Conditions required to delete a post?

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

Curious, under what conditions may a moderator delete a post?

 

Jason Vodnansky

ZAU dATM

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

When it is off topic and no other suitable forum exists within the VATSIM forums for it to go.

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

So, seeing as how another posts was deleted in this thread. I am now curious. What are the moderators so afraid of, that they feel they must silence a critic?

 

If I am so far off topic, wouldn't it be wise to let me speak my mind and let the membership decide for themselves?

 

Or are they not allowed to decide for themselves?

 

Just curious,

Jason Vodnansky

ZAU dATM

[Josh Clement 960168]

Jason,

 

Respectfully, I really think this is enough. I mean its like you want to continue to bash moderators for keeping order here. Maybe that is a hint for you to email the proper authorities regarding your dislike for division policies and procedures, rather then make thread upon thread whining about it. It is sure getting old from my standpoint as well as others that view these forums.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Those other two were simply threats against me personally. Since I didn't feel threatened, and I expected nobody else would either, and threats against me have nothing to do with VATUSA, I deleted them.

 

If you have a point, make it. I susect what you plan to present has been hashed and rehashed to the point most have lost interest in the topic. It does have high interest from the management of VATUSA, where it started and is on going, until you chose to dump it in the public forum.

 

So be it, you wish the podium, here it is. Stay on topic and within CoR boundaries, please. I know you will.

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

Really, threats?

 

Guess we will have to trust you on that. Wow, threats. Made by who, me? I think not. If I had in fact made a threat, I am sure I would be banned, suspended, and have a CoC A, 11, violation leveled against me.

 

Hmmm, nope, nothing in the email, as I, in fact made no such threats.

 

So, now you get to level an unfounded charge against me, and if I respond, you get to delete the post.

 

Roger that,

Jason Vodnansky

ZAU dATM

[Wayne Conrad 989233]

(Bangs the remote control against the armwrest)

 

"Dang it! Every time I select the Playboy channel, I get this knock-off of the Jerry Springer show instead."

 

(Bangs the remote control some more)

 

"Madge! Do we have any batteries for the remote control?"

[Josh Clement 960168]

These threads are just getting absolutely rediculous. Its like the High School lunch room all over again.

[Marko Savatic 825464]

Josh,

 

I don't see how this is a bash at all, all Jason he did was ask questions.

 

Now, if you do see bashing, please explain your logic to me so I can see it as well

[Josh Clement 960168]

Josh,

 

I don't see how this is a bash at all, all Jason he did was ask questions.

 

Now, if you do see bashing, please explain your logic to me so I can see it as well

 

 

Its bashing in the sense that he has a problem with virtually every policy written. Need I say more? I mean seriously..to take care of the problem maybe Jason, and all of you at ZAU aught to get with VATUSA then none of this would happen. Maybe after that all of you would have an understanding. I hate to say it but man...enough is enough. I will say no more.

Edited June 6, 2007 at 10:19 PM by Guest

[Marko Savatic 825464]

Again,

 

How is asking a question bashing?

[Keith Smith]

This is depressing and demoralizing to see people that are supposedly on the same team behaving this way.

 

So much of the tension that occurs via the medium of forum-based communications seems to be a result of misunderstandings, or misinterpretations of the spirit of another person's message. Two pages later, what's being said is almost irrelevant as ppl have so much baggage and anger by that point that the original intent and spriit of the message as long since past, and we're left with an irrelevant, caustic exchange.

 

The two things that need to happen for successful rollout of policies (as an ex-ATM) are:

1) those on the receiving end of the policy that have questions need to ask clarifying questions about the policy before p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing judgement. For example, rather than saying "this policy is TERRIBLE! It means that we're going to need to do [this] and [this] and [this]," they should say "The spirit of the policy seems to be [such and such]. Is that correct? Does this mean that the policy will result [this] and [this] and [this]?"

 

If you deal with facts and express your concerns logically and calmly, they're USUALLY met with a reasonable response, in the form of a change to the policy, or a clarification that affects your interpretation of the policy.

 

2) Those that introduce new policies need to be on the ball about answering questions about the policy, and empathizing with people's concerns about the policy. Try to work out what it is about the introduction of the policy that they are REALLY worried about, and address those issues head-on.

 

Also, when introducing a policy, it's great to present the 'finished docomeent' that is the new policy, but it's equally important to explain the THINKING and motivation behind the policy. Try to head off the likely questions before they're even answered.

 

I don't mean to ramble, but I compare what I'm seeing going on now and compare it to what I experienced when going through something similar (being on the giving and the receiving end of new policies over time), and those are the two core differences that I've identified.

