SoCal hour building diary

[proflightyoke]

Just arrived, will be posting my diary here...

[A and C]

This will be very interesting to people who are looking to hour build, in particular most useful in helping people decide we're to go for hour building would be a frank rundown of the costs that include those costs that were unexpected.

I know that some company's in the USA hit people with charges for uplifting fuel away from base and some are very restrictive on the times you can have the aircraft.

If the company that you are renting from is free from these charges or restrictions then it should be highlighted so others can benefit from your advice.

[Katamarino]

Well that didn't last long.

[172driver]

He gets banned for - what????????

:ugh:

[BRL]

He gets banned for - what????????

Why does it bother you and what is with the 'head-against-wall' icon?

[Cusco]

It doesn't bother me at all but I am certainly curious why a poster gets banned after so few posts.

And I doubt if I'm the only one.

C'mon, spill....................

Cusco ;)

[Gomrath]

but I am certainly curious why a poster gets banned after so few posts.

The number of posts is irrelevant.
The content of posts (since removed) is what matters.
Enough said.

[A and C]

I would be interested to know what about the content of this thread infringed the rules ?

Reports on service providers is usful to those who read the forum, only a week or back I asked about Trig transponders and the positive posts from the forum members was a factor in my deciding to re-equip my fleet with Trig units.

This leads me to ask why hours builders should not be able to benefit from such user feedback if it is genuine?

[BackPacker]

It looks like something happened in the Professional Pilot Training forum. The PPRuNe thread where he participated seems to be, well, pruned.

[172driver]

Why does it bother you and what is with the 'head-against-wall' icon?

Simples - there's someone coming here (no idea about his posting history in other parts of Pprune as some are alluding to) and makes a perfectly reasonable suggestion. In fact, perhaps a thread/diary that could answer many questions that get asked on here quite regularly. And then gets banned. What for, I wonder....

[maximus610]

OK, he gets banned, then why this thread is still running for?

[iwrbf]

Hi,

@BRL: May I suggest a more open approach regarding banning users? I've been SysOp/Admin for loads of forums and systems and the one thing that annoys users nearly as much as the occasional Troll is a moderator who's convinced that every question about a banned user is a 'forbidden' question.

Please Mr. Moderator, think about the possibility of dropping a note why someone gets banned. Even if you just believed that it's a commercial Troll - I guess no one will question the ban - but without information this place becomes somewhat dull and hostile.

Kind regards,
Peter

PS: I don't have any connection with the banned poster (I think so, at least, who knows who this chap was).

PPS: I do not question your ominpotent authority in this UTF-8 universe, I'm just suggesting a more "glasnost" approach.

PPPS: I'm aware that it's year 2011 after someone was nailed to a piece of wood for saying that people should be nice to each other for a difference... (loosely based on DNA, RIP)

[BackPacker]

In support of the moderators policy though, where would they conceivably post an explanation of the ban?

People usually don't get banned permanently for a single post, but for a number of infractions of PPRuNe policy, and those infractions may be in multiple threads and even in multiple subforums.

Other than creating a special moderator-post-only "tar brush" subforum somewhere (next to Jet Blast perhaps), I can't think of a logical place.

Apart from the fact that disclosing why someone got banned will stir up a discussion every time. Possibly leading to a rehash of the things said that lead to the ban in the first place.

So even though I'm not 100% happy with the current solution (and realize that that's my curiosity speaking) I can't see the moderators doing otherwise.

[iwrbf]

Hi,

@BackPacker:


In support of the moderators policy though, where would they conceivably post an explanation of the ban?


Preferably in a special forum: "Moderator's actions explained" :-) No joke, a lot of forums do it this way. Alternatively it may be sufficient to just explain the ban after the culprit's last post...


People usually don't get banned permanently for a single post, but for a number of infractions of PPRuNe policy, and those infractions may be in multiple threads and even in multiple subforums.


D'accord. That's why I would prefer a special sub forum for messages like this.


Other than creating a special moderator-post-only "tar brush" subforum somewhere (next to Jet Blast perhaps), I can't think of a logical place.


