Moderators' neutrality vote

Give your feedback, make new suggestions to improve https://www.aviation24.be, is there anything else we can do for you?

Are the moderators still objective?

Poll ended at 21 Jul 2012, 07:45

Yes, absolutely.
36
77%
Sometimes they get involved too much.
6
13%
They tend to take sides.
4
9%
No, they are biased.
1
2%
 
Total votes: 47

Flanker
Posts: 395
Joined: 16 Jul 2011, 21:05

Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by Flanker » 21 Jun 2012, 07:45

I often get warnings from the moderators on language and "personal attacks".
This week I have been warned of a permanent ban, due to expressing a critic on Inquirer's unruly behavior, which is their job to detect.
If you look at the posts, I feel that they aren't truthful to themselves.

I get attacks and I respond to them. Sometimes they are personal, but I tend to ignore them.

However, the same moderators seem to allow quite harsh language from other posters to me.
Yesterday morning I reported an issue with a member calling me "it".
This is very insulting. They didn't do anything about it until now.

Another example is that many members have gotten accustomed to writing that I "hi-jack" threads.
Most of the time, I'm the first to react after days, so what is hi-jacking in that when the thread was dying anyway?

Hence this poll.

Are the moderators being fair and neutral?
Or are they too emotional and is conflict of interest preventing them from being neutral?

I think that a conversation is important to bring quality to a discussion forum. I also believe that enforcing the same rules for everybody is important to keep a good quality in the discussion.


Express your vote.

ggmeese
Posts: 105
Joined: 28 Dec 2010, 14:07

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by ggmeese » 21 Jun 2012, 08:03

IMO it's difficult to issue such a judgement without a minimum amount of factual information.
Could you please bring a couple of "evidences" of things that made you feel "discriminated" ?
Cheers - Gerald

Bralo20
Posts: 1429
Joined: 12 Aug 2008, 13:48

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by Bralo20 » 21 Jun 2012, 08:18

Sure they are totally objective...

With your attitude on this board could you expect the mods and admins be less hard to you? You are only here to make a fuss about everything and especially everything that has to do with Brussels Airlines. Not a single thing is good, about every single thing you'll have a comment and you won't think twice about it before posting your opinion... And unfortunately it doesn't stop there, if it was just posting your opinion it would be OK, you would be a boring old nagging man but that would be fine, but it doesn't stop there at all, you'll need to defend, excuse me, you'll need to push your opinion into everybody on this board. Nobody is right except you and that my friend is getting a bit to much... People are getting tired of it and start to complain about it and thus the board leaders have to react...

This post and the poll about the mod's neutrality proves my point again... Everybody is wrong except you...

I have an advice for you, start behaving yourself or take a hike and don't let the dood hit you on the way out...

With this I would like to congratulate the board leaders with their job, they are doing a spleding job and a word of thanks is appropriate for this. Thanks for the work you're all doing and keep up the good work!

Flanker: Get a life and start behaving!

Flanker
Posts: 395
Joined: 16 Jul 2011, 21:05

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by Flanker » 21 Jun 2012, 08:48

Most of the replies that I receive are in this tone, see the above post from bralo20, dear ggmese.
If I would write something like that, it would qualify for a warning and deletion.

This has nothing to do with the tone of my posts, but is about mods trying to steer the conversation.
You can write the harshest things about other airlines, than Sn, no one will say anything about it.

For instance, another example os that its not ok to discuss the maintenance standards at sn, as is apparent from my deleted posts, while no one of the moderators bothers to say anything when I mention Vg's.

Please visit the recent AF Cityjet thread for more evidence. Specifically I'br been called a clown and some kind of animal. This while I have not used such insulting language.

DeltaWiskey
Posts: 547
Joined: 13 Oct 2010, 18:33

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by DeltaWiskey » 21 Jun 2012, 09:12

Flanker, apparently you are very unhappy on this board, what does stop you from creating your own board/forum? You can be a non-biased moderator, administrator, and you will probably not have to defend your ideas all the time.
A lot of people on this board will be happy as well, I can imagine.

It would be like a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Inquirer
Posts: 1992
Joined: 14 Feb 2012, 14:30

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by Inquirer » 21 Jun 2012, 10:20

Flanker wrote:This week I have been warned of a permanent ban, due to expressing a critic on Inquirer's unruly behavior, which is their job to detect.
Since I am personally mentioned here by Flanker as the source of all evil descending upon him recently, I think I have a right to respond to his accusation and clarify what is going on: You Flanker, were given a series of initial warnings by the moderating team for past offences against forum rules and are now apparently only one step away from a permanent ban (which would be an absolute first on this website, so I have been told), because you have repeatedly been VERBALLY ABUSIVE towards me, despite several public requests and formal warnings not to do this any longer.

