For the MC...

[Doggtyred]

If conversations about the spin zone are to remain in the spin zone, where do people who DONT PARTICIPATE in the spin zone supposed to go to talk about the spin zone, or lack of spin zone?

Or is locking threads discussing the action supposed to be some sort of power trip by volunteer admins? Because really thats what it looks like.

I came here years ago from dying usenet groups at behest of Jay Honeck, who'd been a frequent contributor there for many years. I've gotten some value from this group, but you know what? Controlling pilots is like herding cats. I get that the perceived lack of civility is the reason for the demise of the spin zone. I left participation in that zone over a year ago and haven't missed it one bit.

However, whether you (the MC) give a rats *** or not, the MC's heavy handedness about discussion of the issue is a big turnoff. Being an admin is a thankless task. I've been one. But its kind of like being a cop.. there's some controversy that comes with the role that you have to accept, lest you risk overreacting.

I'm close to no longer participating in POA, not because of the spin zone closure but because of some of the annoying **** like this (locking threads unnecessarily)... I wonder how many others feel the same...

Its your server.. your system... your rules... and I get that... Thank you for the free use of your system to network with others, but I think if this sort of crap continues it will result in a decline in user activity. Including the users who bring value to the board.

I'm going to respectfully suggest that the MC take a chill pill. They've taken their vote and made their non-negotiable unanimous decision. I suggest they let it play out. Let people vent for a bit provided its civil. And let people network on a social networking site.

Or you can just lock threads and suspend users and flex that ban hammer.

Pick your battles....

 

[Jim Logajan]

Its your server.. your system...

Actually - I would expect any hardware may be owned by the non-profit corporation, though I suppose it could be loaned to it. And since there are no owners of a non-profit, none of the MC could claim title to any such equipment. None of the current members of the MC were founders of the board.

Also, I don't know who has provided funding for the non-profit, but I doubt that the current members of the MC are providing much in the way of on-going operating funds. The occasional replacement part or software upgrade may get supplied by Jesse and/or others as uncompensated out-of-pocket contribution. In an answer to a question I posed to them some time back I seem to recall them saying a friendly Internet hosting service was subsidizing all or most of the running cost (electricity and pipes to the net I imagine.) But I may be mis-remembering and I'm too lazy at the moment to search for that post.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Dang, I should have waited a while longer before putting together my (now deleted) poll. There are a lot more candidates than I originally speculated.

I won that poll unfair and square.

Folks, you pay nothing to be here. Get over your collective selves.

They'd get a lot of people (such as myself) willing to contribute money, time, and effort. They have not asked in the time I've been a member. Unlike you, I understand why they don't do that and you just make yourself look foolish every time you post the same invalid point.

 

[Jim Logajan]

...there are no owners of a non-profit...

I find that hard to believe. Can you provide a source for that?

"Nonprofits are not actually owned by anyone and therefore cannot be sold." From:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/nonprofit-basics-29948.html

"While there is no outright ownership, there is control. One of the fundamental questions I ask when forming a new nonprofit corporation is how board members will be selected. This is a key question because those who hold the power to select board members retain the ultimate authority over the corporation." From:
http://charitylawyerblog.com/2010/03/08/who-owns-a-nonprofit-corporation/

The Pilots of America non-profit is incorporated in Pennsylvania (search for "Pilots of America" with the quotes in the link https://www.corporations.pa.gov/Search/CorpSearch)

I could not find "Pilots of America" or any simple variant of that name in the IRS database of exempt organizations (https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Exempt-Organizations-Select-Check). I did find a "Black Pilots of America" exempt organization. I'm not sure how it would be possible for an organization incorporated in a state as a non-profit and operate for 10 years and not be register with the IRS under that name. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong database. Or it is registered with the IRS as a for-profit organization - or there has been some paperwork oversight. That latter could be bad.

As far as I can tell from past postings here and some web hits, Adam Zucker is probably the closest thing to a founder who is still a sitting member of the MC. He also probably has the most legal control. Requesting the filing info from PA or Mr. Zucker would probably answer some of these questions. The applicable laws would appear to be here (under SUBPART C. NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS):
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/15/15.HTM

A quick glance through definitions suggests that unless the bylaws explicitly say otherwise (i.e. those in control went out of their way,) the organization would have members:

"Membership corporation." A nonprofit corporation having articles of incorporation that do not provide that the corporation is to have no members.

 

[Jim Logajan]

What exactly are you hoping to uncover or accomplish with these efforts?

I like to know who funds and controls the services I use a lot and what motivates them. I thought I'd share what I know in case others were curious. I had looked up some of the info a few years ago and don't recall whether I ever shared it then. It isn't like PoA management volunteers information on funding or who has legal control, though my informal requests for such info on this forum have yielded informal but presumably accurate responses.

I am amused that people think I am posting public information because I have some malevolent intent.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Or it is registered with the IRS as a for-profit organization

Back then, however, there was no requirement whatsoever that a NFP organization apply for tax-exempt status.

I think I covered that possibility.

Long story short, there's nothing sinister going on here.

Not sinister, but I'm curious about the tax technicalities. I'm only somewhat familiar with for-profit corporations. If the service provider (or someone else) is subsidizing or contributing several thousand dollars a year in equivalent expenses, they might declare that on their federal return as a tax-deductible contribution. So the recipient would have to be a federally registered and approved non-profit. If the IRS treats PoA as a for-profit organization and the service provider is not treating their expenses as a non-taxable contribution, no problem.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Are you going to hire private investigators to ferret out the reasons for their nefarious misdeed?

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Carson are all behind this initiative to silence the people's first amendment right (but only the right/left are being silenced) to argue about politics on an Internet forum for pilots. The framers of the constitution clearly wrote that it "shall not be infringed".

Oh wait, none of that is true.

Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.[1] Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. "Everyone is out to get me").

 

[Jim Logajan]

So, why exactly did you come here? Was it that the uncontrolled, heavily spammed, usenet forum drove so many people off that they left and never came back? Bertie the Bunyip ring a bell?

Not directed at me, but I'd like to take the opportunity to answer anyway.

I reluctantly migrated from Usenet, but only because (if I recall correctly) Bob Gardner, who had cred as a poster because of his books, started a stampede away from the piloting newsgroups when he said he was leaving for this board and I think also the Purple Board. The number of remaining posters there vs here pretty much made this forum more useful if I wanted to socialize with a reasonable-sized population.

I also recall hearing, prior to my eventual settling here, that some mayhem occurred regarding newcomers and the SZ. Don't know the details - just that there was some amusement raised on the Usenet groups from people still on both forums about the naivety of the emigrants thinking that their problems would somehow be left behind - rather than follow them.

Oddly, Dudley Henriques, who was a semi-permanent target of some Usenet trolls seemed to prefer Usenet over the web boards for quite a while after most had departed. But he has always been a humble but good man who accepted what he could not change and adapt accordingly. Good guy - I think he still posts on some of the aviation simulation web boards.