Is it time to abandon /t?

[Nicholas Camperos]

yeaaah I don't know how to respond to that whole ww2 thing. Its kind of off. Nobody is asking anyone to label themselves as anything or to be ashamed of anything. Its just a survey to get some data and opinions so the network can improve its education efforts. It would probably take under a minute to complete and whatever user filled out the survey would forget about it in under an hour. I'm relatively new to this world, I've been here for a little under two decades, so I don't have too much experience with mass genocide or world domination or anything in the category - but - I do know that anonymous and voluntary polls have always been a great resource and I think setting one up for this headed towards the benefit of helping pilots who are stuck on /t/ and helping controllers who have to deal with /t/ has only a benefit impact. 

As stated prior to this post, yes, it will take a matter of compromise. I started this thread focused on restricting the use of /t/ by means of a system and it is clear that not everyone agrees with this methodology, but I still want the best results possible and so I am pushing to see what we can do from an encouragement and educational standpoint. I think these are grounds we can all agree to settle on within vatsim, as it satisfies both sides of the argument. Perhaps not to the extent both sides may want it, but just enough so each person with their own ideas gets a little bit of what they want out of it.

Edited February 11, 2021 at 02:29 AM by Nicholas Camperos

[Shane Reilly]

1 hour ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

Do you realize that what you are asking for is the same thing that was used in Europe during WW2? You're asking them to label themselves as something that would make them ashamed to be able to fly on this network because of shyness with using their voice, a disability, or otherwise

 

🤦‍♂️

 

Edited February 11, 2021 at 02:36 AM by Shane Reilly

[Nicholas Camperos]

2 hours ago, Matthew Wurzbach said:

I do have education in this area yes. 

What do you suggest gets done in specific then, to ensure the validity of the results of a poll.  

[Gerardo Rodriguez]

2 hours ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

I hate to put it this way, and it is going to sound absolutely horrible, but it is the only way I can say it. Do you realize that what you are asking for is the same thing that was used in Europe during WW2? You're asking them to label themselves as something that would make them ashamed to be able to fly on this network because of shyness with using their voice, a disability, or otherwise. That is not in the nature of this network, nor has it ever been in the nature of this network, just because some people aren't willing to figure out how to accommodate them to the best of their abilities. 

This is the most ridiculous and worthless comparison I've ever seen...What's the next one? Me changing my name because of my name I am immediately labeled as a latino/hispanic? 

 

 

[Brad Littlejohn]

44 minutes ago, Gerardo Rodriguez said:

This is the most ridiculous and worthless comparison I've ever seen...What's the next one? Me changing my name because of my name I am immediately labeled as a latino/hispanic? 

 

 

 

Let me answer that question with another question. Do we single anyone out based on name?

You'll find that answer to be no, which is the same answer I have when it comes to singling out people who valid reasons to be /t. We need to be accommodating to everyone, regardless of what limitations they may have, not try to single them out for those limitations.

Not everyone can be /v. That's a simple fact. We as controllers and pilots need to be accommodating of that instead of being given an asterisk by their name because they are /t.

BL.

[Shane Reilly]

1 hour ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

 

Let me answer that question with another question. Do we single anyone out based on name?

You'll find that answer to be no, which is the same answer I have when it comes to singling out people who valid reasons to be /t. We need to be accommodating to everyone, regardless of what limitations they may have, not try to single them out for those limitations.

Not everyone can be /v. That's a simple fact. We as controllers and pilots need to be accommodating of that instead of being given an asterisk by their name because they are /t.

BL.

By that logic we should allow /t controllers if we're trying not to single people out. If I become a /t controller, do pilots need to accommodate me?

I don't understand why /r still isn't an option here.

If the will of the playerbase who flies on VATSIM is to shift to /r or /v then it should be set to that. It's not singling anyone out, it's putting down standards and requirements to improve the network. 

Also it's a game (ie not related to any historical atrocities of past.....)

