- Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:00 am #512048

The people jumping up and down in here are likely the same people who pm you online to tell you that x airline doesn't fly that route/aircraft in real life and that I'm ruining their life, then call a sup when they are told to shut up and mind their own business.

Quite an assumption

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:51 pm #512056 hes not far off no not all of them, but spend some time on some of the VATSIM social media pages like the facebook page, youll see some of the very attitudes some of us are talking about. the forum is a well controlled place these days, thankfully, compared to some of the other pages. even as hard as the network admins have worked to control those other pages, the mohicans can go wild pretty often. its a bit more controlled to even a year ago, but doesnt take much to get them going. if you post a screenshot with even one switch out of place, they are on you telling you what a complete moron you are for not doing it right lol there are some real peaches around the network and some will do exactly what Andrew mentioned, send you a PM complaining about your flight

i pray for some of them but hes definitely not far off with that comment

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:50 pm #512062 I'm sure that those people exist, but, they don't invalidate the sentiment that new members who don't know anything about aviation and have no desire to learn it have no business on VATSIM. I think we can all agree that procedural knowledge somewhere in between 0% and 100% is acceptable. Arguing only the extreme cases dilutes the validity of the discussion.

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:14 pm #512065

the sentiment that new members who don't know anything about aviation and have no desire to learn it have no business on VATSIM.

well heres my problem with that. VATSIM has and as far as im aware will always be open to all. those users may not have a desire now to learn, but many of those eventually turn around and decide to do so. so while it may be some users opinion that they dont belong here, thats not the sentiment of those that founded this network. and ill quote part of the founders letter below which they had to write the last time people were up in arms over the same issues.

to end, yes sir they absolutely belong here, that gives us at least the chance to bring them around. it may take weeks, months or even years. but some do come around. certainly worked with me, i had no clue what i was doing probably my first year on the network (then SATCO), but eventually i decided to take it further and thankfully a few old timers were happy enough to share their knowledge with me. that wouldnt have happened if hurdles had been put in my way to get to that point. we still see users with 8 and 9 numbered ID's coming back, often with the same comment of them once being immature and now want to get back into it and do it properly. if we wouldve simply banned them from the start, they wouldve never had the chance to try the network to start. i compare that to that child that walks into a hangar one day and asks the guys there "hey is that a Boeing!" and they laugh at him and tell him to go away. rather then doing what many actually do and teach him a little, and build that interest in aviation even further. the opportunity to do this is lost if we simply turn those types of users away

The core principles of VATSIM are found in the preamble to the Code of Conduct. Above all else, VATSIM is supposed to be an environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic simulation of real world aviation. VATSIM is supposed to be an INCLUSIVE rather than an EXCLUSIVE community. That means that the entertainment, educational and realistic simulation aspects of VATSIM have to work together and otherwise complement one another. No one aspect should have any greater importance over or be pursued to the detriment of any of the other core principles.

This also means that while we strive for realism, we must be willing to make compromises in that regard. The reason for this is that there is an important difference between the real world and the VATSIM world that some in our community are failing to grasp or choosing to ignore. The real world aviation community comprised of real world pilots and ATC is an exclusive community. No one is permitted to legally fly or control in the real world before they have undergone extensive training. That is simply not the case in VATSIM as we are an inclusive community.

There will always be people of differing age, backgrounds and starting knowledge about piloting and ATC when they join VATSIM. We are observing a growing trend of intolerance towards new members who are not as educated in piloting and ATC as other senior staff and members might be which goes against the inclusiveness aspect of VATSIM. Further feeding this unwanted fire are those staff members who are openly creating a culture of exclusivity through the implementation of overly stringent rules and training regimens for ATC, all in the name of realism. What this has in fact resulted in is a shift away from the fun and educational aspects of VATSIM (i.e. removing the balance we tried so carefully to create) towards a more heavily weighted realism aspect. The perception and/or justification is that this is a great benefit to VATSIM as we are making things “as real as it gets”. While this might be acceptable if this resulted in no effect on the fun and education aspects, this has clearly not been the case.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=35019

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:53 pm #512068 I don't agree with your interpretation. I believe the open letter makes the case against those that you mentioned before, i.e. the people that get upset if you fly a route that UAL doesn't fly using a UAL callsign, or using a different aircraft type or a non-RNAV route whereas the real thing does.

However:

VATSIM is supposed to be an environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic simulation of real world aviation.

There will always be people of differing age, backgrounds and starting knowledge about piloting and ATC when they join VATSIM.

(emphasis added)
Where in there do you see the notion that we have to put up with people who have no interest in learning how to do things realistically? I'm not saying they need to come in perfect. I'm saying they need to come in with the understanding that they're expected to learn as they go, and not simply go.

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:18 pm #512069 where do you get the notion that we shouldnt put up with these users? in fact its even covered in the CoC. so not sure how youre interpreting it in that way.

in fact if you read further into that letter, #3 specifically where they talked about the beginning of the training program, they mentioned incentives for people to go through the program. to this day i believe we have failed in this aspect and is probably while even though the program has attracted plenty of users, it still falls a bit short of attracting users that actually need the help but reluctant in some way. there arent any real incentives for some of the more troubled users to be attracted to the program. adding some more incentives may help get those users in. maybe discounts on certain products, gift cards. etc.. pretty common form of attracting users to walk in the doors. free slurpees work for me! point is though the only way we are going to attract those types is if they actually get something in return, for them , knowledge isnt the attraction for those types of users, but the side affect is definitely a plus for the network we've taken someone who was reluctant or didnt want to go through it, and now they have. with any luck theyve retained at least some of it at the end. win win in my book

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:51 pm #512070

A. 10. Since this is a learning environment, there are times when a pilot may encounter a new air traffic controller who is in the process of learning his airspace and/or general air traffic control procedures. The same may be true of the controller who may find himself issuing ATC to a pilot flying online for the first time. Everyone should remember to exercise patience and courtesy to these new pilots and controllers. (emphasis added)

... no mention of the ones who still don't know how to comply with instructions after the tenth or 100th time, because they have no desire to do so...