ACK! :-)


Apart from the fact that disclosing why someone got banned will stir up a discussion every time. Possibly leading to a rehash of the things said that lead to the ban in the first place.


I must disagree here, sorry. The disclosure will give a reason the the users. Don't get me wrong: I don't want to initialize democracy in web forums neither do I want to start discussions. This subforum may be read only to mortals and only writable to moderators. It's just for the information to CALM the users, not to create even more hassle...


[..] I can't see the moderators doing otherwise.


Just visit some other forums (just kidding :-) )

Kind regards,
Peter

[PPRuNe Towers]

You're getting to have your say and we carry on our standard policy created when PPRuNe was accessed by early adopters with 14.4 modems.

It's our 17th year of not pandering to the curious.

Rob

[mrmum]

It's our 17th year of not pandering to the curious.
:ok: Lovely turn of phrase Rob, but don't do yourself a disservice. When I was a newbie on here, I first came across the "banned" icon when one of the mod's decided MJ needed some time in the sinbin. I'd not seen this before so emailed PPRuNe to find out what the crack was, got a short but succinct and amusing response. ;)

[iwrbf]

Dear Rob,

kudos for your work and my full respect regarding your point of view.

I've started on 300 Baud modems, so please feel understood.

But with all respect a standard set of policies may or may not be benefitial to a board. Time changes...

Kind regards,
Peter

[kevmusic]

Hmm, three posts. I think that takes the PPRuNe biscuit for the most rapid thread topic change!

[PPRuNe Towers]

Time does indeed change iwrbf.

What reinforces the policy is scale - not time. What worked with 5000 signed up users becomes invaluable and essential with 375,000. The advent of google and SEO means that an average 23% of visitors are first timers and the tiny proportion who aren't house trained becomes a very large number indeed. Our chum at the top of the thread was one of them.

You either have a site run by real, active pilots or you substitute them with minimum wage cubicle bunnies in a glass office who can send out boilerplate explanations to the annoyed.

Rob

[A and C]

Can you say that in non computor speak please, for the benifit of those who are not technicly minded (in a computor sense)

[iwrbf]

A and C, Rob wants to say:


Time does indeed change iwrbf.


I am not as stubborn as you might think, iwrbf :-)


What reinforces the policy is scale - not time.


Size matters :-)


What worked with 5000 signed up users becomes invaluable and essential with 375,000.


iwrbf, you can't think of pprune as a hobby forum. It's a giganticly sized pile of people.


The advent of google and SEO means that an average 23% of visitors are first timers and the tiny proportion who aren't house trained becomes a very large number indeed.


23% percent of the site visitors have no idea how a forum works. This is plain dangerous because even a few of these people can disturb the normal flow in a forum - not yet speaking about the possible legal issues of their actions...


Our chum at the top of the thread was one of them.


The poster in this thread was banned because of some behaviour of this kind. I will not disclose why, maybe a moderator had just a gut feeling (intuition) and decided to protect the habitat of 375.000 users.


You either have a site run by real, active pilots or you substitute them with minimum wage cubicle bunnies in a glass office who can send out boilerplate explanations to the annoyed.


Quality over problematic quantity in individual decisions about people showing the "wrong" approach to this forum.

Or as I would say: Kick the few problematic ones out before they found a basis for trouble.

I DO understand this. I just wanted to suggest that the acting moderator shortly explains: "I have a reason for this".

Kind (and respectful) regards Rob,

Peter

[A and C]

Thank you for putting that into a form of English that I can understand!

[BRL]

Well I can't say why he was banned because it wasn't me who banned him!

A&C, what Rob was trying to say was the OP has been a naughty boy! :}

[Genghis the Engineer]

Quite a few people, for example, have been banned for things they've sent (such as advertising or abuse) by PMs that you'd not even see on the forums.

I don't know in this case, as it wasn't me who banned him either.

Ultimately however, volunteer mods with limited time just can't go doing lengthy explanations (and subsequent arguments) with each banning.

Most people I've banned as a mod, it's been for blatant advertising.

G