[Simon Kelsey]

4 hours ago, Shane Reilly said:

By that logic we should allow /t controllers if we're trying not to single people out. If I become a /t controller, do pilots need to accommodate me?

Text only controllers are allowed, pilots do need to accomodate them and I can think of at least one.

[Andreas Fuchs]

On 2/10/2021 at 8:29 AM, Matthew Wurzbach said:

There is still a line to walk when the goal is providing service to "everyone." For instance, is VATSIM responsible for accommodating blind players? What about those with reduced mental ability?

Probably you did not intend to mean it this way, but it makes some ugly, ugly reading, I have to admit. Yes, of course it is VATSIM's goal to be as inclusive as possible. Obviously there are limits to the degree of disability that can be accommodated for meaningful participation in our "game". But I have to say I that am immensely proud that we have a couple of blind, deaf and spastic pilots and controllers who can enjoy VATSIM and we embrace them with open arms.

It's not always about how much you CAN do, but how much you WANT to do. Do you realize how much enjoyment this gives to them and makes them feel better?

 

I may sound like a broken record, but the maximum that VATSIM should do is:

• clearly state that /v/ is the preferred way of communication ( we already do this)
• clearly state that /r/ is the preferred secondary way of communication
• clearly state that /t/ is absolutely acceptable, but if possible use /v/ or at least /r/
• better educate new and recent members about it
• encourage new members to not be afraid and just speak on the radio, mistakes are normal in the beginning and even veterans regularly mess up on the radio

 

Don't forget that we have a quite a few "pure /t/ pilots" who outperform a lot of "/v/ pilots" (not vpilot 😄) with a big margin!

Edited February 11, 2021 at 11:10 AM by Andreas Fuchs

[Alistair Thomson]

12 hours ago, Josh Jenk said:

If, for example, we find that mic fright is overwhelmingly the primary reason of pilots using /t then maybe the BoG can come up with new training material for both pilots and controllers to encourage pilots to take the leap into the world of voice communication.

That is already known as one reason.

12 hours ago, Josh Jenk said:

If, on the other hand, they find that for example people are using text because of a hearing impairment, then maybe there isn't much that can change.

So is that.

12 hours ago, Josh Jenk said:

you don't know what you're going to find until you try.

Do you really believe that? After six pages of contributions including some from very experienced members, I think we could find 99% of the reasons why some use is made of /t right here in this discussion.

12 hours ago, Josh Jenk said:

If you feel you're being targeted, don't do the survey

And therefore those who may feel targeted (probably those with a serious difficulty in using /v or /r) will not respond, so their fundamentally important reason for using /t will not be heard. Will you assume that their silence is acquiescence?

 

[Alistair Thomson]

3 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

It's not always about how much you CAN do, but how much you WANT to do. Do you realize how much enjoyment this gives to them and makes them feel better?

+1. Well said.

[Nicholas Camperos]

Right well we are presented here with two options.

A: Do absolutely nothing about it and not bother to do a poll on /t/ users to see where VATSIM can focus their educational efforts because of the idea that the poll will not show everyone's ideas because they did not want to answer. Which is kind of their problem, if you don't speak up no one will help you. 

B: Do the best effort we can as a platform and come up with a poll to get a solid idea as to why most users that claim to use /t/ do so, that way VATSIM can have a bit of educational focus on the subject or encouragement to break misconceptions, and improve the experience of all.

You could argue that a poll may be flawed. A poll may not give everyone the most accurate data in the world, and the numbers may be different depending on just the time of day the poll is posted at. Regardless, this is not a government election, this is not a company's financial decision board, and this is not a poll to determine and effect the lives of every human live out there on the planet. This is a poll for a video game network to ask what makes a group of people want to use a certain option so that the people in charge of the network can focus some educational efforts to help them lift up from their fears and boost them into a healthy VATSIM experience. If there is any way to ensure validity in a poll other than to just not take it, by all means suggest it,  but otherwise, I stand for a poll of some sort to be organized to see what VATSIM can emphasize or work on when it comes to the encouragement of pilots to use the network to the most enjoyable possibility possible. 

