[Bob Kuczewski]

I went back and dug up some of the details of my own banning back in February of 2010. Here are my thoughts from that time (February 26th, 2010):

I guess I have a new "badge of honor" to add to my list...

I replied to one of Bill Helliwell's postings on the Oz Report, and I got this PM message from Davis Straub himself:

Posted: Fri, Feb 26 2010, 11:56:05 pm
Subject: Stay out of the threads

Voting in the USHPA BOD and What's in the USHPA minutes.

Keep yourself to USHPA R3 forum.

Quit polluting these other threads.

If you can't stop doing this you will be stopped from making any posts here.

Apparently, Davis did not like me posting my comments to the "Voting in the USHPA BOD" and "What's in the USHPA minutes" topics. So I replied:

If Bill Helliwell can post his comments then I will post mine as well.

If you want to ban me for that, then please do so right now.

You either provide a level playing field or you don't. Make up your mind.

Davis replied almost immediately:

Okay, you are banned.

He then posted the following public message to his forum:

Bob K has been banned.

Bob dared me to ban him, so I did.

I wrote a private message to him asking him to quit polluting a couple of threads with material that belonged in the forum regarding his recall. He refused and dared me to ban it.

I did.

You'll note that I did not "dare" Davis to ban me, but I did give him the choice to either provide a level playing field or ban me. I guess banning was his preferred choice.

I will say that leading up to this, Davis had been chopping up a lot of topics and moving my posts around which made them seem out of context. So I had been struggling with him on these kinds of issues for some time.

I don't know what else to say at this point. I guess the lines are being drawn, and we now know where Davis stands.

So I'm not a bit surprised about him doing the same thing to Wingspan. The sport of hang gliding needs a place where pilots can talk without the fear of one person pushing the button to ban them. Right now, that's not true on the US Hawks either, but it is our goal to come up with a system of due process to fix this in the future.

That gives me an idea.      Some time in early 2015 I'd like to start the US Hawks Forum Advisory Board. The Board will make recommendations on things like banning and forum conduct. To start with, they will be just recommendations until the Board defines some processes and gets some practice following them. Then, when the Board appears to be ready, we can make them the official arbiters of the forum. The only tricky part is legal liability. Right now, as the owner of the site, I believe I'm holding the bag for any such liability. So maybe that will be the time to incorporate the US Hawks. Maybe the Forum Advisory Board will then become the actual US Hawks Board of Directors.

Any thoughts?

[AirNut]

I went back and dug up some of the details of my own banning back in February of 2010. Here are my thoughts from that time (February 26th, 2010):

I guess I have a new "badge of honor" to add to my list...

I replied to one of Bill Helliwell's postings on the Oz Report, and I got this PM message from Davis Straub himself:

Posted: Fri, Feb 26 2010, 11:56:05 pm
Subject: Stay out of the threads

Voting in the USHPA BOD and What's in the USHPA minutes.

Keep yourself to USHPA R3 forum.

Quit polluting these other threads.

If you can't stop doing this you will be stopped from making any posts here.

Apparently, Davis did not like me posting my comments to the "Voting in the USHPA BOD" and "What's in the USHPA minutes" topics. So I replied:

If Bill Helliwell can post his comments then I will post mine as well.

If you want to ban me for that, then please do so right now.

You either provide a level playing field or you don't. Make up your mind.

Davis replied almost immediately:

Okay, you are banned.

He then posted the following public message to his forum:

Bob K has been banned.

Bob dared me to ban him, so I did.

I wrote a private message to him asking him to quit polluting a couple of threads with material that belonged in the forum regarding his recall. He refused and dared me to ban it.

I did.

You'll note that I did not "dare" Davis to ban me, but I did give him the choice to either provide a level playing field or ban me. I guess banning was his preferred choice.

I will say that leading up to this, Davis had been chopping up a lot of topics and moving my posts around which made them seem out of context. So I had been struggling with him on these kinds of issues for some time.

I don't know what else to say at this point. I guess the lines are being drawn, and we now know where Davis stands.

