Should PoA members be a reflection of the MC?

[Jim Logajan]

I wrote the following in reply to a post in the "Should the SZ stay?" thread, but by the time I'd finished composing it that thread had been moved to the SZ!

Folks, if you want to discuss this topic, it needs to be done in the Spin Zone.

There is no rule in the Rules of Conduct that seems to exclude a thread such as this from Hangar Talk. If you insist on making up rules or outrageous interpretations, I guess there is nothing to stop you. Just as nothing stops you from STILL not enforcing rules you write. (E.g. one says something about banning someone who post links to pornography.)

It is pretty clear to me (yeah, like the MC cares what I think) that the members of the MC are out of touch with members like myself - or are beholden to a minority that demand control of others because that minority have so little control of what goes on in their own heads.

An example of out-of-touch: as far as I can tell, on the last replacement of a member to the MC the 21,000+ members of PoA were excluded from any input as to who that replacement should be. No call for nominations (that I saw). No election. No vetting except within the insular MC. Which is odd, considering that it is the posters and readers of PoA that are literally its sine qua non. The MC should at best be a facilitator that is a reflection of the membership - not the other way around. But the MC clearly wants the PoA membership to be a reflection of the MC, as evidenced by the self-serving rules.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I disagree.... having met nearly all of them, what you say isn't the case.

I can only judge them according to the effect their actions on PoA have on me as a member. In that way I think I have a more objective view than you - at least a 1/21,000 view.

Besides, since you've met nearly all of them you may already have some influence. I have had zero. Their philosophies are unequivocally not mine and with the insular membership of the MC it will always be that way.

 

[Jim Logajan]

There's also nothing stopping you from starting your own message board and having whatever rules you want over there.

There is nothing stopping me (yet) from first trying to see if enough others feel as I do and determining whether there is any possibility at all in members having some say in the way PoA is managed. Otherwise starting yet another forum whose management is directed by the members IS the alternative. Though starting with an existing membership is better. The fact that you are afraid of anyone suggesting the idea of change is, um, curious but otherwise your fears are of no interest to me.

There has never been a vote for MC. This isn't a democracy, or even a republic. It's an oligarchy - and it's been that way since day 1.

And if George Washington owned slaves, why can't we still own them?

Deal with it, and quit being a whiny 12 year old.

"Waaaaah, I didn't get any say on a message board I don't contribute any money to. Waaaaaaahhhhh. I want a poooonnnnyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!"

I've offered to financially support PoA in the past - and you well know they have refused such contributions. At least from anyone outside the oligarchy.

What is interesting is that to anyone applying an honest assessment would recognize that your last few sentences violate the rule "Personal attacks are prohibited. This specifically means any text/post that is blatantly attacking another person, on or off the forum, especially in a personal way. Make your point without calling names or casting aspersions on others." But I don't expect (nor want) anything to befall you for your lame attempt at a straw man insult.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Speaking of camaraderie, I don't recall meeting you at any PoA fly ins - of course I've only been to 30 of them - not including the small get togethers.

I haven't seen you at any of the PoA fly ins I've been to, either. At least one that I had a small had in organizing. Though I have met someone who you've met personally and got spontaneously offered their opinion of you. Ahem.

 

[Jim Logajan]

What the frick is going on with this crap? Mods made a decision that came with an explanation and that's that. I can't believe people are getting so flippin worked up over this. Actually, kinda sad.

I'm curious - why does this thread cause you emotional distress?

If it helps any, maybe think of it as a way to measure whether yet another pilot forum should be created whose management is more egalitarian? Be nice if this one would be, but I already see that some people experience considerable angst at the idea.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Oh, please share, this should be good.

They just didn't think all that much of some of your traits. Nothing worse than that; I have dislikable traits too. I suspect the only reason you probably inferred worse from my post is because you started with belittling straw-man argument and expected something in return.

Odd that someone who has never met me would even bring me up in conversation all the way across the country so that another person would let them how much of an ******* I am. Things must be pretty boring out there that I would come up in any sort of discussion.

You came up at a get-together where sometimes discussions of other people on the forum come up. I wouldn't have mentioned it at all, but you did ask about how many PoA fly-ins I'd been to and your post was all about the whining personalities behind the posts rather than the arguments in the posts.

