Another 'Gem' from Greg - just released.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Up to this point, no rules have been broken. Up to this point, other members have responded to said "troll" with intelligent and fact based arguments, that members of this forum can learn from. Additionally, maybe the said "troll" will learn something and change their views or opinions.

That's why we have a discussion forum. We will not take action unless it breaks a forum rule, or becomes an annoyance to the forum as a whole.

I think we do a pretty damn good job here, while trying to balance discussion without being overhanded. Its a work in progress, and we aren't perfect.

 

[GrauGeist]

And back to the weather aspect of the current discussion *ahem*

How many times during the Pacific War, were fleets put at an advantage/disadvantage by Squalls?

One such event during the Battle of Coral Sea would be a perfect example.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Again, I emphasise that it is not the moderation of someones opinions, thoughts or convictions that need moderating as such, it is the way that they reply or respond to other well-behaved forum members that is the crux. When a member has presented a detailed fact-based and reasonable response to a thread, they should receive a similar response. I can see how some posters, especially the knowledgeable members, can have their good posts ignored or misrepresented by aggressive posters. TBH, I feel that some are not strongly supported here, and the proof is that I see no evidence of moderation.

Eng

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink it. You cannot force anyone to see your views in the same light. Nor can you force someone to respond as you see fit. There are people here with different levels of knowledge and experience. Their responses will vary.

Nor are we not actively moderating. I take actual offense to that. We take time out of our personal lives, and our jobs to do this, and help provide a place for open discussion.

But you know what, if we are such terrible moderators here you can have it. I'll let ownership know I resign and you will be taking over. Sound good to you? You can moderate the hell out of this place.

 

[Engineman]

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink it. You cannot force anyone to see your views in the same light. Nor can you force someone to respond as you see fit. There are people here with different levels of knowledge and experience. Their responses will vary.

Nor are we not actively moderating. I take actual offense to that. We take time out of our personal lives, and our jobs to do this, and help provide a place for open discussion.

But you know what, if we are such terrible moderators here you can have it. I'll let ownership know I resign and you will be taking over. Sound good to you? You can moderate the hell out of this place.

OK. I am sorry if you feel offended, that was certainly not intended. My comments are merely designed to convey what I see as a problem the site has with controlling some posts.
I certainly do appreciate the work that is done by Mods, so thank you!
But that leaves the issue of post moderation. I feel that unpleasant "troll" type posting and posts could have earlier moderation than seems to happen.

Eng

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I don't know what to tell you. We have to walk a fine line here. When we "over moderate" people complain. When we "under moderate" people complain.

We used to be a lot more heavy handed here. It was almost like the wild west. If some was perceived to be a troll, hell if someone simply had a different opinion they were slammed and often banned. Quite honestly, it got rather toxic.

We listened to our forum membership and lightened up. Created a less toxic environment more conducive to the open discussion and exchange of ideas relating to a topic we all love and enjoy - WW2 history and aviation.

I think overall we now walk that fine line pretty damn well, and the forum is run pretty damn well.

And we still listen to our forum membership when they raise concerns or suggestions, like when it comes to how we handle when people consistently break forum rules. Threads are no longer shut down, punishing everyone.

We are human, not perfect, but we do our best. I'm sorry if you feel that is not good enough.

I will not say anything else on the topic.

 

[special ed]

I have not been here as long as most members, but I can see that P & S has us fighting among ourselves. I have seen new members come on board with their "aviation expertise" and grow into very good participants. I usually scroll past the responses I have a difficult time listening to, and have seen the changes as they grow into factual knowledge participants. You have granted me that same privilege.

 

[pbehn]

"In the age of the internet there is a tendency to consider "facts", this distracts the masses from the truth, the USAAF was guilty, we just havnt figured out what for, YET". Isaac Newton 1704.

 

[Marcel]

Oef, can we stop the discussion please?

E Engineman please know that your remarks are noted and will be considered.

To all: We do appreciate helpful suggestions. Just be aware that it does not always mean they are implemented directly or sometimes at all.

 

[GrauGeist]

"In the age of the internet there is a tendency to consider "facts", this distracts the masses from the truth, the USAAF was guilty, we just havnt figured out what for, YET". Isaac Newton 1704.

FACT!

(now it's official)

 

[Engineman]

I don't know what to tell you. We have to walk a fine line here. When we "over moderate" people complain. When we "under moderate" people complain.

We used to be a lot more heavy handed here. It was almost like the wild west. If some was perceived to be a troll, hell if someone simply had a different opinion they were slammed and often banned. Quite honestly, it got rather toxic.