Edited February 11, 2021 at 05:01 PM by Nicholas Camperos

[Joshua Jenkins]

6 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

That is already known as one reason.

 

6 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

So is that.

Yes, but which is it primarily (or is there maybe another primary reason), why is that the primary reason, and how can we lessen people using text because of that reason?

6 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

Do you really believe that? After six pages of contributions including some from very experienced members, I think we could find 99% of the reasons why some use is made of /t right here in this discussion.

Yes I do. From what I remember in these 6 pages, we haven't heard from a single user who is always text only. Even if we have 99% of the reasons, wouldn't ignoring that final 1% be just as bad as getting rid of text entirely (since we're sincerely trying to include everyone)?

 

6 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

And therefore those who may feel targeted (probably those with a serious difficulty in using /v or /r) will not respond, so their fundamentally important reason for using /t will not be heard. Will you assume that their silence is acquiescence?

First of all, (to be blunt) I don't know how someone could feel offended by a poll as both myself and others have already stated. I think the majority of text pilots would have no problem filling out a survey and you should get a large enough sample size even if everyone doesn't fill it out. The idea behind the poll is to allow users to have a say in where the network is going and improve its fun for everyone. If they don't care enough to take 5 minutes or less at some point over a week or two (or however long a poll like this would be open for), then yes, their silence can be assumed to be acquiescence, although again I don't think the number of people who don't fill it out will be enough to skew the results.

 

5 hours ago, Nicholas Camperos said:

Regardless, this is not a government election, this is not a company's financial decision board, and this is not a poll to determine and effect the lives of every human live out there on the planet. This is a poll for a video game network to ask what makes a group of people want to use a certain option so that the people in charge of the network can focus some educational efforts to help them lift up from their fears and boost them into a healthy VATSIM experience.

^^^^This. Sometimes we lose focus on what we're even debating and end up arguing over the most pointless stuff.

 

Nicholas laid out the two options regarding the poll very well, and I'm not wanting to start an argument, so I won't say anymore on this topic. Again, I'm not for or against text or text pilots themselves, but I think if we truly want to have everyone get the most enjoyment out of the network, compromises need to be made on both sides 🙂

[Alistair Thomson]

29 minutes ago, Josh Jenk said:

we haven't heard from a single user who is always text only

How do you know that?

[Joshua Jenkins]

13 minutes ago, Alistair Thomson said:

How do you know that?

I don't for sure, but I do recognize almost all the names that have posted in here and I know that they use voice. Also note my full quote started with "From what I remember," so I could definitely be wrong (and if I am feel free to correct me).

 

43 minutes ago, Josh Jenk said:

From what I remember in these 6 pages, we haven't heard from a single user who is always text only.

Also if you go back to page 1, you'll see I specifically asked if anyone looking at this forum was a text only pilot who could shed some light on the reasons for not using /r or /v. So far, no one has directly responded to that.

[Brad Littlejohn]

15 hours ago, Shane Reilly said:

By that logic we should allow /t controllers if we're trying not to single people out. If I become a /t controller, do pilots need to accommodate me?

I don't understand why /r still isn't an option here.

If the will of the playerbase who flies on VATSIM is to shift to /r or /v then it should be set to that. It's not singling anyone out, it's putting down standards and requirements to improve the network. 

Also it's a game (ie not related to any historical atrocities of past.....)

Not only do we allow /T controllers, but I don't know if you have realized what my first post in this thread stated: I, and everyone in my ARTCC/FIR at that time started out as /T. It wasn't until we passed our S1 exam, S2 exam, S3, exam, and a separate voice exam before we even were able to go /V. 