So I'm not a bit surprised about him doing the same thing to Wingspan. The sport of hang gliding needs a place where pilots can talk without the fear of one person pushing the button to ban them. Right now, that's not true on the US Hawks either, but it is our goal to come up with a system of due process to fix this in the future.

That gives me an idea.      Some time in early 2015 I'd like to start the US Hawks Forum Advisory Board. The Board will make recommendations on things like banning and forum conduct. To start with, they will be just recommendations until the Board defines some processes and gets some practice following them. Then, when the Board appears to be ready, we can make them the official arbiters of the forum. The only tricky part is legal liability. Right now, as the owner of the site, I believe I'm holding the bag for any such liability. So maybe that will be the time to incorporate the US Hawks. Maybe the Forum Advisory Board will then become the actual US Hawks Board of Directors.

Any thoughts?

I think something like this would be a very good idea. As Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others".

Recently I came back to hang gliding after a twenty year break. I immediately noticed a couple of big changes from the 'old days': the swarms of paragliders everywhere and the black side of human nature evidenced on the hang gliding forums (fora?). On those 'other two' forums, it was never long before any discussion (even on hang gliding) would descend to personal attacks, self-aggrandizement, grand-standing, soap-box ranting and all the other usual suspects of human behavior. It seems that some people can't have any kind of rational debate/discussion without losing control of themselves and playing the man and not the ball.

But that's why we have forum rules and practices, as we do in other aspects of human life. As Winston said, about the worst thing we can do is to have a dictatorship for enforcing the rules. I'd like to think that we can come up with something a little more enlightened than that.

[wingspan33]

Bob,

I have lots of thoughts on your last comments.

One thing that I'd like to say is that this is the MOST civil hang gliding forum that I know of. As owner/moderator I'd be surprised if you were spending even minutes editing or moving posts or banning people (because they were in some way being disruptive - or breaking site rules). I'm not sure how you've done it, but the members here - at the US Hawks - seem to be polite, respectful, level headed ADULTS. It seems odd to think that this site is an exception in that regard.

I recently mentioned to someone that, considering that Bob K - a person who is known on other HG Forum sites as being "disruptive" perhaps "annoying", and who "can't follow the rules" - has created a Hang Gliding oriented Web Site and Forum that is the most respectful and peaceful on the net. Well, it seems clear to me is that the "powers that be" don't like Bob's positive drive and determination. They like things to stay as they are, . . . flying further and further out of balance.

Like Bob, I prefer civility, peace, and respect among a community's members. That's why I plan to take steps to bring that respect back to places like the OZ Report - even if a law suit is the only way it is accomplished.

And, an idea that just occurred to me, . . . I will consider contacting the companies that have adds on the OZ Report and ask them if they support Davis Straub's policy to cover up felony Hate Crimes that are committed via his HG Forum. If they go along with that policy, or have no opinion, I will post their names someplace prominent. Perhaps, in the process, I can get them to pull their adds!

One thing leads to another. One small step at a time.

[Rick Masters]

I came to the Oz Report in response to some questions about the possible re-release of my film "Aoli, Comet Clones & Pod People (1982)."
https://web.archive.org/web/20111228023 ... index.html
I think that was in 2007. People were cordial, even complimentary. I sent Davis $100 because I thought his site was fantastic. Then about that time I began investigating paragliding deaths and asking questions on Paragliding Forum. The response there was hostile, tribal and adolescent, at best. When I published my chart of the Paragliding Dead Man's Curve (PDMC),
https://web.archive.org/web/20120122043 ... Cnew2a.jpg
they went ballistic. A moderator at PG Forum said several regular posters there had been assigned to disparage anything I said on other forums. These posters appeared on Oz Report and began attacking my every statement. Davis finally placed all my postings into his "Cat Fight" arena. I was seeking answers to what I saw as a disproportionate number of deaths and broken backs from paragliding being reported worldwide and I was very surprised to see Davis regard this as a form of amusement. No doubt he was pressured by his paragliding friends to silence me. I got pretty disgusted with this and pulled all my posts one night. He didn't like that and banned me from the site "forever." Then his forum went dark.

