Won’t be stooping to y’alls level! I’m out
1 Like
I put pointless in quotations for a reason. It’s not pointless! It’s what some people in this topic would call pointless. Otherwise it would be closed by moderators. But I do think you could put a little more substance into your original post 😊
2 Likes
I will work on that. I just don’t see the point of these arguments. Like you said. If it’s not meant to be then they will take care of it.
Not arguments anymore, discussing how the rule is not followed by the community anymore and how it could possibly be implemented. I still think the rule is outdated but whatever. See what happens.
1 Like
I can’t say that posts are not following rules- they are technically following the guidelines and the category is about interests in RWA, but perhaps it is time for the rules to be refined-
Take posts such as these:
Not against the guidelines, but certainly not a high quality thread by any stretch of the information, and likely not the original intended purpose for RWA.
You could say ok, RWA is only for personal experiences, but then you block out very interesting posts such as these:
So here’s my suggestion-
The RWA guidelines are changed to read:
‘Here you can discuss your interests in real world aviation. Posts should be about a specific event, experience or interest. Generalised posts eg ‘What is your favourite xxx’ will not be permitted.’
This gives the moderators much more ground to get rid of the BS around the category, and get it back on the rails.
NB- any examples used here aren’t personal to the authors, just picked some examples from the category.
10 Likes
Couldn’t agree more man. Pouring over the NTSB reports is tiring. I think if we did that though it would seriously come right back to what it is. You could say that Meme’s interest you. Pictures of a 330 interest you. I think it just leaves the door too open for non quality posts. There are a lot of good posts that aren’t personal experiences, but there are also a lot of bad ones. New guidelines should definitely be something to consider though. Not sure how to word it, but that’s why I’m not staff.
4 Likes
Because it takes some people longer to understand. Not everyone learns at the same rate.
1 Like
But you could argue that the second one is just a straight copy and paste from AeroInside or the Aviation Herald. Doesn’t really contribute anything as such, but I get your point for sure.
1 Like
Heres my two cents.
The opinion-based and hypothetical stuff should leave.
News related facts should be moderated, but not completely removed as they do generate discussion sometimes, which is what this forum is intended to do. Take my United post for example, it generated 257 replies from 3 sentences and a link in the original post. Everyone, even moderators discussed their views, which is a good thing imo.
However, there are a lot of news posts which I understand irritate some and don’t offer meaningful conversation, so what I suggest is making a wiki thread. Right now, a bulk of news posts are about plane orders and different routes which can be easily condensed to a “mother thread” (like the IF livery tracking threads). I think we need these for news related topics if people feel the need to get news from IF.
Examples of topics that can go into a single thread:
The way I envision it is having a wiki of reliable aviation sources included in the original post as a wiki (such as the ones suggested by @DeerCrusher in the RWA subcategory thread), and people can use those sources or any other sources in the posts below. If we have a case of “fake news” just simply flag the post for a moderator to delete. I think it will be better if everything is developed into a single thread, plus you get the added benefit of a “news timeline” to see how aviation has developed :)
But yes, to have separate news topics with a few sentences and a link with 3 replies seems pointless and clogs up the forum.
4 Likes
I think that will be a good idea. This idea reminds me of other forum discussions like Skyscrapercity or FlyerTalk which will make a RWA Routes and News sticks into one thread =)
Well said. I agree with your envision.
1 Like
@Brandon_Sandstrom… " I’d like to highlight the YOUR experience" sez the guidance. Considering the fact that many here are just buffs or wonnabe I say let’em buck. I scan the comments in most Topics and pick and choose. Let the Moderators control the flow, I trust them, not some opinionated member. I enjoy the commentary in this Topic as it is. “Experience” is an all encompassing term.
One man’s junk is another man’s treasure! Just Sayin, Max
10 Likes
I agree with this 100%
2 Likes
This?
It does generate discussion.
Unless thats not your qualm
3 Likes
I think that that category should be split up into 4 subcategories…
Real World Aviation
- Airline News | All News related to airlines (New Routes, New Airline, New Plane, etc)
- Airport News | All News related to airports (Expansion, New Opening of Airport, Closure, etc)
- Manufacturer News | All News related to manufactures (New Engines, New Manufacture, Updates on planes, etc)
- Experience | Rating an airline or airport as well as a specific aircraft, Your experience as a pilot, etc
What do you think of that idea (Or something similar)
2 Likes
There’s need to be 4 categories, one more for its actual purpose, your own experience.
4 Likes
I’m not elaborating on specific topics, just for the sake of others
3 Likes
News can just be in 1 category of its own
That would just add unnecessary complication. 2 categories would suffice: news, personal.
2 Likes