You say you are merely giving your point-of-view and expressing factual criticism to what you see written here, but you go way way way beyond all that when you explicitly tell people to shut up, to get a brain, to learn to write/read, or when you say they surely must be drunk and coming back from the café when they post. :shock:

The problem with you Flanker, is that not only do you think of yourself and your opinions as being quite something and far superior to anything around here, but you also show ZERO respect not just for any of those different opinions but also for the person posting that opinion!
THAT sir, is an attitude which can not be tolerated around here and quite frankly, it gives away you are of very low social standards OR have some other behavioral problem, as moderators apparently need to remind you of the most elementary formalities, not just once, not twice, but repeatedly, sadly without any improvement so far.

Besides, I don't know if you've noticed it yourself, but from the quote I've taken from your post above, the condescending attitude towards others you clearly can not suppress when posting, shows once again: Indeed, not only do you repeately show total disrespect to other members in the past, but now you also give away that in fact you think of the moderators as a just bunch of biassed members, failing to do their difficult job properly.
Bralo20 wrote:This post and the poll about the mod's neutrality proves my point again... Everybody is wrong except you...
Indeed.
To suffer from too high self-esteem is about the most ridiculous disposition a man can suffer from.
Bralo20 wrote:With this I would like to congratulate the board leaders with their job, they are doing a spleding job and a word of thanks is appropriate for this. Thanks for the work you're all doing and keep up the good work!
Allow me to add that they have been very moderate in their responses so far even as I don't know of many aviation sites where posters who behave like Flanker, would be tolerated for very long.
Bralo20 wrote:I have an advice for you, start behaving yourself or take a hike and don't let the dood hit you on the way out...
I was told Flanker already left twice in the past and subsequently always came back???

User avatar
tolipanebas
Posts: 2455
Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by tolipanebas » 21 Jun 2012, 10:37

From the voting results so far, it seems dear Flanker, aka NCB, aka Flogger is pretty much the only one having a different opinion on the moderators than pretty much the rest of us on this forum: what a surprise! :mrgreen:

Bye bye, Flanker... What's your next login going to be?
Any bets how long it will take before he's discovered once again?
Last time it took the full 4 days, then he blew his own cover because he couldn't refrain from bashing SN and insulting a few posters while at it... Yep, some things never seem to change, no matter what. :roll:

Yuri166
Posts: 41
Joined: 09 Jun 2011, 17:01

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by Yuri166 » 21 Jun 2012, 11:08

I don't post much here, but I do read a lot. So I sure have an opinion.
As a messageboard administrator myself, I do understand the problems that this board moderators and administators face all to clearly.

They have to take action in the boards best interest, and that is not always easy. But if the fun in this board of nearly all users is compromised by only one individual, who is very abusive and demeaning from time to time, and goes way, way, way off topic, the decission isn't all that difficult. Issue a warning a couple of times, and if it doesn't help, he's out of here. And don't wait to long, because if normal, good behaving users get frustrated when it lasts to long, and this definately lasts to long, they might leave and not come back easily. And in there lies the best interest of the board.

I had a similar case on my messageboard only last year. That person is now banned permanently, as is every new nick he uses to attempt to rejoin, and every IP adress he uses is blocked as well. I can assure you that it has taken some time for the board to recover from this crisis, but it is now a fun place to be once more.

So, IMO if anything, the moderators are slow to act in this case. Change your behaviour quick while you still have a chance. Don't call the moderator team biassed, but respect the fact that your behaviour is not in the best interest of the board, far from it. You have had your final warning, now draw your own conclusion. change, and let everybody, including yourself be happy, or get excluded and everybody will be happy exept you.

papysn
Posts: 52
Joined: 17 Apr 2012, 09:57

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by papysn » 21 Jun 2012, 11:15

Hi,

I replied by the second one for two reason.

1)It's always necessary to have a contradictory point of view...no progress can be made if there is nobody to put something in a different perspective!!!
In that way i read always the point of view of somebody with a different position...even if those coming from flanker are sometime a bit "rough". :mrgreen:

Without opposition,this forum would quickly become,i think, very sad and univocal...

2)Pure neutrality is a myth,you always use your background to build your mind and decisions.

Regards.

K.

User avatar
RoMax
Posts: 4410
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 16:32

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by RoMax » 21 Jun 2012, 11:19

Yuri166 wrote:And don't wait to long, because if normal, good behaving users get frustrated when it lasts to long, and this definately lasts to long, they might leave and not come back easily. And in there lies the best interest of the board.
:thumbup: Can't agree more.