We listened to our forum membership and lightened up. Created a less toxic environment more conducive to the open discussion and exchange of ideas relating to a topic we all love and enjoy - WW2 history and aviation.

I think overall we now walk that fine line pretty damn well, and the forum is run pretty damn well.

And we still listen to our forum membership when they raise concerns or suggestions, like when it comes to how we handle when people consistently break forum rules. Threads are no longer shut down, punishing everyone.

We are human, not perfect, but we do our best. I'm sorry if you feel that is not good enough.

I will not say anything else on the topic.

Thanks for your thoughts and I hope no one is upset, particularly the Mods who I know put in a lot of time, Thanks!

Eng

 

[drgondog]

Come on Mods! This is at least the third Troll that has spoiled this forum in the last year. You need a better perception of how these muckspreading posters operate. I suggest that trolling is obvious in the style and Moderators should act more decisively. IMO, Moderating is an active task, or it should otherwise be called Observing.

Eng

Wow - arbitor of thought and intent? Ban for contrary views or ignorance? FWIIW I don't personally feel offended by anyone on this forum when they disagree with me, well reasoned or silly. I may measure my response accordingly - but be guided (mostly) by the fact that the forum is populated by adults.

Trolling has a habit of drawing unflattering comments often destructive to fragile egos - and hence self governing.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Let's move on. If P & S decides to return, we'll handle it as needed and how it is warranted.

However, we will never censor any member as long as they do not break any forum rules. The only exception is the posting of politics (and you all know what politics I am referring to). Then again, that is a forum rule. Note: we encourage political discussion, it is important to a productive society. We are just saying that discussion should take place elsewhere.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't see this guy as a troll. That he may not answer every single point is easily explained by the fact that he's having to field multiple objections and it's easy to overlook one or two.

As for moderating trolls without banning them, good luck. Interacting with them politely to get them to behave themselves doesn't work, because they want that interaction to either 1) drag on and on and on and on and ... -- or 2) provoke a meltdown wherein the troll becomes the aggrieved party.

I've been both a moderator (at another forum, not here) and a troll (I once trolled a guy into getting banned for calling me a "snake-licking dick." I then changed my avatar to a photoshop of Nixon being kissed by a snake to freak the others out. True story.) I know a bit about both trolling and modding. This guy isn't a troll imo, and I think the staff is handling this appropriately, for what it's worth.

 

[Marcel]

Okay, thank you everybody. I think it's been discussed enough. Let's move on.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Yeah, it's getting boring. I hope that more technical posts and other discussion can happen from here on out.

 

[PlanesandShips]

Not a troll, not Greg, not an expert, and not someone easily convinced by rambling verbosity about tangential "facts." No one here has monopoly on the truth, this place appears to be an echo chamber. Amazed that two pages were expended debating whether or not I'm a troll and whether or not I should be banned simply because I didn't accept the ongoing popular narratives espoused here, which apparently have been discussed to death and agreed upon by the regular participants. I'm not surprised that Greg hasn't posted here, and doubt that anyone else who has a differing opinion would do so. I'll reduce my participation here going forward, certainly not because I've been persuaded or convinced, but because it is not profitable.

 

[GrauGeist]

Not profitable?

What did you hope to gain in the process, converts to your ideas?

You present your view and it was met with well researched historical counter-points.

When that occurs, most people who are interested in historical fact, take notice and rethink their views.

It's called "learning".

 

[Marcel]

Guys, can we go back on topic?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not a troll, not Greg, not an expert, and not someone easily convinced by rambling verbosity about tangential "facts." No one here has monopoly on the truth, this place appears to be an echo chamber. Amazed that two pages were expended debating whether or not I'm a troll and whether or not I should be banned simply because I didn't accept the ongoing popular narratives espoused here, which apparently have been discussed to death and agreed upon by the regular participants. I'm not surprised that Greg hasn't posted here, and doubt that anyone else who has a differing opinion would do so. I'll reduce my participation here going forward, certainly not because I've been persuaded or convinced, but because it is not profitable.

Excuse me? You are accusing us of the same BS that Greg does. He's the one refusing to discuss or debate the subject because it goes against his precious narrative.

Then you come here and post thinly veiled attacks on our site and membership. At least our membership cares to discuss in facts when debating a topic.

This is no more of an echo chamber than the one Greg has created, that you so love to defend. If you don't like rambling you know where the door is. On your way out, report back to Greg will you? Tell him Bill's offer to debate is still open.

If you choose to stay and participate then please do so in s constructive manner, and defend your arguments.

Its funny that you get so upset when people counter your beliefs with facts and data. Unbelievable.

Thank you, have a great day.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Guys, can we go back on topic?

Agreed