Over Zealous Moderation??

[Zlin526]

Dear Moderator chaps,

I too am amazed that the JP thread got pulled..Nothing too controversial there I'm sure, and I agree with Say Again Slowly (even if I dont agree what he says about the topic) that it's a bit much to spend our precious time contributing, only to have it pulled. I had a post pulled recently, with not a single word from the moderator about that one, or a reply to my e-mail asking either. Yet there are calls from within the thread of the 'Glider death - suicide' thread for it to be pulled, yet it still remains??? Surely that one is certainly in bad taste.

As we are constanly being told, these have to be free speech forums but within the bounds of decency, legal action and good taste. What are the reasons? :confused:

Z

P.S. Sorry to question your decisions, but I dont expect this particular thread to last very long either.....

[Say again s l o w l y]

A copy of an e-mail I sent to BRL about the disappearance of the JP thread.

"Thanks for the response, I sent you a PM before I saw this e-mail.

I'm afraid it is a bit sad when people feel the need to 'hide' things from the CAA. To me that smacks of people knowing there is a problem, but not actually wanting to do anything about this.

All the points made were told to me whilst I was sitting next to a senior chap from the Belgrano, so I very much doubt that they are totally unaware of the issue I've tried to raise.

I really want there to be a proper discussion between ALL interested parties, rather than there being more problems/accidents and the CAA stepping in and banning anything as a knee-jerk reaction.

Flying can be too much of a closed shop and this can really hinder proper progress. It is sad that you have to justify yourself when it comes to questioning safety procedures that are plainly not working. I suggest that rather than getting rid of the thread, we ask why people have such an issue with it, especially when there are absolutely NO untruths in it.

I have been a professional pilot for a number of years now and this debacle has really soured my belief that we are reaching for as high a standard as possible.

I'll leave you with a quote from Rod Dean, Nigel Lamb and ACM Sir Cliff Spinks: The definition of policing in airshow flying - 1) All have responsibility. 2) All have a duty to analyse criticism recieved and 3) All have a duty to dispense constructive criticism.

This is not the case here."

Edited for spelling.

[Smoketoomuch]

Glider thread now pulled. Apologies for any offence caused, esp to Bus14.

[Papa Charlie]

Big Brother..... :suspect:

PINK Headsets will get pulled next because too many peope read and respond....

[Wide-Body]

I must Join in and add my voice to this present crop of topic censorship. Moderators should at least display courtesy to the contributors who make this forum what it is. When you take a topic out please put a reason in. Accountability is hand in hand with responsibility.

We must not end up with a bland forum, there is a wealth of experience here, do not destroy it. Let some controversy reign, it might actually do some good. Let us not become a nanny led group, political correctness has its place let it not be here.

I agree personal attacks are unacceptable, but threads where the controversy exists: Let the mayhem commence. Let people be responsible for their own comments. I will leave the free speech comments to those who are better qualified.

Regards to all

Wide
:suspect:

[LOMCEVAK]

Say Again Slowly,

Unfortunately, I am now unable to read the subject thread in its entirety. However, I do not remember that people were trying to "hide things from the CAA". I think that you will find that the contentious issue with this thread was that you were extremely deceitful in starting it on Jet Provosts when really you were trying to carry out research for an MSc with a hidden agenda! A few points:

1. Such research will inevitably be flawed as the answers given are to a different question to the one that you are interested in.

2. I have filled in many questionairres for MSc research projects and will do so in future. If you had been honest I am sure that many PPRuNers would have assisted you.

3. You call yourself a professional pilot (which many of your previous posts have indicated). I consider that your conduct during this thread has been very unprofessional.

Enough said, but hopefully the lesson has been learnt.

[PPRuNe Towers]

The forum moderator referred the thread to our admin forum. He was following policy when it became apparent it was originated for the purposes of research.

This is SOP and it was created because of the number of surveys that were being placed on the site. It had become apparent that word had got out in academic circles that there was plenty of fresh meat at no cost for them here.

I instructed all mods on the site to pass any surveys or apparent surveys on our admin forum for us to review. Only ones with our permission are allowed to appear. We insist on knowing exactly what they are for, where they will be published and at the least a precis of their use, purpose and peer review.

If you are keen to pick up the debate you are entirely at liberty to start a thread now that you are all finally in possession of facts you were denied in the earlier stages. You may safely assume we were extremely unhappy with the methodology of this survey and its being conducted to, apparently, support a single viewpoint.

