Seasprite troubles Oct 14, 2012 16:30:30 GMT 12
Post by ngatimozart on Oct 14, 2012 16:30:30 GMT 12
As I have said before I am not at all happy with threads that discuss Defence purchases and proposed purchases whilst they are in progress unless it is based on officially released material from NZDF, as every armchair expert and rumour monger out there feels they have to chip in with their usually uninformed say.
Not only does public discussion of such deals jeopardise the deals themselves if they go public, it simply looks bad to the rest of the aviation community, and those involved in the defence purchases will i'm sure not be impressed. I do not like it when people take it upon themselves to make the forum look bad. Believe me, I met about 200 forum members over the Mosquito weekend and a very large number of them said to me that the forum is great apart from all the johnny-come-lately armchair experts and people with no actual aviation experience apart from other rumours they have read on other forums, talking about proposed defence purchases and theoretical purchases as if they are an expert on the inside of NZDF.
I have felt that this kind of discussion makes the forum look bad for some time but I have let it slide as i thought I was alone in this, but now knowing that a lot of people out there feel the same way - people who are actually active in aviation and are the types we want here, not the johnny know alls - something has to be said. I have been trying since to think of a way to shut down such threads without causing upset - it's not bloody easy being a moderator. I think we may have to introduce a new law to quell the discussion of rumours related to Defence purchases in progress, and the leaking of information about them, and all the varying opinions such threads generate. I think a lot of you have no idea who else reads this forum - people from EVERY sector of NZ aviation do, including people working in Defence. They see all that is written and argued here. how would you like your business dealings discussed in public?
Why can people not simply leave it to the experts, wait till official announcements are made and not have to poke their oar in? After all, the experts are not going to read your opinion based on what you read on Defence Talk forum or in Air Forces Monthly or heard in a bar, or saw on a Flight Sim forum and suddenly change their entire opinion of what NZDF needs to do, are they? So such discussions are pointless. Whether it's about new trainers, Hercules replacements, Orion replacements, new boats for the navy, or new helicopters to replace the Seasprites, this applies to all.
Any of those forum members out there who spoke to me about this or who feel the same way, please make your voice heard so I do not appear alone in all this.
I'm going to answer this as it appears that my my question sparked it and I am aware of Daves post today about keeeping the status quo.
It appears that some think that I am uniformed and make claims without knowledge or evidence. Well I try very hard not too and have sources for claims I make. I research what I am interested in and read widely amongst the aviation and military and security open literature. This habit comes from my training but I am always open to fair critique and I will endeavour to better differentiate what is fact and what is my opinion. I most certainly do not know it all and have never claimed such and am always willing to learn.
Like all people I do have opinions and in particular I am passionate about NZDF. I have over time suggested what I think the eauipment or capabilities NZDF should have and they are based around the planned JATF and where CDF wants NZDF to be in 2035. I am fully aware of the funding issues and am aware of the politics of defence in NZ. My own belief is that the pollies are an inherent danger to NZDF BUT they are the political masters and set policy and funding levels for Defence.
Forums are by definition about discussions regarding a particular topic or field. Therefore it is important that the discourses be unimpeded unless they are derogatory, defamatory or false. It is natural justice that all sides of an argument be heard. It is also natural justice that no judgement be made about an individual, group of individuals, or claims without fair investigation. It is healthy for a forum to have wide and varied discourses and just because they are about areas of public policy they should not be precluded.
With regard to the public face of a forum, if it shows a wide and varied range of discourses that are actively debated by an informed membership, then it is a healthy forum. There are professionals within this forum and they appear to be from a broad spectrum of professions. There are also many enthusiasts who also have a broad range of knowledge that must not be discounted. It is this mixture of knowledges and how they are debated and disseminated that determine how a forum is evaluated and judged. My personal opinion is that WONZ is a high calibre forum having a very wide knowledge base with an willingness to share that knowledge through healthy, informed and sometimes quite lively debate.
Finally with regard to experts. There are good experts and not good experts. If anyone is following the F35 debate in Australia they will be aware of a particular group vehemently opposed to the Australian F35 purchase and at various times this group has made submissions to the Australian Senate during hearings on the F35. This group consist of professionals and "experts" and unfortunately the evidence the group submits in support of their submissions is of low quality. My point being is that not all experts are good experts or experts at all.