Soon after, I think, Paragliding Forum banned me and Joe Faust. Joe, an early pioneer of paragliding, was treated especially poorly.

One sad result of Davis' mindset was that Alan Fisher, inventor of the "Thermal Snooper,"
https://web.archive.org/web/20120423121 ... lusion.htm
contacted me during this time to ask me if I knew of any pilots who would be interested in testing an improved version of the Thermal Snooper. He was in his 80s and this was his final gift to us. I had always flown with one in the Owens Valley and believed it would help advance the sport if flown by capable XC pilots out of Zapata. I excitedly PM'd Davis to ask him if he would be interested in Alan's offer. "No," he replied. Period. Weird.

That was about it for me and Davis. I like forums because an argument can be presented by an anonymous individual and left to stand or fall on its merits. On Oz Report, I did not post anonymously but my attackers did. It seemed to me at the time that Davis' actions of throwing me into a sub-forum with angry paraglider pilots with an agenda to shut me up rather than discuss my concerns in a reasonable manner worked at cross-purposes to the goals of hang gliding.

I also got the impression that BobK, who I did not know at the time, was simply trying to defend his reputation and his right to speak out on issues that were important to hang gliding but he was treated unfairly by Davis and likewise "silenced." A wonderful thing about the Internet is that you really can't silence anybody who wants to speak out. If one area becomes too repressive, a freer one pops up. In the end, I believe silencing people with relevant views only marginalizes one's forum. What's relevant? That's for the moderator to figure out. A good moderator will attract people to his forum while a poor one will lose them.

[Bill Cummings]

I still really like my idea posted here some years back with a few new additions.

Have Bob K. or some other tech., savvy programmer set up a program that will first pop up a warning to check the rules once text is detected to be vulgar, obscene, etc.

The warning will state that it will not be tolerated and now the words are blocked out plus all the rest of the text becomes harder to read in steps of ten with step ten being impossible to read.

With each violation the program will automatically, in steps of ten, increase the background to match the color of the text font selected.

Or,
a program will select a text font that has that artsy La-De-Dah scribble that makes it frustrating to read.

Each censure step will make it progressively more difficult for any reader viewing the Hawks forum to clearly discern what the automatically censured offenders text actually means.

The appealing, offending, poster, could send a private message to the site monitor or board of directors and if it is determined that the program improperly censured them the program could be reset backwards in steps of ten.

So in effect the rules are there for all to see and the automatic, “hammer,” comes down with no one else hitting a ban button.
However the board or the site monitor at their discretion could forgive and reset the program in steps or not.

This way when a vulgar offender is pointing a finger at someone for themselves being on their way to being banned they need only to look at their own hand to see three fingers pointed back at themselves.

[Rick Masters]

Tad was an excellent example. After considerable discussion, BobK moved him to the "Free Speech Zone," a place where those who wish to be insulted are free to go. But Tad was not an example of someone with an agenda to silence another. Tad, like a teen with terrets syndrome, attacked everyone on an equitable basis. To deal with either problem requires a moderator with a cool head and some vision.

A place to avoid is mob rule by "karma." At PG Forum, the paragliding tribe runs off anyone asking uncomfortable questions or those who do not "Rah! Rah!" loud enough. No software can replace a fair moderator - that is the challenge. Forums without fair moderators are useless, a herd activity.

[wingspan33]

Bill,

I don't happen to understand the skills needed to create such an "automatic control" over members submitting abusive posts, but it sounds like an effective mechanism.

I would mention once again that I'm not sure such a system has ever been needed here.

But it is OBVIOUSLY needed at the OZ Report and other Hang Gliding Forum sites (like SG.org). However, individual members can't moderate such a web site's "owner". If such an owner wants to act in an unfair manner against forum members - they may as well be "God".

And that to leads to positive evidence in Bob K's favor. He believes in and respects the serious nature of the right to free speech. Members here don't seem to be bent on abusing that right, which speaks highly of them (us?). There's no doubt in my mind that Bob sometimes disagrees, at least a bit, with the content of messages posted here. Still, Bob does not see himself as the "God" of the US Hawks web site. He is just one of us. What a refreshing perspective.