I've carefully read the justifications offered above and as one professional pilot to another I'd suggest that the discussion being initiated and encouraged could be likened to your DFO pulling the CVR to gauge opinion on the line.

Regards
Rob Lloyd

[BRL]

I will apologise again for my decision last night not to e-mail sas and put up an explaination on the forum about where the thread has gone.(Bad cold syndrome...) It's pretty poor I know and I agree with Zlin and Widebody in that when we pull threads we should let you know. If I had done that last night then this thread wouldn't be here and I apologise once again.
Zlin, what thread did your post get pulled from? Was it this forum?

Papa-Charlie, you have read our minds, do you know how much bandwidth that thread uses on its own...!!!!!! ;)

As I say, there is always a good reason for a thread being pulled. There is usualy an explaination but this time there wasn't. Just hang on a while before jumping to conclusions or jumping on the free-speeech bandwagon, and all will be revealed....... :) (eventually)..

I apologise once again to you all.

[Say again s l o w l y]

LOMCEVAK,
Quote from an e-mail BRL sent me "The thread is in the admin forum after sever
complaints about it. None of them are about libel or anything sinister it is
just that the CAA get to read these things and they are interested in a few
points brought up."

BRL thanks for your e-mail and your apology is certainly accepted by me.

I will state my position again. This thread was not designed as an aid to coursework, but BECAUSE of points made whilst in a seminar and through research for a project. The coursework is actually about analysing ONE accident, it just happens to be that I chose a JP crash that highlighted how a simple mistake and omission of equipment lead to an entirely avoidable death. I finished the project a few days ago, so nothing from this site would have been used anyway.

If you will remember back to the thread you will notice that I mentioned the M.Sc and I can't really see how a website with anonymous posters is good for any real research other than maybe taking a trend of opinion. LOMCEVAK has it right when he says "Such research will inevitably be flawed as the answers given are to a different question to the one that you are interested in." Exactly my point, no serious research would ever be done on such a basis as nothing is attributable.

I ask many questions on PPRune about many different subjects, am I now to understand that this is unacceptable.


It had become apparent that word had got out in academic circles that there was plenty of fresh meat at no cost for them here. I find a pretty sad comment. I am always looking for information on PPRUNE, whether it be for academic purposes or just personal reasons. You seem to be branding academics with the same brush as companies after free advertising.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Information, information, information...........................

Or lack thereof.

It is nice to know what happens and when we are threading in the dark, matters are left to speculation.

It may be an idea that if threads get pulled for whatever reason that a small post can be left on the forum so that people know what is going on.

FD

[PPRuNe Towers]

BRL did exactly what is required of him and he has given the reasons for the delay in letting you know.

The policy was created to prevent 'response fatique' to surveys placed on the site. It is our editorial decision and we don't allow surveys that are purely for academic qualifications and/or the furtherance of a single career.

Like it or not, them's the facts and that's the policy. Like it or lump it.

I wouldn't push the air of hurt disappointment too much either. The option to start a new thread was given now that everyone has the same knowledge as you were writing with. If you are thinking of replying again consider your reaction if responding to a thread to later discover it had been started, and nutured by a journalist building, in your opinion, a negative story.

Rob Lloyd

[Say again s l o w l y]

Rob,

Thanks for your comments. I will restart the thread and make the title more general. I'm glad I now have 'permission' to do this after a PM from Pprune Pop The thread will now stay out of sight and a repeat of a similar one will not be accepted. I thought that it was out of the question.

I would be pretty annoyed if the scenario was the one you described, and without reading the thread again I can't be sure that this was the case here, especially as there was never any intent to pervert the comments and thoughts of others, but to initate discussion. It was done very clumsily and for that I apologise. I would request access to the thread for all (albeit as a locked thread) to save some of the comments from sycamore, LOMCEVAK and Mike Garfield especially.

[LOMCEVAK]

Say again Slowly,

I am more than happy to reply to you or help you on any future threads where the "starter for 10" is up front.

Rgds

L

[PPRuNe Towers]

SAS - very glad to see we're sorted. If the posters you've mentioned give specific permission I will ask BRL to cut and paste their comments to you.

Regards
rob

[sycamore]

Mods, et al. no problem.For a while i thought I was a goner!:oh:

[LOMCEVAK]

Mods,

Me likewise - happy for SaS to have my post.

Rgds

L