Paralay's signature controversy

[Archibald]

People in the West will never understand Putin because of his intellectual superiority over them" (Bashar al-Assad)

Seriously ? Really ? We tolerate such bullshit here ? since when ? admiration for brutal dictators ?

Sue me. And yes, the IGNORE button is my friend. But sorry - that's not enough.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

Putin's irredentist obsession isn't intellectually complex or hard to understand. 4D chess master he is not.

 

[lostcosmonauts]

tbf that is not the only example of overt politics, racism or conspiracy theories tolerated here

 

[Antonio]

tbf that is not the only example of overt politics, racism or conspiracy theories tolerated here

help is welcome, could you please show it?

 

[lancer21]

Seriously ? Really ? We tolerate such bullshit here ? since when ? admiration for brutal dictators ?

Sue me. And yes, the IGNORE button is my friend. But sorry - that's not enough.

Who is we, and why do you think you have the right to demand others conform to your political views? If there is a big problem here, is a small number of western political fanatics (who think themselves as experts and righteous about events in places they have never been too and can't even locate on a map) who try at every step to impose and shove onto others their political views (and the staff mostly looks the other way and in fact my understanding is that couple of them share the same views). And this is what really ruined this forum in the last years.

 

[lancer21]

help is welcome, could you please show it?

The Bar section is a start for that. Posts by the likes of Sferrin and Orionblamblam, just to mention some names, that are the reason i don't even touch that section.

 

[lostcosmonauts]

help is welcome, could you please show it?

Already done, the response was a shrug and that some members are notoriously provocative. As a result I cut back almost all of my contributions here so as to not associate with the sentiments expressed

 

[DWG]

Seriously ? ... admiration for brutal dictators ?

Sycophants gonna sycophant.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

While I certainly don't agree with the statement, I'm not offended by it. Maybe Putin really is smarter than Joe Biden or Rishi Sunak - I'm not sure that's a terribly high bar to clear. I find people who boast of the size of their or other people's intellect often appear to be using very short measuring devices, so if anything it makes me amused, not offended. So I personally don't really see what makes it triggering to some users, but lets agree some people do find it offensive.

Paralay is Russian, and a Putin supporter, not an unusual position to find in Russia today. Times of adversity and war tend to reinforce support for the government - see the huge vote Jacinda Ardern got here in NZ during COVID.

This puts him at odds with the forum which is a majority Western user base. He still contributes useful knowledge to the forum and is (mostly) omitting political elements in his posts.

I am genuinely interested in how people think this should be resolved.

 

[Antonio]

Politics divide and confront people. Not the first time we discuss about it. My personal opinion is to avoid it and attach as much as possible to technology thus preserving the forum free from being ruined as lancer21 points out.

It's difficult to keep the forum free because some members say that it's impossible to speak about history ignoring politics. I agree, but then we should try to be neutral.

Some members, already well known members, can't or simply don't want to be fair and feel free to post their very own political preferences to force discussions that are far from the forum's spirit.
Moderators act to discourage this behaviour, we do our best, but it's impossible to get everyone happy. Every member can contribute from their own fair behaviour and also appealing to each other's.

This is my personal opinion about this forum could be still working after almost 20 years.

 

[DWG]

I am genuinely interested in how people think this should be resolved.

I can't find a source for the quote on a quick google, but it's in line with Assad's sycophancy towards the man keeping him in power, so I think the answer if you're annoyed with it is just to recognise it is sycophancy and if people are impressed by sycophancy, that's their lookout.

 

[quellish]

I am genuinely interested in how people think this should be resolved.

My perspective is that part of the issue is where the statement is. Having a statement that may be incendiary or offensive in the user signature breaks the "quarantine" of The Bar. That statement is now on every post by that user across the whole site. It becomes harder to avoid without blocking that user entirely, and it is easier for someone to unexpectedly run into that statement.

That said, anyone can find any statement offensive. I don't think censoring or even giving attention to a particular statement someone may find offensive is a constructive solution. I also do not know what a constructive solution would be in this case.

I think it is great that we have so many passionate users participating in discussions and research on the site. Let's focus that passion on airplanes and related things

 

[Foo Fighter]

I cannot see the harm in quoting a very fifth rate leader of a broken and dysfunctional nation. I find Paralay's contributions to be on the balance more positive in nature and we do not know the pressures he is under where he is.

