on finals.

 

This in my opinion is why, while im tuned to 122.800, I dont bother looking at the screen. I constantly monitor VAT-SPY to see what other A/craft may be in the area and arriving with a similar time to me, and decide if I need to make announcements or not, and if some one cuts me off, or pulls onto the runway after making an announcement, I just land thru them.

[Andrew Morkunas]

And Im now a bit concerned when POSCON was announced. I like to stay with VATSIM, but I "fear" many users will switch over. And make less traffic on VATSIM (and IVAO). I dont think the community is big enough for 3 free networks.

 

Well it is a free a market and hopefully competition will be a motivator for innovation. After all we are in the 21st century and even Microsoft knew when to stop supporting outdated technology (Windows XP).

[Mats Edvin Aaro]

It would have to be the rule that says that once you've earned your rating, you have it forever.

At first, that seemed like a good thing to me. I have earned it, and don't need to constantly prove myself.

 

HOWEVER;

 

Seeing controllers come back from many years off the network, they are of course rusty - and might not be up to date with the latest procedures, software and phraseology.

The returning controllers I have spoken to have all been quite surprised when I told them that they can basically hop on an enroute position without having any kind of refresher course.

 

The problem with this, is that this may hinder others from enjoying the network. And while I understand that imposing such restriction for "inactive" controllers would be really hard to maintain, I think it should be up to the division to enforce such a rule. I'm not talking about being degraded from your current rating. I am talking about having to go through a some refresher sessions, in order to be able to control in said division.

 

I think it is completely fine that the rating is yours to keep. But why should you deny divisions on restricting controlling to within a specified activity level - in order to ensure the level of professionalism and quality on the network?

 

Any ideas or thoughts?

[Jonas Kuster]

Ive been flying online since SATCO and then VATSIM.

 

And Im now a bit concerned when POSCON was announced. I like to stay with VATSIM, but I "fear" many users will switch over. And make less traffic on VATSIM (and IVAO). I dont think the community is big enough for 3 free networks.

 

I don't even think the community is big enough for 2 networks. I've joined after SATCO times. But imagine the first time I heard about the stories and IVAO. I thought - how stupid is it to have two networks/communities doing more or less the same and taking away ressources from each other? In economy, you would say it's ruinous for both. And it probably will be also in this case. There seems no way to unite VATSIM and IVAO, so ...

 

the solution I'm actually hoping for is a NEW network to REPLACE the 2 old ones. How it is called finally doesn't matter so much to me. But imagine how we could enjoy our hobby so much more if we hadn't this virtual barrier.

Edited August 1, 2018 at 02:38 PM by Guest

[Richard McDonald Woods]

POSCON

[Matthew Kramer]

In regards to pilot quality, one tangible step I think the BoG can take (and I haven't read this whole thread so please forgive me if it's come up) is reaching out to popular flightsim streamers and youtubers to make a few (short, less than 5min) training videos for new pilots.

 

1) How do I connect to the network and what does ATC expect of me?

1a) P3D

1b) Xplane

 

2) How to file a basic flightplan and what to put in the remarks when you're new

 

3) Understanding the basics of IFR and VFR

 

4) Where to find more resources

 

A new voice codec, overhauled backend, and faster position updates would of course be awesome, but addressing pilot quality is a tricky step that I think we can address that would have tremendous benefits with minimally invested resources. A lot of streamer types already fly on the network, but I also often see them make pretty big faux pas and mistakes. Pairing a popular streamer up with a network veteran could be helpful, and something easy for new pilots to take in without feeling overwhelmed.

[Wildan Gunawan]

What I want to change is, how VATSIM "treat" METAR.

 

AFAIK, VATSIM uses NOAA METAR, right?

Few months ago, we, in Indonesia (and who's flying to Indonesia), have some problem.

It's the problem for ALL airport, not only mini airport or something that people don't fly to. NOAA only have METAR for WIII and WAAA.

We already contact Isaac Tan (VATSEA2), and he posted on the forum about the problem.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=76526

 

And, ya, we don't seem like have any kind of respond, and just waiting for NOAA to fix their issue.

We already give a new source, and ya. No respond.

 

So, why I post this while NOAA already fix it?

I already have this issue likely 2 times, first on IVAO and second on VATSIM. And IVAO uses NOAA too.

And, while NOAA already fix their issue, there is still an issue. Yesterday, while I was online being Ujung Control, I have a traffic to Domine Eduard Osok (W[Mod - Happy Thoughts]), and you know what? VATSIM doesn't generate METAR for him. While our source give METAR.

 

VATSIM: http://metar.vatsim.net/W[Mod - Happy Thoughts] (I don't know how to use this link btw, but this give me respond so I would say this link is right.)

Our Source: http://aviation.bmkg.go.id/web/metar_speci.php?icao=W[Mod - Happy Thoughts]&sa=yes&r=1&f=raw_format&lang=en

 

So, maybe we can deliver more advanced METAR system to user, even to rarely visited airport.