To papysn (and probably some others), I agree that we have to discuss, we don't need to have the same opinion. But we don't need Flankers way of talking for that. In the rare discusions where he is not participating there is also discussion because of different opinions and points of view.
He ruins the joy of reading this forum and the disscusions (there is nothing wrong with discussing, but in my opnion there is something wrong with Flanker's way of talking). There is a reason (or better say, there are many reasons) why half the forum has him on their foe list.

And Flanker, you have comment about the way other forum members speak to you or how your posts are interpreted by us and/or the moderators. But maybe you should think why that's the case... That's not since your first post on this forum (as NCB?), that's because of your bad reputation. Your opinion is the truth and everything that doesn't fit into your opinion/idea is stupid. The tone in your posts towards several members is not like it should be and totally different than with other members that having a discussion when they don't have the same opinion. You ruin the atmosphere with that. And THAT'S why you get such reactions and why moderators may act faster when you say something.

And of course you will say that's not true, and you will search for excuses, or you simply don't react. But be sure that's how the majority of this forum thinks and I assume we are not all people with mental issues?!

regi
Posts: 5140
Joined: 02 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Bruges

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by regi » 21 Jun 2012, 11:44

Seems that a certain member feels targeted by the word "it". In his language it means "animal".
But could "it" mean: "that member who so often changed names that it is better to give him a neutral name" ?

Flanker felt that "It" was pointed towards him/her. How would that come?

I can not use "sir" because I even don't know the sex of this member. And by experience with native English speakers, I know that addressing somebody with "Sir" or "Mister" can be interpreted as an insult as well.
( see my experience with a UK border official who said I should not call him "sir", but "officer" :ugeek: )

I received a PM in the beginning of being a member here, because of bad language. So I adopted immediately to it.

If a member feels "very insulted" by being called "it" and he reported this to the moderator, and the moderator acknowledged my vocabulary as insulting, I would have received again a warning - I guess. Nope, no warning, or ban.
Does it mean that the moderator is not neutral? :)

By the way: this subject doesn't belong in this forum. If Flanker would have done some effort to scroll down on the page, there is a forum "Homepage polls" and "website related".
But he/she would have attracked less attention there, I guess.

Moderator: small suggestion: can you transfer this subject to the bottom of the page please?
Maybe a member will feel insulted being sent to the "basement" of Luchtzak. But it is always better to be in the basement than outside. :geek:

PS: yes Inquirer: the envisoned member has left us several times with slamming doors. It became so quiet here that I volunteered to take up his role by launching "interesting" subjects.
PS2: about ignoring. I reported several times that I was surprised that some subjects get very little attention. But that is life. I did not feel offended because just some people clicked the subject.

airazurxtror
Posts: 3789
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 00:00

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by airazurxtror » 21 Jun 2012, 12:25

Critics towards Ryanair and Michael O'Leary sure are better received here than those against Gustin and Brusseels Airlines. But we are not daunted by that, are we ? It' invigorating, even !
Last edited by airazurxtror on 21 Jun 2012, 12:31, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cathay belgium
Posts: 2178
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 00:17
Location: Lommel-Belgium
Contact:

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by cathay belgium » 21 Jun 2012, 12:30

Hi to all,
regi wrote:It became so quiet here that I volunteered to take up his role by launching "interesting" subjects.
Guess regi is an improved NCB 3.0 as Flanker still got some bad habits so NCB 2.1 :lol: :lol:

Flanker, lot of knowledge from you,from the net or from yourselves.. but you must confess your winds are changing a bit too fast during the years... no ?
If you get so insulted by this why do you still do all the hassle/reports on a forum you don't like..
I wouldn't be on a forum as I got insulted and didn't get back-up from the moderators..
Pity or not but luchtzak stays a small town on the net .. the hardcore active luchtzakkers stays the same.
Including you... 8-)
Still remember we're all virtual people here :lol: :lol: some with different clothes but same men..
So not much will change soon.. and I'm glad so..

The avgeek backpacker or 'it' , whatever :roll: :lol:

CX-B
New types flown : A223,AN24,AW139,B737MAX8,B763nonER,DH Dragonrapide,EMB110 Bandeirante, Shorts360,Autogire MTOsport2010

User avatar
RoMax
Posts: 4410
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 16:32

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by RoMax » 21 Jun 2012, 12:44

cathay belgium wrote: If you get so insulted by this why do you still do all the hassle/reports on a forum you don't like..
:thumbup:
That's what I'm wondering about too. You clearly don't like this forum, the moderators and they way members behave towards you... Why do you still do the effort to fight against it, the voting and the reactions are clear, the big majority isn't supporting you. Why don't you quit luchtzak and go to a better place? Or what I wonder even more about, if you're gone, why do you come back (under a different name) if you still have the same opinion about this forum? And that's a honnest question, I really wonder about that...

regi
Posts: 5140
Joined: 02 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Bruges

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by regi » 21 Jun 2012, 12:49

airazurxtror wrote:Critics towards Ryanair and Michael O'Leary sure are better received here than those against Gustin and Brusseels Airlines. But we are not daunted by that, are we ? It' invigorating, even !
Type in "Google":
"I hate r " and automatically it adds ryanair.
It immediately refers to a website:
http://www.ihateryanair.org/
Type again: "I hate Brussels" and you get "sprouts" after it. :D But not "I hate Brussels Airlines."