B. 10. A pilot, to the best of his or her ability, should make all attempts to comply with valid air traffic control instructions.

... no mention of the ones who have no intention of complying because they don't get what we're trying to do here...

{epilogue} Remember, the primary goals of VATSIM are to educate, to provide a realistic simulation of flying and air traffic control and, most importantly, to provide a fun environment for everyone to enjoy our hobby. (emphasis added)

Still not seeing "we have to put up with people who aren't here to learn"

You and I are reading the same exact documents and arriving at the exact opposite conclusions. At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree, man. I think if we're going to keep up the pretense that this place is a learning environment we ought to at least back it up with some attempt to teach. You don't think so, fine; guess I won't change your mind.

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:59 pm #512071 dont believe ive said anything that we shouldnt attempt to teach, in fact im completely for teaching users, i just dont agree with the methods being advocated by some which create an exclusive environment. absolutely no reason why the network should sacrifice one of its core foundations just to appease the other folks.

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:44 pm #512074 Not sacrificing -- balancing. That's the word the open letter specifically used. Right now due to the advent of pilots coming in with less of a base of knowledge than they used to in eras past, I think the balance is shifting away from some semblance of realism in the name of all-inclusiveness. We need to shift that balance back so that inclusivity is still tempered with a desire to simulate aviation realistically. Making some form of education, no matter how cursory it is, a mandatory part of the enrollment process achieves that balance, or at least it makes the network's goal of fun yet realistic a bit more clear.

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:54 pm #512075 Honestly, this entire thread just pains me to read.

Asking people to pass an exam on the PRC or even just the CoC isn't exactly a huge deal. It forces a new member to expose themselves to the rules of the network rather than clicking a "yes" button. Will it hurt membership? Maybe but I don't care. I don't want to share this network with people who don't care about following the rules, sorry. I'm all for educating new members, after all that's how I've gotten to the point I am at, but there is a distinct difference between a new member wanting to learn and somebody that just doesn't care. This isn't the FSX multiplayer server. I don't get why there is a big controversy about this rather small change (that only affects new members).

Ryan Parry - 965346
vZOA Air Traffic Manager

www.pilotcentral.org | www.oakartcc.com

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:24 pm #512080 Seems to me that the last few posts here are running a completely parallell discussion. We don't need ratings, schooling or anything like that. It's not about forcing out newbies. It's not about excluding anyone below a certain level of dedication or ability. It's about making sure that people who register are routed in such a way during that process, so that they actually understands that they're not just creating a user with any odd FS multiplayer group, but instead are shown where to acquire the basic information should they wish to expand their horizon, and what not to do to ruin the experience for others. That is all.

I fear that bringing back the drivers license analogy will derail the thread faster than a TGV on tram tracks, but I just want the new members to know where the front seat of the car is and which side the wheel is on before they put the ride mode in Sport and step on the throttle.

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:07 pm #512086

...which side the wheel is on...

Left? Right? It depends :mrgreen:

I think Jon, Rob, and Magnus have more or less captured the general sentiment that members of the network are feeling. An exam on the COC with guidance to further research, as proposed by them, seems the best suited to keep VATSIM both inclusive and promoting education, while mitigating the effects of the check-box.

I thought I'd address a few other things that came up in the technicality sense.
1) Cheating - I don't think there's a whole lot of variety of question types that are possible. For that reason, a question bank would be limited. The only real thing we can do is randomize the choices and questions every time. Another thing that might be beneficial is having the questions stored as images? It makes the user take an extra step before copy-pasting into Google.
2) Language - the COC is in English. As long as the questions are not oddly worded, the exam should be able to be completed with the same level of English that is required to read the COC.
3) Guidance - I think that every question should have a "hint" feature, which would send them to the right page to find their answer. Sure, it does the searching for them, but it also means that they'll have to read a paragraph or so to find the answer. EDIT (0304Z): The purpose is to get them to read the material, not to hold them back/delay them searching for it of course.

Last edited by Josh Glottmann 1275389 on Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Oakland ARTCC

- Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:35 pm #512092 I'm not much conserned with cheating, really. If they've read enough to find the correct answer "cheating", then that's really the job done. Though, the picture-based question text to avoid copypaste is a good idea!

- Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:03 am #512097

The people jumping up and down in here are likely the same people who pm you online to tell you that x airline doesn't fly that route/aircraft in real life and that I'm ruining their life, then call a sup when they are told to shut up and mind their own business.

Quite an assumption

hes definitely not far off with that comment

'Not far off' doesn't cut it here. He's making assumptions about particular people (the ones participating in this thread) that we're harassing other members when he doesn't have any proof of it. That's disrespectful. He can't have any knowledge what PMs we are or aren't sending.

- Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:12 am #512098 no thats called a generalization, and in fact hes doing the exact same thing everyone else is doing. he didnt say he was directing it at anyone in this topic specifically. just as some people are lumping and mixing new pilots with "undesirables"

if people are going to start taking things personally, honestly the discussion is done. if we're beyond that point already, then as Kyle (the VP of the network) has already clarified where the network is going with the ideas, anything further should be proposed to them if you want it.

posting here is simply for debate, if you want the work done, someones got to put it down and put the work in to propose it