[wingspan33]

Recent news on this topic -

I just sent the below email to Mr. Davis Straub. As you will see, I also CC'd it to Scare (Davis' tech assistant) and two officials on the USHPA Executive Committee. If you read everything contained on the screen captured image you will understand why those additional people were CC'd.

Also, I am posting this message here so that the public may see my efforts to address this defamatory attack on my character. My efforts rely on methods involving the law - which exists to protect us all from individuals with negative intent.

Email Sent on 12-17-14 to Davis Straub + Scare and CCed to USHPA officials sm.jpg (105.91 KiB) Viewed 5317 times

[Rick Masters]

Despite all the animosity generated by forums, I still believe forums to be useful methods of communication. Although I may disagree with a moderator's methods, it is his platform and I believe he has the right to operate as he sees fit. Public criticism of a forum can be effective. However I do not see legal action as a way of improving a forum but, rather, a way to destroy or impugn our access to information. The sensible alternative is to find a forum that suits you, not to go to war.

Governments can wreck things. Don't invite them to dinner. And hope they don't invite you to dinner.

[wingspan33]

Rick,

I appreciate where you are coming from. However, . . . In what you are saying I'm not sure I see a way to deal with abusive and/or criminal behavior. Neither do I see a way to correct a wrong done to someone (myself in this case) who has been damaged.

Since you imply that the law (as defined by our government) should not be brought into this or similar situations, that leads a potential (unspoken?) suggestion that illegal (outside of government) methods be used to deal with such misconduct. Either that, or you are suggesting that people who are damaged by "thugs" or by a "bullies in positions of power" should passively submit (give up) to such abuse - to act as cowards. This, unfortunately, leads to the thugs and bullies becoming more abusive and committing more heinous acts. Either of these paths leads to the destruction of civil society.

And when you state that forums help facilitate positive communication - I would agree to that - as an ideal perspective.

But when a renegade participant of any forum attacks and defames the character of another forum member (instead of engaging in civil, respectful debate) THAT participant needs to be dealt with according the the (governing) rules of that forum.

I did not attack Billy Floyd - he attacked me. I informed him that what he had posted, in direct reply to me (and quoting my message in doing so) was NOT acceptable. That his act was in fact defined as a felony Hate Crime in my State. I called a spade a spade. I also asked for information from Mr. Straub that would help me pursue this thug (who, BTW, is a real living person and responsible for his actions).

At this point in time (before checking for a reply) I have heard NOTHING from Davis Straub. I have, however, been cut off from being able to participate in Mr. Straub's "Hang Gliding Information Exchange Community", one of the most active such communities on the planet. Oddly, I haven't heard word one about the justification behind my being bared from that community. As for my side: I have sent two very civil emails to Mr. Straub. And, as I have just discovered, after two days, he has finally chosen to respond (after my second message was sent). All he says of relevance in the message is: "That thread is gone." Implying the destruction of evidence regarding a criminal act.

Rick,

Gabriel Jebb could have thanked Bob and put a helmet on. Davis Straub could have barred Billy Floyd from the Oz Forum and BLACKed-OUT the harassing post. Unfortunately, Gabriel Jebb decided to commit assault and battery against Bob K and Davis Straub decided to destroy evidence of harassment then ban me from his (corrupt?) community. Straub's actions, to date, utterly incriminate "his community" as being little more than a spoiled child's sand box. You can play there as long as you keep him smiling.


I'll finish this post with, . . . What goes around, Comes around.

Despite all the animosity generated by forums, I still believe forums to be useful methods of communication. Although I may disagree with a moderator's methods, it is his platform and I believe he has the right to operate as he sees fit. Public criticism of a forum can be effective. However I do not see legal action as a way of improving a forum but, rather, a way to destroy or impugn our access to information. The sensible alternative is to find a forum that suits you, not to go to war.

Governments can wreck things. Don't invite them to dinner. And hope they don't invite you to dinner.