No, I am not perfect, I am trying though.

Almost a direct quote from my mother some decades ago.

 

[Archibald]

While I certainly don't agree with the statement, I'm not offended by it. Maybe Putin really is smarter than Joe Biden or Rishi Sunak - I'm not sure that's a terribly high bar to clear. I find people who boast of the size of their or other people's intellect often appear to be using very short measuring devices, so if anything it makes me amused, not offended. So I personally don't really see what makes it triggering to some users, but lets agree some people do find it offensive.

Paralay is Russian, and a Putin supporter, not an unusual position to find in Russia today. Times of adversity and war tend to reinforce support for the government - see the huge vote Jacinda Ardern got here in NZ during COVID.

This puts him at odds with the forum which is a majority Western user base. He still contributes useful knowledge to the forum and is (mostly) omitting political elements in his posts.

I am genuinely interested in how people think this should be resolved.

I don't disagree with the above. But his signature sounds like a cheap provocation. Quoting two blood thirsty dictators. Changing his signature just after Navalny death.

It is the provocative side of this that irks me.

He can remove his signature and then I'll ignore him. Not to make another fuss.

@lancer21 : I also agree with your two comments. Mind you, I used the ignore button there, too.

(sigh) I suppose he can't be arm-twisted to remove his signature. Well once ignored, I won't see it anymore.

Oh well... I may eventually change my signature, too.

 

[Arjen]

Well that was fun.

 

[_Del_]

I know I am hopelessly old by internet standards, but honestly who cares? Russian member supports Russian President. Not exactly breaking news.

Why would you let that signature bother you or affect one's mood? It's no way to go through life, Arch. Grab the family and go on a spaziergang! Head to the cellar and grab that renowned Bordeaux bottle and fill/empty a glass on the patio, my friend.

I rarely even notice user signatures. I just swiped my way back up and realized I didn't read a single one of the few that appear in this thread. Unless this is some new giant, multi-colour signature that spams up the threads it appears in, it's a non-issue to me.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The Bar section is a start for that. Posts by the likes of Sferrin and Orionblamblam, just to mention some names, that are the reason i don't even touch that section.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

PAX AMERICANA, BABY!

 

[pedrospe]

Seriously ? Really ? We tolerate such bullshit here ? since when ? admiration for brutal dictators ?

Sue me. And yes, the IGNORE button is my friend. But sorry - that's not enough.

I agree with you, not only is offensive, but it mocks all of us, i don't know what the mods are doing to alow this!

 

[Orionblamblam]

I am genuinely interested in how people think this should be resolved.

Advocacy of illegal violence (or other forms of illegality, such as CP, animal cruelty, talking in theaters, etc.): not to be tolerated.
Anything else: meh.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I agree with you, not only is offensive, but it mocks all of us, i don't know what the mods are doing to alow this!

The default in *any* reasonable situation is to "allow" unless actual harm is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Outside of authoritarianism, that is, where the "precautionary principle" reigns.

 

[dan_inbox]

I am genuinely interested in how people think this should be resolved.

While it would be good if Paralay wizened up enough to stop his not-very-mature provocations (and maybe realized that it is helping neither the Motherland nor Putin when Russians act childish),
the most emotionally impulsive members could also be encouraged to mature enough to not fall into such primitive traps, or at least to exercise self-control in their response.
_ _ _

It may also be worthwhile to remind the easily offended folks that displaying signatures is under the user's control. I never saw Paralay's because SPF does not display anyone's sig under my account setup.
Who wants to repeatedly see stale self-site-promotion and wisecracks anyway?

 

[pedrospe]

The default in *any* reasonable situation is to "allow" unless actual harm is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Outside of authoritarianism, that is, where the "precautionary principle" reigns.

I'm not Ukrainian and i find it offensive, like the signature before this one, to me is like saying "well hitler and stalin were smart guys...spanish franco quote" but they killed millions of inocent people, we need to have some limits to what members can use as a signature, otherwise, why bother having rules.