And this wasn't just SOP for my ARTCC/FIR; this was for the entire VATUSA division. If I remember correctly, VATMEX, VATCAN, and VATCAR also had that as SOP. At the time, only VATUK, VATEUD, VATPAC, VATNZ, and VATSUR did not have that restriction. The rationale for it was that not only did we need to make sure that the controllers knew what they were going to say before they said it, but to also be sure to accommodate everyone that was /T. If I also remember correctly, which is still current policy as of today we all still have to accommodate /T as that would be the default means of communication.

Everyone can send/receive as /T. Not everyone can send and receive as /V. We need to be able to accommodate those that do not have the ability to go /V, nor should we single them out for their reasoning as to why they can't. 

BL.

 

[Nicholas Camperos]

9 minutes ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

Not only do we allow /T controllers, but I don't know if you have realized what my first post in this thread stated: I, and everyone in my ARTCC/FIR at that time started out as /T. It wasn't until we passed our S1 exam, S2 exam, S3, exam, and a separate voice exam before we even were able to go /V. 

And this wasn't just SOP for my ARTCC/FIR; this was for the entire VATUSA division. If I remember correctly, VATMEX, VATCAN, and VATCAR also had that as SOP. At the time, only VATUK, VATEUD, VATPAC, VATNZ, and VATSUR did not have that restriction. The rationale for it was that not only did we need to make sure that the controllers knew what they were going to say before they said it, but to also be sure to accommodate everyone that was /T. If I also remember correctly, which is still current policy as of today we all still have to accommodate /T as that would be the default means of communication.

Everyone can send/receive as /T. Not everyone can send and receive as /V. We need to be able to accommodate those that do not have the ability to go /V, nor should we single them out for their reasoning as to why they can't. 

BL.

 

For one thing, I am glad that is no longer SOP. /t/ is not the default means of communication, /v/ is. It is procedure to give /t/ and /v/ the same sequence of treatment, but by natural ways of how things work, /t/ will always be behind due to the increased workload it brings by having to read rather than to just hear and so on. 

People who cannot use /v/ can be accommodated. /r/ and /t/ still exist and will always exist. 

Nobody is being singled out for not using /t/ or /r/ though. Nobody is being shamed for it, and nobody is being forced to stop. The objective at the current moment is to understand the reasoning for people wanting to use /t/ (because it has been quite clear so far that text only is not just something disabled people use, but a much broader group,) and focusing encouragement and education to push them to the next level of vatsim, being /r/ or /v/. 

let me put it this way, I see a lot of people being worried about "singling people out" and being possibly offended. Nobody should be offended or hurt by being provided the opportunity to fill out a survey to increase education efforts where it be necessary. Unless you, or anyone, is offended by being granted the choice to fill out a survey, it is probably best for the sake of the discussion to not be offended for other people - especially when they are not even offended in the first place.  

Edited February 11, 2021 at 09:28 PM by Nicholas Camperos

[Brad Littlejohn]

5 minutes ago, Josh Jenk said:

I don't for sure, but I do recognize almost all the names that have posted in here and I know that they use voice. Also note my full quote started with "From what I remember," so I could definitely be wrong (and if I am feel free to correct me).

 

Also if you go back to page 1, you'll see I specifically asked if anyone looking at this forum was a text only pilot who could shed some light on the reasons for not using /r or /v. So far, no one has directly responded to that.

 

I did. Like I mentioned before, we have pilots who are deaf. We have pilots who are not as confident in their abilities as /V than others. What this post is practically doing is asking them to out themselves and explain why, which is the very exact thing we should not be doing. Not only would this subject them to any potential ridicule, but would drive them away from our network, which goes against the principle of inclusiveness that we have had on this network, as well as our predecessor (SATCO), for the past 20+ years. Again, good and valid reasons are:

1. deaf/hearing impaired. Reference again to a fly-in I controlled at KLAS, where the entire roster of pilots coming in were all /T because they could not hear.
2. personal noise abatement. Children sleeping at home, and the pilot/parent wanted to fly and this was the only personal time they were able to get to do so.
3. lack of confidence on voice. pilots are afraid that they are going to say the wrong thing and get ridiculed for it. That has happened on more occasions than I would like to count.
   