Question: how would it come that somebody puts time, money and effort in making a website dedicated especially towards Ryanair?

To be fair, I also typed " I hate eas " and only than comes Easyjet. Hey, they have a bashing site as well ! :twisted:
http://www.ihateeasyjet.co.uk

But let us not stray of the path of this subject. It is not about the world's favorite airline, or most hated airline.

PS: thanks to use "invigorating". Just learned a new word. Never too old to learn.

convair
Posts: 1751
Joined: 18 Nov 2011, 00:02

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by convair » 21 Jun 2012, 14:17

Great idea for Flanker! Why don't you start a Ihatebrusselsairlines site? You would get much less contradiction posts on that one! And the intellectual level of participants would be much higher!

Re the Ihateryanair site, I wouldn't be surprised if MOL started/sponsorized it himself: any free publicity is good to take, even(the more so?) if it is negative. ;)

cnc
Posts: 1325
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:14

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by cnc » 21 Jun 2012, 15:06

yada yada!
i like it just the way it is. flanker add some spice to the forum but he should also understand that pissing of people in the heat of the moment can result in some insults.

Squelsh
Posts: 248
Joined: 05 Oct 2011, 10:31
Location: The Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by Squelsh » 22 Jun 2012, 01:21

Didn't vote, cause no clear view on the private messaging that went on, which mod wrote what, and, how many times "report post" was clicked by endusers (!).
.
The day my counter here reached 40 posts, on that total, 3 of my posts were edited or deleted. That's pretty heavy for a forum, BUT it came with a PM explaining the reason why, always 100% understandable and respectable, that's the forum rules, period. Hey guess what, I paid more attention from that moment on.
.
Saying someone is selling drunktalk and just got back from the café was way below the belt. And especially -been wanting to type this since I read that line- because it came from somebody whose crazy posts I have often read in awe on saterday and sunday early mornings, wondering about the scene behind this guy's keyboard at those hours of those days of the week. Climax was reached one saturday morning when you got on 90% of the members' iggy list. Frankly, it's still a riddle wrapped in an enigma why that poster didn't just state you as a fckn clown in his post, but that language is already too heavy for the audience.. It's raining report posts

fcw
Posts: 610
Joined: 01 Nov 2006, 23:20

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by fcw » 22 Jun 2012, 10:41

regi wrote:
Flanker felt that "It" was pointed towards him/her. How would that come?

I can not use "sir" because I even don't know the sex of this member. And by experience with native English speakers, I know that addressing somebody with "Sir" or "Mister" can be interpreted as an insult as well.
Calling a person "IT" is very insulting if you don't know the sexe you can write "they" or he/she!
I think Regi has to admit he was refering to a child because in Flemish a child is called "it" as well.

Flanker
Posts: 395
Joined: 16 Jul 2011, 21:05

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by Flanker » 22 Jun 2012, 15:14

You say you are merely giving your point-of-view and expressing factual criticism to what you see written here, but you go way way way beyond all that when you explicitly tell people to shut up, to get a brain, to learn to write/read, or when you say they surely must be drunk and coming back from the café when they post.
I think that you know very well what I accuse you of.
In many of your posts, you develop your idea's in a very confusing way and come to very irrational conclusions. This breaks the discussion and forces me to write hundreds of lines to try to rectify your analysis. That's why your analysis deserved to be called drunk.

More specifically I was referring to you stating that the CRL flights were only bringing 5% of added value to the economy.
Then, you implied that therefore, CRL, the airport, not the flights, would therefore account for 5% of aviation's contribution to the Belgian economy.

These 2 are very obviously two totally unrelated concepts. You just found it convenient to use the same percentage terms for both, implying a connection. This is nothing short of a drunk analysis and should have been deleted by the moderators.
So I used the word drunk to see if the moderators were monitoring the discussion at all, and this resulting in a deletion of that post, proved to me that there is clearly a double standard.

This isn't the first time that you come up with this kind of transitions in your arguments and I find it unacceptable for the moderators to allow it. The last time that I was banned is because I replicated your way of running away from the heat: develop entire texts of full nonsense that looked like they made sense, in order to break the conversation.
Might I add, I had everyone confused for a week or so.

Might I add even more, calling someone an animal or "it" should qualify for an immediate ban.
However, the moderators don't find that it even qualified for a deletion.

Post Reply