 

I hate to keep drawing attention to ZLA, but we have a Facility Advisory Board that provides input to most decisions made by the ATM, DATM, or TA. It's an amazing thing to see. Looking over months and months of conversation, I see solid discussions about proposals, excellent clarifying questions, modifications to proposals based said discussion, and real work getting done, and all this during the tenure of 3 different ATM's. I also see unwaivering adherence to the two numbered points above.

 

There's no personal attacks, no bickering, and no wheel spinning. It's not an apples to apples comparision, I'll admit. There are differences between running an ARTCC, and running a Division, but surely some of these techniques can be mirrored with good results elsewhere.

 

All of the follow-on discussion about censorship and deleted posts is complete poison, and isn't getting anyone anywhere, as other posters have eluded to. Discuss the core issue, not a side effect of all of the resulting discussion.

[James Hudson 951027]

DATM?!??

 

...IVAO ...

[Lee Waldeck 866831]

DATM?!??

 

...IVAO ...

 

That was helpful James...

 

 

Keith,

 

You make valid points, however the issues appear to be that those questions are being asked, and then not answered fully...or vaguely.

 

Perhaps it's time for VATNA/VATUSA to have an advisory board [Mod - Happy Thoughts]isting instead of a couple of individuals.

[Keith Smith]

Lee, if that's what has transpired, then what you said is completely in-line with one of my points above:

2) Those that introduce new policies need to be on the ball about answering questions about the policy, and empathizing with people's concerns about the policy. Try to work out what it is about the introduction of the policy that they are REALLY worried about, and address those issues head-on.

 

Also, when introducing a policy, it's great to present the 'finished docomeent' that is the new policy, but it's equally important to explain the THINKING and motivation behind the policy. Try to head off the likely questions before they're even answered.

 

They may not feel like they HAVE to answer questions, or get agreement from all parties, but if they don't, the fallout and cleanup is more painful than the effort to roll it out properly in the first place.

 

I'm not saying that's what happened (I really didn't follow it too closely), but these are strategies EVERYONE can keep in mind. I almost feel silly posting such a fundamentally simple message, but I was honestly disturbed by what was transpiring and wanted to try to do something to help.

[Nathan Sleyster 878239]

I was unaware ZLA had an advisory board and what it actually was. That is a really good idea.

[Andrew Doubleday]

I implimented the same exact thing for the reasons Keith mentioned.

 

The correct measures were followed to obtain clarification on the "core issues" but, unfortunetly, were not handled by the appropriate individuals when questions were asked, hence why we are here now.

 

AD

[Matthew Temple 880167]

Curious, under what conditions may a moderator delete a post?

 

Jason Vodnansky

ZAU dATM

 

Jason,

 

I have searched the CoC and the CoR and I personally could not find anything that states under what conditions that a post may be deleted. Also, I could not find anything that says under what conditions a thread may be locked. In my short time as DD, I never received a handbook on what I could or could not do regarding the forums, I was just advised to be careful when locking or deleting threads/posts. I guess this "power" is strictly a judgement call by the particular moderator. I believe I locked two threads in my short time, with one being on the users request, as his question was answered.

 

Kyle,

 

 

I'm confused. Do you just lock topics that suit your personal interests?

 

Here is my first reference:

 

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=17675

 

Jason asked a valid question as he was confused and thought the changes menat what he stated in the thread. The topic title ends in a question and he makes valid points and uses well docomeented references. I don't know how much you are aware of the current issues within the Division, but I mad my post of "Looking back in time, is the point of view really flawed?" as this issue has never been resolved, policies have not been updated to clear inconsistencies, and a solution needed to be brought to the table. I made my statement to bring light to the issue again, and hopefully we as a whole could come up with a positive solution.

 

I would love to see that topic die and go away, but not until such a time that the issues are resolved and everything is happy again. Tell me how what I said in the above paragraph about the point of view being flawed is off topic.

 

Enough of that onto my second reference.

 

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=18561&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

 

The lovely ATC Channel thread. As you can see the thread is 4 pages long and is still unlocked. The date ranges are from 4/9/07 - 4/10/07. The posts I will refer to in this thread all take place on 4/9/07.

 

Thread reference #1 - I honestly do not see how the original post was unprofessional. But I agree with Matt O. on this one.

 

How does this answer the original question of Mr. Olivers? Seems like it should of been locked at this point.

 

Thread reference #2 - What,,,,,,,,there are alot of positions open now?

 

Again, nothing to do with the ATC channel. We are now talking about positions within the Division.

 

Thread reference #3 - Maybe the question keeps arising because this is what is being taught in the VATUSA Academy:

 

Quote from Academy Literature...