I haven't subscribed to the Spin Zone in years and don't use it, but thought it worth the effort as a non-user to defend its existence on behalf of the people who did enjoy using it. But defending it is pretty much impossible under the given management scheme - so first step is to determine whether that scheme can ever be replaced with some other responsive organization, equivalent to, say, a representative republic.

 

[Jim Logajan]

there are no rules of incorporation, no shareholders or governing body

My understanding is that there is a legal entity - either a non-profit corporation (if I recall correctly,) though maybe it is an LLC.

... they created a site that they will run in any way they darn well please.

Of course. The question is why anyone would object to requests for changes to the way it is run?

 

[Jim Logajan]

I've met many of the MC and been really impressed with what nice people they were.

I'm not sure where in my OP I said any of the MC were not nice people. I merely submit that they are unresponsive to PoA members - and in fact I submit as one fact in support of that is that when someone posted a poll to Hangar Talk on whether the Spin Zone should be closed, the MC moved the poll to the Spin Zone where the results would be so skewed as to be meaningless. I do not recall seeing the MC initiate polls or any other similar mechanism to measure member preferences prior to their making any changes to the message board.

And I actually have had negligible financial contributions accepted for upkeep of the site, something I was happy to do.

I have enjoyed and appreciated PoA in the past. Other than the small cost of reviving the member map I have not had any other opportunity to contribute.

I've made no secret of my own disagreement with the MC regarding their decision about the Spin Zone. But I will make even less of a secret about my respect for the MC, who give of their time to make the board work. If enough people really feel that strongly they can form their own site. We're all here voluntarily. I think POA will not be as vibrant and as frequented in the absence of the Spin Zone, but it will still be POA.

The AOPA, PoA, and the Purple Board forum progression seem to suggest an ever-tightening control spawns migration to less controlled forums.

The argument that one should not criticize volunteers because they are giving something for allegedly nothing relies for its effectiveness on the psychological principle known as reciprocity. Combined with the PoA Rules of Conduct any corrective feedback is pretty much muted. Long term viability of a forum would therefore seem to occur only if that one-sided bargain is dispensed with.

And if my name comes up in conversation then you know things are really bad.

You're safe.

 

[Jim Logajan]

PoA is a private non-profit organization. That status does not confer any requirement for the organization to be representative of its members.

Neither does it preclude it. I already tried to point out (and assumed it should be self-evident,) the organization's sine qua non is its members and therefore am proposing the MC membership should be elected by those who infuse it with its value.

Read the PoA Rules of Conduct. That notes that the MC has the discretion, but not the obligation, to take action as warranted with respect to content on the site. There are legal reasons for that....

That doesn't appear to be relevant to the rules relating to who is chosen to MC membership. Nor does that discretion preclude members like myself from making their case with respect to any action.

Bottom line is that you can choose to participate or not. Like any other organization or corporation, you are free to go elsewhere. Like any other corporation or organization, the management retains the discretion -but not an obligation-to ban anyone who violates the policies.

And I think the bottom line is the MC can also consider changing the way it runs. Something that you may have overlooked, though: I am not directly affected by the removal of the Spin Zone, so you should ask yourself why I would trouble myself to make myself a target of ridicule of others. Check whether my posting history makes me a particularly bad poster or whether I'm pretty typical - maybe the kind of person you think adds net value. And whether others may be like me and freely take your invitation to leave.

You know it took me some courage (or plain stupidity) to post something I knew might grate on others no matter how diplomatic I tried. I knew it could not help but make others think that I think I'm somehow smarter or wiser than the MC. The unavoidable pitfall of disagreeing with "authority".

From personal experience on the MC, I can tell you as a fact that the MC members do not always agree. They put in a lot of time to try and make this a community. And the do it for exactly zero compensation.

I posted a link concerning the reciprocity principle and its dangers. Seems likely that anyone who does something for zero compensation may subconsciously feel others owe them - or feel slighted if the owing is not paid back by silent acquiescence. I feared that reaction could occur - if not from the MC, then from others.

The board survives with no advertising and no mandatory charge to the users.

I wouldn't have started this thread if I thought the long term viability of the group was not in doubt because of the way it was organized and being run. Unless changed, I think that in a few years it will be a pretty quiet place.