 

[MihoshiK]

While I certainly don't agree with the statement, I'm not offended by it. Maybe Putin really is smarter than Joe Biden or Rishi Sunak - I'm not sure that's a terribly high bar to clear. I find people who boast of the size of their or other people's intellect often appear to be using very short measuring devices, so if anything it makes me amused, not offended. So I personally don't really see what makes it triggering to some users, but lets agree some people do find it offensive.

Paralay is Russian, and a Putin supporter, not an unusual position to find in Russia today. Times of adversity and war tend to reinforce support for the government - see the huge vote Jacinda Ardern got here in NZ during COVID.

This puts him at odds with the forum which is a majority Western user base. He still contributes useful knowledge to the forum and is (mostly) omitting political elements in his posts.

I am genuinely interested in how people think this should be resolved.

I think that taking the position that statements that support genocide or those who conduct it should not be tolerated is not too much to ask.

And Putin is most certainly someone who is trying to genocide the Ukrainians.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I think that taking the position that statements that support genocide or those who conduct it should not be tolerated is not too much to ask.

Part 1 (supporting genocide), yeah, sure. But part 2 (those who conduct it) is asking for trouble, especially given how vague "genocide" is. That would exclude basically every military or political leader of any halfway powerful nation. Hell, it would exclude the likes of von Braun. According to some, it would exclude anyone who thinks there are only two biological genders.

The UN definition of "genocide" is remarkably unhelpful:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

By this definition, someone who kills *one* person commits genocide. Someone who attempts to deprogram one person in a cult can be considered to be committing genocide.

So... "Political Scumbag X supports genocide" is an uninformative statement and a bad basis for policy.

Is Putin bad? Why, yes he is. Is he *historically* bad? Yup. Should people be prevented from expressing support for their national leader? Nope. Beyond the ethics of it, it's kinda best to know where people stand sometimes.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

In terms of being reported, Archibald is a worse offender overall than Paralay primarily due to crude language. Moderators will differ on how they view each infraction depending on their own viewpoint.

Ironically haven't actually seen anyone reporting Paralay's signature via the correct method (the "Report" button) myself - some other moderator might - only this inflammatory post by Archibald which ironically gave the entire topic oxygen and helped started a fire. Note the forum rule about vigilante flaming.

Users seem to think moderators have some God's eye view and see all posts - we don't have the time for that. Always consider the possibility some or all of the moderators haven't actually seen it.

 

[kaiserd]

The comments directly above are illustrative of the intellectual and moral vacuum that, unfortunately, the leadership of this forum seems most comfortable with as the default setting for this forum.

The idea that potentially a few swear words would render one contributor “a worse offender” than another contributor who is actively seeking to troll everyone else by actively praising an authoritarian ultra nationalist mass murder is patently absurd and an embarrassment of a non-argument.
A similar pattern is seen far too frequently from the leadership and admin of this forum, a habitual inability (or wilful blindness) to see the wood from the trees.

This forum leadership has, unfortunately, demonstrated an endless appetite for excusing, appeasing and effectively laundering the contributions and reputations of ultra nationalist contributors of various ilks and variations, and continues to eagerly provide them a platform, as long as they are deemed by the leadership of this forum to be “contributing useful information”. This perceived level of contribution appears to be the only factor to really matter to the leadership of this forum, there appears to be an ethical absence in associated decision making.

I had originally thought this approach to be due to naivety of this leadership. I now recognise, in at least equal measure as this naivety, the cowardice and self-interest that helps shapes this approach, some of which I can understand and even partially sympathise with (who wants to be in constant conflict with and ban a significant proportion of you principal users and contributors, who wants to make yourself a potential target for a particular nations cyber threat).

Hence while I very much sympathise with those contributors that are looking/ hoping for better from the leadership of this forum in this regard (including, but not limited to, in respect of this particular incident) realistically you are on the wrong forum to expect this. The best advise I can give to other contributors is to modulate your level of engagement with and investment in this forum on the basis of the extent that you can accept it as it is rather than on the basis of what you may want this forum to be.

My comments above are made in regret not anger. The leadership and moderators of this forum have undoubtedly difficult and somewhat thankless roles that I do not envy and without which (and their hard work) this forum would not exist.