 

 

The ATC Frequency

 

The alternate option to the chat box is the ATC Frequency. The use of this interphone has always been the topic of discussion as many controllers have abused its use. It is used way too often as a means of general chit-chat between controllers, and since it is available to all within a specific range, it tends to become annoying when used for that reason. It should be noted that one it's only correct uses is to announce the opening and closing of a position by a controller. Any other action taken on this frequency can be deemed abuse, and Supervisors have begun to monitor it very closely. The alias required to use this frequency is / where is the message you are broadcasting.

 

 

At this point, Bruno Pinto has copied the current (at the time) VATUSA policy on the use of the ATC channel into the forums. I think this post, while it is on the point of a different subject, would meet your stated criteria of a locking/deleting canditate.

 

Thread reference #4 - Seeing the few posts that appeared while I was writing my last post...

 

I am confused, VATUSA Academy is teaching TO use the ATC channel, and yet a policy exists against its usage???

 

Somehow I am NOT surprised...

 

 

What does this have to do with being on topic?

 

Thread reference $5 - Give that man a prize!!!!!!!!!

 

Are there prizes [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with the ATC channel?

 

Thread reference #6 - Matthew,

 

Could you please explain to me what an extreme emergency is? Also could you provide us examples of what an extreme emergency would be that would constitute using the ATC Channel?

 

 

This is a valid question and is on topic. I'm comparing this to my statement of "Looking back....." Why can he ask that question and I cannot bring light to a problem?

 

Thread reference #7 - Posts on the forum are the only way for us to try to influence VATUSA policy and let VATUSA know what we think about the polices.

 

Why do other people get to influence the Division / Network get to try to influence VATUSA policy, but people like Vodnansky and I guess now myself don't get our say, especially when we bring up valid points. I thought one of the driving issues behind these policy changes was to ensure all members are treated fairly regardless of any other outside factors? Am I wrong for thinking that?

 

I have no more thread references from this thread as there is enough to satisfy my judgement. However, I have another question for you. Since you were posting in the VATUSA Forums after this thread was started (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=18204&highlight=) you did not see this active thread going on?

 

You don't know how bad that I wanted to lock / delete that post because the cheap shots were getting under my skin. However, I took a step back, did what I had to do to get a policy approved, published it, and the thread took a complete 180 degree turn. All I have to say to you Kyle is thanks for letting me take a beating on that one. I figured you did not lock it as you were the type to let the issue run it's course and a positive resolution came of it. However, with your locking of the above referenced thread and Mr. Vodnanskys question of what is required, I can only [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that you moderate forum topics that are for your own gain or what you don't consider important to the network.

 

I have also noticed you are no longer a moderator of the VATUSA forum anymore so I guess I won't have to worry about this being deleted.

 

 

Screenshot is located at http://www.flyiso.com/img/forumssmt.JPG

[Paul Byrne]

Hi Keith,

 

I know what you mean, this sort of stuff tends to just degenerate. So, let me try and inject some point of view as to why this stuff keeps resurfacing. Maybe we can get some of this discussion back on track.

 

2) Those that introduce new policies need to be on the ball about answering questions about the policy, and empathizing with people's concerns about the policy. Try to work out what it is about the introduction of the policy that they are REALLY worried about, and address those issues head-on.

 

Also, when introducing a policy, it's great to present the 'finished docomeent' that is the new policy, but it's equally important to explain the THINKING and motivation behind the policy. Try to head off the likely questions before they're even answered.

They may not feel like they HAVE to answer questions, or get agreement from all parties, but if they don't, the fallout and cleanup is more painful than the effort to roll it out properly in the first place.

 

I'm not saying that's what happened (I really didn't follow it too closely), but these are strategies EVERYONE can keep in mind. I almost feel silly posting such a fundamentally simple message, but I was honestly disturbed by what was transpiring and wanted to try to do something to help.

 

Unfortunately, you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what's been happening. We've had policies handed down with little to no support or meaningful debate on them. Contact with our representitive on the EC has been negligable to the pont that it looks like he's actually avoiding answering questions from us. This has led to some of the VATUSA local staff to take it to the forums. If any of us actually got any menaingful correspondance about this from VATNA1, no one would be required to air this out here.

 

And it keeps continuing to the extreme.

 

We've been notified that the EC have voted in a new policy in the last few weeks called "Global Rating Standards". This policy has the ramifications to have a serious impact on the day to day operations of every single ARTCC/FIR on the network or it could change nothing. The problem is no one actually knows what it says. Since it has been voted in, no one has seen hide nor hare of any text or explanation of this policy. In fact members of the EC have actually avoided direct questioning about this new policy from members of the BoG in relation to how it will affect training programs.

