[Bob Kuczewski]

Members of the Board,

The U.S. Hawks has had a long established policy (dating back to 2010) that anonymous members cannot attack others on the forum. This rule has been repeated as needed to those members in violation before any action has been taken against them.

I am opening this topic to discuss simple concise language for this rule to be placed in our terms of service. I would like to use language consistent with our current practices as described in these earlier posts:

Dec 30, 2010 7:04 am
https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=209&start=20#p802

The founders of our country came up with a process for justice that always involves the right to face one's accusers. If you're going to say things that damage someone else's reputation, you should have the integrity to stand behind your words. My mother always taught me "Never say something behind someone's back that you wouldn't say to their face". The internet has enabled far too many people to say whatever they want about others with no accountability. You should not be using the real names of real people like Sara Martin or Mark Webber if you're not willing to use your own real name. If you really want your concerns to be taken seriously, then you'll have to find the courage to stand behind what you've said. That's what this country was built on.

Declaration.jpg (35.66 KiB) Viewed 5960 times

Sep 23, 2012 12:38 pm
https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1129&p=5239#p5239

The US Hawks has a policy that we do not allow attacks by anonymous members who do not give their names. So if anyone wants to come here and attack you (or anyone else), then they'll have to give their real name or be restricted to the "Free Speech Zone".

Nov 19, 2014 12:22 pm
https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1638&p=8599#p8599

Hello Steve (cc Tad),

I've been having a conversation with Tad regarding your reinstatement to the general US Hawks forum.

As you may remember, I took the position that people should not be allowed to attack others on our forum without people knowing who they actually are ... in real life. That's why I restricted your posting to the "Free Speech Zone" on our forum.

I've seen too many forums where "puppet" users are created to make it appear that there are lots of people with a particular view, when the reality was that they were just a bunch of aliases for one person. In fact, I was personally told this by someone doing that exact thing on the hanggliding.org forum. I am hoping to do something better on the US Hawks forum.

So I've arrived at my own policy to avoid that situation. My policy is that I want to have a reasonable certainty of the identity of each person who is engaging in any significant personal attacks against others. I currently do that with at least one phone call (possibly more). It's not a perfect system, but I think it's better than what we see on most of the other national forums. I stand behind giving people a public voice, but only if they're willing to stand behind it as well.

I welcome the chance to discuss this with you, and you are welcome to call me any time at 858-204-7499.

Thanks for signing up with the US Hawks.

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski

Feb 18, 2019 7:39 pm
https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3378#p25623

Hello Hawk891,

So far your speech has been unfettered. But we do have a long standing rule that attacks cannot be made anonymously. You'll notice that people either use their real names or have satisfied us that their real names are known. For example, it's well known that "Free" is Warren Narron. In some cases we have asked for additional verification of identity such as a phone number associated with your real name.

You are welcome to remain anonymous if you like, but then you cannot use your account to attack others. We have witnessed too many fake users posting as "sock puppets" on other forums. That's not fair to the people who do give their real names.

Your posts so far have been clearly critical of Joe Faust, and yet you have not provided your real name. That's fine at this point because you've not been aware of the rule. You are now.

If you would like to talk about hang gliding issues, you're welcome to do so in the main forum. If you want to talk about non hang gliding issues we do have a "Free Speech Zone" for that.

Thank you, and welcome again to the U.S. Hawks.

When we arrive at proper wording, I will introduce a motion that the rule be referred to as "Sara's Rule" in memory of the young pilot who was attacked by anonymous posters before the rule was established.

Thanks.

[JoeF]

"attack" a person?
Fuzzy.
Why allow attacks of persons at all?
Why not disallow all attacks on persons?
Maybe just tackle ideas, statements.

I wince at the concept of a forum that allows attacking persons.

What does it mean to attack a person?
What does it mean to attack actions and ideas and statements made by a person?

Before wording a further formal statement about attacking persons and a preamble requirement to bring forward real names,
maybe some work needs to be done about whether this forum is to ever let stay showing any attack on a person.
Maybe posts that attack a person should be deleted with a note to author; repost without attacking the person; face the person's actions, ideas, statements only.

I find some forums have a rule:

Discussion should aim to be constructive and guiding. Personal attacks will not be allowed.

What is wanted relative to MGF? Is it his actions that are to be examined? Is it his ideas that are wanted for critique? What if his actions and ideas and statements were the sole realm of critique while avoiding judging his heart and soul and motivations and feeling and sins? If MGF says what is feelings are, then those statements could be topic of a fair discussion. But to get into guessing his feelings, guessing his motivations, guessing his beliefs, guessing his motivations may be disruptive and finally to no firm matter, as those things are hidden, are they not? If MGF says something, then those statements may be examined deeply without pretending to know the soul of MGF.

I am tending to formalize a rule:

Posts holding personal attacks will be deleted; the author will be told in PM or email along with a copy of the post that was deleted: Consider reposting sans the personal attacks.

Would then the forum be a haven for clearer thought and critique?

Hey Poster, I have no idea about your inner being; I have your statements, actions, ideas, text. Let's discuss your actions, statements, ideas, and text while staying away from my guesses of your feelings, my guesses at your motivations, my guesses at what you might belief. It will be hard enough to do a good job massaging your actions, statements, text, and ideas! If I think one of your actions is good for HG, then I can argue that point without ever getting into whether you are a saint or sinner, whether or not you are at peace with your Maker or not.