Anyone can set up a forum. The purple bored was set up as an alternative to the red and blue boards. Some folks participate in more than one forum, others stick to only one.

All I can say is I enjoyed the use of PoA. Before that, Usenet newsgroups.

For every member that wants the SZ, there is another member that does not.

Is that an actual result of some unbiased polling or just a personal assessment?

Some decisions are in the eye of the beholder - what one might see as an attack, another might see as sarcasm. The MC does take member opinions into account, but is most concerned about building community.

Based on the repeated appeal to reciprocity ("we're uncompensated volunteers") I get the impression that decision choices are weighted with highest priority given to the amount of immediate effort the MC would need to apply, with community needs lower in priority. I don't think that, as the old saying goes, is any way to run a railroad. It would also explain, I think, why no polling is done.

Personal comment: I was off the MC when the SZ decision was made, but I would have fully supported eliminating it. In the time I was on the MC, the SZ went from a place that was an alternative to a major complaint vector and time suck for the mods.

The above appears to be an (inadvertent?) datum in support of the notion that the MC gives greatest weight to the amount of effort involved when it makes its decisions. That works so long as the members can be convinced the decision was really done with them first in mind.

I fully supported it in the beginning, but got tired of the constant issues that I came to see it as something that really didn't fit with the rest of PoA. And many of the prolific posters came to PoA solely or primarily for SZ, not for the main forums. My view changed to the point where those that want to argue, insult, bash, and battle over politics should find a forum where that is encouraged.

You know what they say about opinions - they are like.... Everyone has one.

That's personal opinion.

People with strong opinions in their politics, religion, and selflessness do seem to gravitate toward things like the SZ and MC and eventually cause problems.

The MC deserves credit for what they do.

If enough others are, I'm willing to donate $50 toward the purchase of gold watches to be provided to every current member of the MC if they'll arrange a set of secession rules that allows them to retire soon and be replaced by people chosen by active members of the PoA community. They can then be rid of their burden.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Wow, you are full of yourself...

I just wouldn't be me if I was full of somebody else.

Anyway, I'm no more full of myself than anyone else is full of themself.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I wish that I had a dollar for every time you predicted the demise of this board in response to an "MC injustice".

Age has muddled my memory - I don't recall such previous prognostications. If you find older posts by me that predict the demise of this board, I'll see about sending you a dollar for each one. But even in the post you quoted I tried to qualify my opinion. So I think you're up $0 - but you're a nice bloke who is helping me see my faults for my own good, so maybe I'll spot you $1 if you insist.

They are kind enough to give their time. That might should be enough?

Good people trying their best and making mistakes. Thank them for the effort, not the results, and try to get them away from the scene.

As someone who moderated 5 Usenet newsgroups for 15 years (I'm still the technical contact, but the groups are dead) I'm quite familiar with making mistakes and spending time and money and taking abuse for such uncompensated volunteer efforts. Now imagine vetting every post with antiquated software (Usenet had no globally accepted cancel/recall mechanism for posts once sent out.)

Anyway, rearranging forums in the expectation that that action will change human behavior doesn't have a lot of empirical support - at least in my very humble experience and opinion. I think that instead the MC will find it has to "pick up its game" in applying its many rules and then they'll see changes in posting behavior - though I think they may find they have too many rules. They only need one (again IMHO): The first goal they list "Show respect at all times." They are already using subjective and selective criteria in deciding when to take action anyway.

Limiting speech and subject matter did not make AOPA kind

If the MC doesn't stop repressing me I will not renew my AOPA membership.:lol:

Funny thing about mentions of AOPA: between the recent PoA rule changes (always ever more - never less, sigh) and eventual razing of the SZ, the PoA forum becomes ever more like the AOPA forum in the governing rules. An AOPA member may eventually find no great advantage to using PoA over AOPA forums.

 

[Jim Logajan]

And I apologize to Jim if my comment came across as a personal attack.

Creating this thread couldn't help but insult you and other MC members. So no apology needed. But I appreciate it.

I also appreciate John's character reference. Thank you John.

I just found the writing style similar and couldn't resist, as we'd just discussed it over here.

Of course, if he's a fan of the other Jim (Zoom), then my comment was a compliment!

Um, no fan. But Campbell does make for interesting gossip. The world doesn't really need that sort of thing and the misery it causes others, but it does make for some entertainment.