 

It actually seems that the EC have voted in a policy with no text or meaning which pretty much gives them carte blanche to put whatever they want in there. Of course, anything like this that has an affect on the CoR or CoC will have to be voted on by the BoG, but again, no one knows what it says so we don't know whether the BoG can intervene with a vote on this. In fact certain members of the BoG were unaware that his policy had actually been voted in. Does this seem like correct and proper managment to you?

 

This is what is getting a lot of people frustrated and I hope some of you guys can maybe understand what's going on in the background. I know it seems to just explode out here when it's posted and may just seem like bad grapes, but this has been going on behind the scenes now for a good few months. If our representitive on the EC just sat down with us and answered our questions, talked about his point of view and joined in meaningful debate to develop understanding from both sides, no one on the forums would be seeing this.

 

[NOTE] No one that I have talked to is against the perceived intent of these policies, however, the way they are being carried out and handed down is what is frustrating people.

 

I hope this can bring some understanding to this debate.

 

Cheers!

Paul.

[Steven Perry]

My 3 cents... unsolicited of course. Keep the change.

 

I hope everyone is remembering to have fun. No one should be compelling you to be here (save a spouse?). I would certainly want you here contributing to our hobby, but let's try to keep fun at the center of our focus.

 

Nothing we seem to be talking about here has too much impact on how we control or fly. If its politicking you're looking for, may I suggest flipping between Fox News and CNN.

 

I was seriously burned out on VATSIM a few months back after putting much time into it for more the previous 12-18mos. A few months of minimal time online really cheered me up and reminded me why I originally started with SATCO/VATSIM. I'm no longer referred to as "that cranky controller." Maybe we need a "VATSIM anonymous" 12 step program? Or a controller exchange program with a Caribbean FIR?

[Luke Kolin]

Not being a controller I don't have much to offer except this. Many years ago, my ex-girlfriend took me to church with her family one fine Sunday morning down by the old Greenwood racetrack in Toronto. It was the first service after the new committees had been chosen for the upcoming year, and near the end of the service the minister started listing the committees and asked the members of each committee to stand up, and remain standing.

 

By the time he was done, pretty much everyone in the church that morning was on their feet.

 

Within VATSIM, we seem to have the Executive Committee, the Board of Governors and then the Founders (who based on my reading of the docomeents are the only people with any authority, and seem to participate the least). In the US, we have a Division Director and a Deputy, a Region Director and a Deputy, some Regional Directors, then the ARTCC Chiefs and Deputies and a host of other positions, titles and now we see some advisory boards and heavens knows what else. What's really interesting about all this is that the more people we seem to have, the less seems to get done.

 

Is all this bureaucracy really necessary? Our own organization which is older than VATSIM has managed to operate with probably one tenth the staff, only two levels of management and still manages to do more with dramatically less discord and conflict.

 

Maybe it's worth re-examining just what value a lot of these levels are really adding, and whether it justifies their existence.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Paul Byrne]

Hi Steven,

 

I agree, unfortuantely as has been explained, the new "Global rating standards", until it is explained has the potential to affect the way we control and train on the network.

 

The policy could effectively destroy the training programs of the majority of ARTCC/FIR on the network, not just VATUSA. Remember, this is a global policy.

 

It could also have no effect whatsoever.

 

This is the problem, no one is telling us a thing. We're literally in limbo at the moment, not knowing what we can and can't do. This is also affecting the way we control and train on the network.

 

Hope you understand.

 

Cheers!

Paul.

[Kyle Gibson 937127]

Those other two were simply threats against me personally. Since I didn't feel threatened, and I expected nobody else would either, and threats against me have nothing to do with VATUSA, I deleted them.

 

If you have a point, make it. I susect what you plan to present has been hashed and rehashed to the point most have lost interest in the topic. It does have high interest from the management of VATUSA, where it started and is on going, until you chose to dump it in the public forum.

 

So be it, you wish the podium, here it is. Stay on topic and within CoR boundaries, please. I know you will.

 

Where are the specific threats that you are charging people with? I would really love to see those.

[Keith Smith]

Kyle G, if you were truly interested in Kyle's response to that, you'd probably want to send him a PM. Otherwise, heading in that direction is just moving things further and further away from any hope of productive discussion, which we were miraculously starting to have just a couple of posts ago.

[Aaron Crawley 935316]

Hopefully the damage hasn't been too bad with this policy and or the lack of specific details regarding what it means.

 

I've worked at a museum for almost 20 years in my spare time and I've seen some good things happen and bad as well. One thing is for sure though, if the general membership gets frustrated enough with situations that have been occuring and not getting answered or taken care of, then people lose interest. Hopefully I'm wrong on this, but if the membership doesn't get an answer on this policy soon with the specific intent of what this policy is supposed to govern, then people are going to leave and go somewhere else.