Seasprite troubles

[ngatimozart]

Oct 13, 2012 8:58:04 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

It has probably "all gone quiet" because the know it alls here have been discussing military deals and secrets online and in the public, and those actually in the know are not at all keen to have their ongoing dealings discussed by people on a forum who have nothing to do with NZDF purchases!!

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.

[Dave Homewood]

The problem here is here have een a few people making bold statements presented as facts, but they are failing to give any reference to where those facts came from, who they are quoting, or how they get the inside knowledge - particularly on defence deals. If what you're writing is indeed true but you are not able to give a reference to the evidence and sources due to its sensitive nature then it's obvious you're not supposed to actually be talking about it publicly, and your source probably isn't either. So it should not be written here, at all, end of story.

And this applies not just to NZDF matters - stuff you see, photograph and hear in a hangar about a warbird or a commercial operation or anything else should not be openly discussed here unless you have the permission to do so from the source - this is one of the fundamental rules of this forum, to protect the people and deals being discussed and to protect you from being sued, and me getting a lot of grief.

Some here think that I'm talking hooey, well I am not - on several occasions I have actually removed posts at the request of senior NZDF officers because people are writing stuff or posting photos that they shouldn't. It is not nice to receive a stern email telling me off for something someone else has done. It has also happened regarding airshows and other topics.

And over the past few years I have also removed several posts made by people who've heard a rumour about a warbird and simply posted it - without giving any consideration as to whether or not the information is meant to be public - and I have known it was not for public consumption so it has been swiftly removed and the guilty person told, and told why. There is so much going on behind the scenes that you, the average enthusiast, has no idea about and the people involved in a lot of those activities simply don't want you to know about it till the time comes for them to release the information through their own press launches. They don't like it when some random person posts their secret business on the most read aviation forum in the southern hemisphere, believe me.

The moral is THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

Free speech does not mean you can simply post whatever you want, when you want. There are still still rules, and freedom of speech is only good when you are talking sense and you have the right to do so without breaking others' confidences, rules and copyrights.

Personally I think that members here get a very good deal in terms of speaking freely, compared with most forums. We are generally laid back about most things, inclusive and encouraging. There is much less moderation and censoring done here than any other forum I belong to, and the pretty large community here are generally great and work hard to keep things civil, friendly and legal. Usually when I have to do some moderation for the problems being discussed it is because another forum reader who's an insider brings it to my attention. I am not sitting there trying to find fault with people's posts.

Further to the above, there are also occasionally people who simply write complete crap without ever checking on the evidence but because they heard or misheard it somewhere it must be true. Yet the same people will gleefully lambast the media for doing the same thing. this does become frustrating.

As I said, status quo but for the sake of the whole forum, think before you post. Is your post going to affect someone or something or someone's business or club adversely? If it might, don't post it. If you are quoting insider defence matters ensure you have the right to actually post it and don't go ahead anyway just to be a smarty pants, and also reference the source so people don't think you're talking crap. If you're just not sure on anything, run it by me offline first and we'll work together to see if it is appropriate.

[obiwan27]

Dave, good advice. Sometimes one can have a strong negative response to something a person has posted or written on somewhere like this forum or some other website.

Rather than immediately bursting into print it's often best to have a bit of time out to consider whether to do so or otherwise how.

We have a great resource here folks, that I'm sure we all appreciate so let's keep it that way.

[Gavin Conroy]

Well said Dave, this forum has thrived due to good accurate information and hopefully that continues. I have learnt a lot from the forum and met some good people along the way.
I guess when we post we do we need to ask ourselves whether the info we are posting is 100% fact and going to help grow the forum's knowledge base because when it is that is what makes us all better informed but when information is wrong or miss informed it does make you cringe a bit.