 

[paralay]

Regarding the remark about the "bloody dictator". The so-called "democratic leaders" have killed and continue to kill millions of people around the world, Putin is very far from them, as well as Stalin too. There is a proverb in the Russian language:"whose cow would moo, but yours would be silent." The English equivalent: «The pot calls the kettle black»
I will not comment on phrases like "sycophant", "under pressure" or "difficult times in Russia". Judging by the streets of Western cities, it is you who are approaching "difficult times". There was no such horror in Russia even in the nineties.
Well, the problem with the signature is solved very simply, you can ban the user or ask him not to write here ever. Both options are possible

 

[Orionblamblam]

Judging by the streets of Western cities...

Some nations broadcast the worst stuff they can find about themselves. Others only broadcast the stuff that makes them look good.

There was no such horror in Russia even in the nineties.

Uh-huh. I've seen the "Krokodil" vids. Yikes, my dude. And then there are the Russian dashcams. *WOW.*

 

[quellish]

The idea that potentially a few swear words would render one contributor “a worse offender” than another contributor who is actively seeking to troll

My understanding is that overscan was comparing the number of times those users were reported for misconduct by other users. In those terms one user has been reported more than the other.

 

[dan_inbox]

My understanding is that overscan was comparing the number of times those users were reported for misconduct by other users. In those terms one user has been reported more than the other.

You might want to take into account that he is very disingenuous, not stupid.

 

[Archibald]

Ironically haven't actually seen anyone reporting Paralay's signature via the correct method (the "Report" button) myself - some other moderator might - only this inflammatory post by Archibald which ironically gave the entire topic oxygen and helped started a fire. Note the forum rule about vigilante flaming.

Users seem to think moderators have some God's eye view and see all posts - we don't have the time for that. Always consider the possibility some or all of the moderators haven't actually seen it.

I signaled the thread was out of control, signature included. Got this answer. After what I picked the nuclear, inflamatory option. Maybe I shouldn't have.
But as I said, there was a provocative side in this signature that I just couldn't stomach.

Well, the problem with the signature is solved very simply, you can ban the user or ask him not to write here ever. Both options are possible

Glad to see you posting here. You know there is a THIRD option: just remove the signature. But I can't arm-twist you, so I'd rather use the IGNORE button and solve the issue that way.

 

[helmutkohl]

well that's exactly what to expect when people keep going off about politics, especially unrelated politics, in threads dedicated to specific aircraft.
Unfortunately we have certain members who keep doing this repeatedly. If people keep going off about political agendas in unrelated threads, then thread bans are warranted.
There are other ways to go about this, such as posting at site feedback, contacting mods, etc, rather than threadjacking.

 

[MihoshiK]

Part 1 (supporting genocide), yeah, sure. But part 2 (those who conduct it) is asking for trouble, especially given how vague "genocide" is. That would exclude basically every military or political leader of any halfway powerful nation. Hell, it would exclude the likes of von Braun. According to some, it would exclude anyone who thinks there are only two biological genders.

The UN definition of "genocide" is remarkably unhelpful:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

By this definition, someone who kills *one* person commits genocide. Someone who attempts to deprogram one person in a cult can be considered to be committing genocide.

So... "Political Scumbag X supports genocide" is an uninformative statement and a bad basis for policy.

Is Putin bad? Why, yes he is. Is he *historically* bad? Yup. Should people be prevented from expressing support for their national leader? Nope. Beyond the ethics of it, it's kinda best to know where people stand sometimes.

I like how "Putin is conducting a genocide" is deflected with "But the rules are so vague that you could possibly make the point that killing one dude is a genocide".

The Russian army, on orders of Putin, is trying to wipe out the Ukranian nationality by all means measured above. They've killed tens of thousands, and if they could they'd kill millions. If Putin could he'd eradicate the Ukranian nationality on every level.

Your reply to water this down by taking the Convention Rules out of context sadly says a lot about the kind of person you are, and I'd hoped you were better.

Sadly you're not.

 

[Jemiba]

The simple question here is : Is someone, who is expressing his political opinion better, than someone who is hiding it ?
And we are not speaking of the content of a post, but of the signature of a poster, or maybe his user name. Both can contain indication of opinions, convictions and so, of course, politics.
For example, confessing to manned space flight could easily be interpreted as neglecting social problems on earth, definitely a political statement. We once had a user name, reminding to blowing military defeat of a nation, not chosen accidentally...