   On a personal note, I was one of those as a pilot, even though I didn't start flying as a pilot on this network until I was already a C1. What got me for that incident was that it was the first time for me flying outside of my home country and got confused by phraseology. That threw my confidence off as a pilot, because while I knew what I was doing and how to fly my aircraft, I almost screwed up everyone's traffic flow because I was expecting something that didn't happen (landing clearance). 

And these are just for starters. 

BL.

 

[Nicholas Camperos]

2 minutes ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

 

I did. Like I mentioned before, we have pilots who are deaf. We have pilots who are not as confident in their abilities as /V than others. What this post is practically doing is asking them to out themselves and explain why, which is the very exact thing we should not be doing. Not only would this subject them to any potential ridicule, but would drive them away from our network, which goes against the principle of inclusiveness that we have had on this network, as well as our predecessor (SATCO), for the past 20+ years. Again, good and valid reasons are:

1. deaf/hearing impaired. Reference again to a fly-in I controlled at KLAS, where the entire roster of pilots coming in were all /T because they could not hear.
2. personal noise abatement. Children sleeping at home, and the pilot/parent wanted to fly and this was the only personal time they were able to get to do so.
3. lack of confidence on voice. pilots are afraid that they are going to say the wrong thing and get ridiculed for it. That has happened on more occasions than I would like to count.
   
   On a personal note, I was one of those as a pilot, even though I didn't start flying as a pilot on this network until I was already a C1. What got me for that incident was that it was the first time for me flying outside of my home country and got confused by phraseology. That threw my confidence off as a pilot, because while I knew what I was doing and how to fly my aircraft, I almost screwed up everyone's traffic flow because I was expecting something that didn't happen (landing clearance). 

And these are just for starters. 

BL.

 

Yeah I don't really agree. If someone is hurt that other people are trying to improve the network by asking them a question or two, then so be it let them leave the network. They don't have to explain why, there is no threat and no cause for them to be nervous or scared. It is just a survey 🥴

Nobody needs to feel ridiculed by this. What we've done here is taken a possible solution to a problem, and found the most miniscule reason to invalidate it. How will anything get done ever if all we do is find the 1/1000000^10000 chance that someone or something is hurt by something. 

[Joshua Jenkins]

18 minutes ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

Like I mentioned before, we have pilots who are deaf. We have pilots who are not as confident in their abilities as /V than others. What this post is practically doing is asking them to out themselves and explain why, which is the very exact thing we should not be doing.

At the end of the day we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this. I think a survey is fine to ask people to do, and you don't and not much is gonna change how we see this. Some of us have voiced our opinions on both sides and now it is ultimately up to the BoG to decide on what they want to do here.

18 minutes ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

deaf/hearing impaired. Reference again to a fly-in I controlled at KLAS, where the entire roster of pilots coming in were all /T because they could not hear.

No one is saying to get rid of /t, but rather reduce it where possible. This is one of the places it can't be reduced and as a controller I'm more than happy to accommodate a text pilot in this category.

18 minutes ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

• personal noise abatement. Children sleeping at home, and the pilot/parent wanted to fly and this was the only personal time they were able to get to do so.
• lack of confidence on voice. pilots are afraid that they are going to say the wrong thing and get ridiculed for it. That has happened on more occasions than I would like to count.

These points have already been brought up in more detail multiple times throughout this thread along with solutions. There should be almost no reason why the majority of these people can't use /r. As for pilots getting ridiculed, I too have heard it happen on freq unfortunately. Instead of sending pilots to /t to avoid it, maybe both VATSIM and the community as a whole should be more conscious about NOT doing this (if you're someone who does) and educating others as to how to accommodate new pilots (if you're someone who doesn't).