And maybe VATSIM want to treat Indonesia's METAR more special.

[Scott Bickford]

Another +1 for improving voice. My primary issue is with my isp where voice is very choppy so I constantly have to say "say again?". Usually I get the gist, but... This was one of my primary reasons for giving up controlling, I just couldn't deal with it.

[Robert Scott 846001]

From my perspective, the big dog in the room is, and has always been, the spotty controller coverage on the network, especially during non-peak periods.

 

My one unrequieted wish is for a hybrid pilot client that provides some computer-generated ATC (a la something like Radar Contact) during gaps in controller coverage. When flying into an area of ATC coverage (or when a controller comes online) the controller could send a system command to initiate a handoff from the hybrid ATC client to his manned ATC position, and vice versa--when flying out of coverage or the controller is logging off, a handoff to the computer-generated ATC client occurs, allowing the pilot to continue with computer-generated ATC in the uncontrolled region he's flying through.

 

The first outfit to make something like this work will leave the others far behind.

 

Regards

 

Bob Scott

C3/PAZA

[Matthew Kramer]

From my perspective, the big dog in the room is, and has always been, the spotty controller coverage on the network, especially during non-peak periods.

 

My one unrequieted wish is for a hybrid pilot client that provides some computer-generated ATC (a la something like Radar Contact) during gaps in controller coverage. When flying into an area of ATC coverage (or when a controller comes online) the controller could send a system command to initiate a handoff from the hybrid ATC client to his manned ATC position, and vice versa--when flying out of coverage or the controller is logging off, a handoff to the computer-generated ATC client occurs, allowing the pilot to continue with computer-generated ATC in the uncontrolled region he's flying through.

 

The first outfit to make something like this work will leave the others far behind.

 

Regards

 

Bob Scott

C3/PAZA

 

That is an incredibly interesting idea I would be in favor of, though I recognize it would be a programming hurdle. What happens if a pilot deviates? Would it just be for the en route environments maybe?

[Richard McDonald Woods]

I suggest that this could be implemented in CPDLC because this supports just the en route ATC. If a sector is unmanned then the AI controller would be active and vice versa. Then we just require far more coverage for approach and field control.

[Chad Walser 819558]

I am not sure where I read it but as a returning controller with a large amount of hours on the mic, I agree with a previous posting that a "refresher" style course would [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist in controller base. I have thought about it and maybe a couple suggestions that may help facilitate that would be:

 

1) Written testing of the Vatsim / Division SOPs, with a minimum p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing grade, that encomp[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es the level last obtained, i.e. testing for a S1, S2, S3 rating previous to becoming inactive. I know for some courses I have taken real world, the requirement is to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] each to move onto the next level. I know this is in place already here, but having to wait for OJT to go to the next level seems a common issue reading some posts.

 

2) As like in a returning real world pilot that has been away, a time of mentor/instruction/check out to brush off the rust rather than starting completely at the bottom again. Maybe minimum hour requirement of X to be "checked off" at a position?

 

3) Another thought, a coordinated basic training team. The availability of a set number of members to get controllers, new or returning, up to speed and quickly, i.e. a basic "academy". This team responsible for setting up, familiarizing with the software, connecting, basic FAA standards of controlling, THEN, referring those to divisions for the minutia of the specific area they wish to be a part of. I realize this already is somewhat in place with the CBTs and could be a challenge to bring together a team with such a variety of software programs. However, getting those a base level knowledge of how to work the system with a group of SME's (subject matter experts) could speed up getting controllers in the field.

 

I love getting online and being a part of this community, both flying and controlling. I have met some great people on here and hope to continue to meet more. If I am misguided, I welcome the point in the direction I can find the information.

 

Just a few of my thoughts.

CW

[Tristan Garratt]

Make divisional directors more active on the actual network.

[Craig Watt 1432888]

I was thinking about this last night actually, well you know how we have vroute and in vroute you can click to listen to the radio? It got me thinking Unicom is all text which suits people but I was wondering if they could merge real ATC from live ATC so that you could listen in whilst on Unicom and still using the txt service, until back in vatsim controllers airspace, whilst still using Unicom, then once you arrive back in controllers airspace at that stage you would not listen to live ATC but connect to the designated vatsim controller. People will obviously have cons to that which I am sure would be a few. Just a suggestion. I don’t even know if it could be done, I am far far from a computer expert so I don’t know if it could work. Unless Unicom was to change to voice but again I don’t know the technicalities behind it.

[Erich Berner 834484]

Much more effective supervision. Obvious troublemakers should be kicked of alot easier than is currently the case. Trolling is allowed to happen for quite a length of time before anything is done.

[Nestor Perez]

Making a clear rule in the CoC about the use of time acceleration on the network.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

Making a clear rule in the CoC about the use of time acceleration on the network.

... and a clear distinction between "should" and "must/shall". Let's put THAT one to rest, finally...