I may be wrong, but I think, everybody has a political opinion, but as long, as this doesn't influence the content of his posts, it's ok to me. If it does, there's still the report button ....
I think, many people in our modern society tend to try to shush opinions, that are unpleasant to them. Understandable, I don't like people, too, not sharing my opinion, so not being able to think logically ... But even if I would succeed in quietening them down, I still would have to reckon with their illogicality, wouldn't I ? Those people still are there !

I fully agree to post #21 and don't dare to imagine, how some people would like to fill this intellectual and moral vacuum !

 

[Archibald]

My perspective is that part of the issue is where the statement is. Having a statement that may be incendiary or offensive in the user signature breaks the "quarantine" of The Bar. That statement is now on every post by that user across the whole site. It becomes harder to avoid without blocking that user entirely, and it is easier for someone to unexpectedly run into that statement.

@quellish : bingo. We have a winner here.

I never saw Paralay's because SPF does not display anyone's sig under my account setup.

@dan_inbox

Now that's interesting. There is a way to "ignore" signatures but not the member ?

 

[Scott Kenny]

@quellish : bingo. We have a winner here.


@dan_inbox

Now that's interesting. There is a way to "ignore" signatures but not the member ?

Yes.

1) Click on your name in the upper right corner to open your account settings. (I recommend in a new tab so you can read the rest of this post and make your changes)

2) Click on "Preferences" on the left hand side of the screen.

3) Under "Content options" in the middle, the bottom item is a checkbox to "Show people's signatures with their messages". Unclick that check box.

4) Hit the green "save" button on the bottom of the screen.

No more signatures!

 

[Basil]

Particularly in technically dominated forums such as this one, it would probably not be a disadvantage to keep a lid on the personal thin-skinnedness and exaggerated personal grievances that are practiced everywhere today with regard to all developments taking place. A little more emotional resilience of the forum's contributors could avoid a lot of artificial excitement.

 

[Hood]

Politics is politics - one is automatically the good guy or the bad guy depending on which side you favour.
For example - would a quote by Dwight D. Eisenhower be any better given that he was a senior commander of a strictly racially segregated Army and was later President of a country that allowed the KKK to flourish and with half of that nation legally racially segregated and whose administration overthrew several Latin American governments and that of Iran (leading to today's events)?
Truth is most politicians are power-mad muppets who think they are doing everyone else a favour. And politicians like most humans are capable of unspeakable crimes and morally dodgy beliefs. Nobody is innocent, nobody is perfect.

There is too much politics generally floating around - the usual suspects shoehorn it in everywhere they can. But I judge people's credibility on what they post - we all like a joke or a bit of mindless AU fun to pass the time, but when the wheat Vs chaff ratio gets too high then its time to tone it down.

I'm not offended by Paralay's signature - I think Archibald is wrong about the timing, I think he's had it for some time. I simply note it and move on.
For those complaining that the moderator's should do more - well we could probably ban 15-20 members right now based on their posting history, maybe more, but then we'd get complaints of heavy-handed tactics - once you start wielding the ban hammer then nobody is immune to it. Much better that people contribute meaningfully to the forum and share the love of arcane nerdy project stuff that we all have - the one thing that unites us all.

 

[Antonio]

I agree with the elimination of the "signature" option as part of the remedy.

Simplified:

There was people interested on unbuilt technology and one of them proposed a forum, for free, because he had the knowledge to make it work. Some of the others volunteer as moderators.
Many specialists and enthusiasts from every corner meets here and post information related to the forum core subject, building up the most comprehensive source of information available on the net.
I enter the forum every day just looking for information about unbuilt technology.

Most member's behaviour deserves to be praised because the forum works pretty nice.

I think our most common source for conflicts arise from politics and rude behaviour. Moderators already monitor for it but personal responsibility helps the most. As it has been said here, making use of the forum's tools to manage complains is the best way to manage conflict.

I discourage from turning the forum into a battlefield because that's far from the original idea.

Please take a moment to think about it

 

[CJGibson]

Let's get back to aerospace.
And tanks
And ships
And missiles
And anything but politics.

Chris