18 minutes ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

And these are just for starters. 

And that's why we are suggesting a survey 🙂

 

Anyways maybe this topic should get locked around now because I don't think anything new or valuable is being discussed. Just more fuel for arguments.

Edited February 11, 2021 at 09:47 PM by Josh Jenk
Added last paragraph

[Joshua Jenkins]

7 minutes ago, Nicholas Camperos said:

Nobody needs to feel ridiculed by this. What we've done here is taken a possible solution to a problem, and found the most miniscule reason to invalidate it. How will anything get done ever if all we do is find the 1/1000000^10000 chance that someone or something is hurt by something. 

+1

[Alistair Thomson]

We’re all repeating ourselves. Since the BoG is watching this thread intently (and we have been told that by one of its members), it does no one any good to continue to reiterate their own favourite solution.

Despite Josh’s assertion, there ARE folks in this thread who have openly suggested that /t should be abandoned. But I’m sure that will not happen.

We have had suggestions that pilots must state reasons why they use /t and we have seen many suggestions as to why they do. Some are good reasons and some are bad ones, but the bottom line there is of course that one person’s definition of good or bad is different from another’s.

In addition, it has been suggested that requiring a member to state why they use /t forces that member to reveal what he/she would rather not reveal. Sadly, some contributions to this thread have indicated that this is unacceptable.

We have had suggestions for a survey to discover why /t is used, and then use the evidence obtained from the survey to guide us into ways to encourage the use of /v and /r where possible, with education and publicity being offered as routes to that solution.

I am truly in favour of encouraging folks, through education and publicity, to use /v and /r where they can do so. I am also in favour of allowing members to use /t for whatever reason. If they decide that /t meets their needs better than the other two modes in any particular situation, even after our best educational and informational efforts, so be it.

[Nicholas Camperos]

52 minutes ago, Alistair Thomson said:

We’re all repeating ourselves. Since the BoG is watching this thread intently (and we have been told that by one of its members), it does no one any good to continue to reiterate their own favourite solution.

Despite Josh’s assertion, there ARE folks in this thread who have openly suggested that /t should be abandoned. But I’m sure that will not happen.

We have had suggestions that pilots must state reasons why they use /t and we have seen many suggestions as to why they do. Some are good reasons and some are bad ones, but the bottom line there is of course that one person’s definition of good or bad is different from another’s.

In addition, it has been suggested that requiring a member to state why they use /t forces that member to reveal what he/she would rather not reveal. Sadly, some contributions to this thread have indicated that this is unacceptable.

We have had suggestions for a survey to discover why /t is used, and then use the evidence obtained from the survey to guide us into ways to encourage the use of /v and /r where possible, with education and publicity being offered as routes to that solution.

I am truly in favour of encouraging folks, through education and publicity, to use /v and /r where they can do so. I am also in favour of allowing members to use /t for whatever reason. If they decide that /t meets their needs better than the other two modes in any particular situation, even after our best educational and informational efforts, so be it.

Fair enough and well said. Though I was initially the one to suggest the stating the reason for thing, I am also satisfied with a solution by education and encouragement. Its clear that not everyone agrees with completely limiting it, and so perhaps this is the best we can do for a positive outcome. 

[Martin Loxbo]

On 2/10/2021 at 10:05 PM, Martin Loxbo said:

Quick anecdote from this evening:

- Flight filed as /v/ checks in using text.
- I type "do you have voice?"
- The pilot responds that unfortunately he does not.
- I see his flight plan remarks says he's new to voice and might be shy to use it.
- I reply that his flight plan says otherwise. 🙂
- The pilot responds that his mic is broken.
- I ask if he can hear me.
- He says he can.
- We continue with /r/ 🤩

That's a lot of work just to figure out someone's voice/text status. Maybe the v/r/t status needs to be made more prominent to help pilots set the correct status for their flight?