If I find in Poster's text that he or she stated a belief, motivation, feeling, then the subject of what is said to be believe becomes an idea that could be discussed without judging the final soul condition of the poster. E.g., let us say PosterA announces: "I, PosterA, believe I am good to expel a member for the following reasons:" Well, PosterA put forward there a statement "I am good to expel a member for the following reason:" Discussion could examine the validity of the reasons and maybe find that the reasons do not well stand in the validity or true or relevant realm; then discussion could tell PosterA: "Your foundation sucks; consider the suckness and then see if you still believe you are good for expelling for those suck-filled reasons. Notice that PosterA is not personally attacked; his ideas are challenged by others; the others allow PosterA to review if PosterA could still hold to his or her belief that he or she is good for expelling for the reviewed reasons. Good work is not always easy to do; it might take many people working over the reason set. But PosterA need never experience an attack on his or her person from such good discussing.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Joe, there is value in making guesses. When I guess that the one million dollars of income made by the Torrey concession is a factor in their decisions, I may not have absolute knowledge, but my suspicion (my guess) is something that I might want to communicate to others. I don't think we should suppress the "connecting of the dots" because that's part of the process of thinking.

I am appreciative, of your sensitivity on the term "attack" and on persons. But I again argue that sometimes criticizing a person is what is wanted to be said.

I'm not taking a hard position on these items. I'm just suggesting other views.

[JoeF]

Many people are in a habit of attacking the person's hidden aspects and so lose energy that could be applied to guesses over the actions, ideas, products, stated beliefs, stated motivations, etc.
There is large activity that supports that many people want to criticize others; but does "criticize" need to cross into the hidden aspects of the person; why not stick with criticizing the actions, ideas, and statements. Guess over the actions, ideas, and statements. Prove actions are great or suck; prove ideas are effective or productive, or that the ideas lead to contradictions; prove a statement as true or not; show an argument is fallacious or sound. So much good work can be done without exercising a divine seeing of the hidden aspects of people.

Harm can easily arrive over ParticipantB under a barrage of guesses over his or her hidden person:
E.g., ParticipantB,
1. I'm guessing you believe it is cool to torture animals.
2. I'm guessing you are stealing.
3. I'm guessing that you intended to deceive.
4. I'm guessing that you are fearful of being ostracized from the group.
...
and the like.
Better:
ParticipantB,
1. What is your take on animal torture?
2. How did you come to have that money?
3. Did you appreciate that some us understood differently. Would you clarify your intention when you wrote, "______... " We understood _______. Was our understanding you what you intended? It turned out that what you wrote did not hold water when examined. Have you seen our examination? Are we on target? Do you still believe in the rightness of what you wrote?
4. Does fear from being ostracized from the group play in your decision? Or do you choose to walk so you do not get ostracized from the group for some other cause?

Marley lost so much energy and bandwidth attacking a Poster's person while spending little to no energy unpacking the topic of factual USHGRS.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Joe, please try that approach on Michael and we'll see how it works.

I do agree that it's a higher road to focus on the actions, but some people do have bad motives or conflicts of interest that can be best explained by criticisms of the person and by guesses of their motives.

I, for example, feel that Michael is currently motivated by extreme shame in how he failed to stand up for you on hanggliding.org. That's not a fact that's known to be absolutely true by me, but it is a useful concept in helping to understand Michael's current behavior. I don't know how that concept of mine could be shared and refined if I couldn't express it in writing.

[JoeF]

I am aiming to so practice with Michael and others. Thanks.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Sorry, I was editing while you were responding. I had added:

I do agree that it's a higher road to focus on the actions, but some people do have bad motives or conflicts of interest that can be best explained by criticisms of the person and by guesses of their motives.

I, for example, feel that Michael is currently motivated by extreme shame in how he failed to stand up for you on hanggliding.org. That's not a fact that's known to be absolutely true by me, but it is a useful concept in helping to understand Michael's current behavior. I don't know how that concept of mine could be shared and refined if I couldn't express it in writing.

[JoeF]

Good to see the preface owning:
I, for example, feel that
And you further kept the peace with guards.
Yes, guess with the preface and guard.
Then explore the guess to see if can be proven to compel belief in self or others.

All such might help avoid defensive mechanism that could arrive from simple declarations yet unproven:
He is motivated by..... Our moment of overtly owning our guessing might be a key to easier discourse.

Peace is better kept; and we are signaled that proving effort is yet ahead of us.
Maybe some other hypothesis will arrive that may fit better.

Maybe he is a secret supporter of a new competing effort in HG.
Maybe he is projecting anger for having a cut in pay.
etc. .... billions of possibilities.

=======================
Hey, Michael, what motivates you to post at Jack's place?
Hey, Michael, do you want to support sg's rule set?
Hey, Michael, would you support a moderator simply deleting posts that had any personal attacking in the posts followed by an invitation for reposting sans personal attacks?
Hey, Michael, do you think that a poster owning a guess helps matters of peace in a discussion?
Hey, Michael, do you recognize that owning guessing can be abused? E.g., "I, poster Ngggg Qrrrrrr, guess that XYtRZZZZ has been stealing Amazon packages from her neighbors." when Ngggg Qrrrrr has no evidence at all about such matter. Such would be opening a can of worms for empty cause. However, there are brainstorming sessions where guessed statements are made for future exploration, even though the session was founded on an agreement that no evidence need be brought forward; indeed the essence of brainstorming (but sometimes constrained to a topic or problem or open question).

[JoeF]

Rick Masters' new venture has:

"No direct personal attacks but polite criticism of functionaries, groups and policies is fair game."

Wonder how he intends to police such policy?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Rick Masters' new venture has:

"No direct personal attacks but polite criticism of functionaries, groups and policies is fair game."

Wonder how he intends to police such policy?

Good question. I visited ushga.aero but didn't find the quote. However, I did find a date error showing 2015 which should likely be 2011. I called Rick twice to relay the error, but he didn't answer. I ended up leaving a message, but if anyone else is able to contact him they should try to do so.