I'll repeat myself as well. 😉

Had another episode similar to the one above again this evening: When asked if the pilot filed as /v/ had voice, he says his mic is broken. "So you can hear me?" "Yes", and we continue as /r/.

This, shall we call it, "erratic" text use seems to be more common with pilots who are new to the network. "Seasoned" /t/ or /r/ users usually know to file correctly and to clearly indicate their abilities to ATC. For example, it's a great help if a /r/ pilot includes "able to receive voice" or something along those lines in the initial text call, as it's sometimes not obvious to ATC without digging into the flight plan to check the remarks. Or as in this evening's case, if your mic just broke (that makes it understandable that you're still filed /v/ but are using text), include that in your text call: "mic problems but I can hear you". Great, then I know how to deal with you!

So again, maybe we could find away of making it more clear and easy to understand also for new pilots how to file /v/r/t correctly, and make it clear that this is for the benefit of themselves and ATC so we can work together to understand each other. [rant mode on]And importantly, make it clear that /t/ is not an option to use because you find chatting with your mates on discord / watching tv / going away from the computer without letting ATC know / etc more important than engaging with ATC in a way that should also be enjoyable to the controller, while online on a network that simulates flying in an ATC environment. Make it clear that if you use it like that, you are not only abusing the text facility but also fellow VATSIM members by detracting from their enjoyment of the network just for your own convenience. Luckily, the vast majority of text users are not like that, but they do pop up sometimes and I just find it so disrespectful...[/rant off]

[Samuel Rey]

I'm quite happy with these last few posts as we seem to have reached a consensus on not restricting /t but promoting /v instead. There were some points I didn't agree with in relation to the survey I mentioned.

I think they mostly stem off of this post by Brad:

Quote

I hate to put it this way, and it is going to sound absolutely horrible, but it is the only way I can say it. Do you realize that what you are asking for is the same thing that was used in Europe during WW2? You're asking them to label themselves as something that would make them ashamed to be able to fly on this network because of shyness with using their voice, a disability, or otherwise. 

Now, some other people have replied to this already, so I'll keep it short: While care must be taken when sending out such a survey, I don't think it implies that users would have to label themselves as something like that. I really don't see a general problem with asking text pilots their reasons for using text (although I would add a couple more questions if I was doing the survey, like whether or not they would like to eventually switch to voice and which reasons are keeping them from doing so or the like).

While I do admit, since this survey does have the potential to go near sensitive topics, no user should be forced to do it, my point is, as long as we're careful about how we're framing the questions and such. 

Another user posted this as well:

On 2/11/2021 at 3:06 PM, Alistair Thomson said:

Do you really believe that? After six pages of contributions including some from very experienced members, I think we could find 99% of the reasons why some use is made of /t right here in this discussion.

In your post, I think the point you're trying to make is that we don't need to do a survey as we have our answers in this thread already. While I don't believe we absolutely must do a survey to gather data about this topic (in fact, since I am not part of BoG; I don't know the amount of resources and effort it would take, which is a vital part of determining whether or not it would be worth it to carry out a survey) I don't agree with your post.

In this thread, we have the opinions of a limited set of users which you yourself mentioned are not a representative sample of VATSIM's userbase (as most of us are experienced in for example ATC and Pilot operations, and, for example, we barely have any input from new pilots). I think it wouldn't be reasonable to say 'well folks, we've consulted ourselves and made the decision for everyone!' as it's effectively ignoring a large amount of VATSIM's users. That's the value I see in doing a survey. Even if we end up with the same data, we'd know for certain that it is actually true, and not just a guess. 

[Simon Kelsey]

Something I would be curious to know: how many of those controllers posting here that text is “too workload intensive” go firing off unsolicited text PDCs to pilots when it starts getting busy?

Surely if voice is so much easier and quicker you would just do all the clearances by voice, right?