Hi,

 

Actually there is one (but who did read it? :smile: ):

http://www.avsim.com/topic/245586-you-must-sign-your-full-real-name-to-posts-to-use-this-forum-posts-without-names-will-be-deleted/

I don't know who read it and who didn't or what the reasons behind it are, neither does anyone else, my point is that we should not assume a poor reason for not reading something, which is unfortunately something that is assumed all too often, even in the absence of any justifiable reason for doing so.

 

And were we then to find that the person actually had a good reason for not doing what we consider a bare minimum requirement, we will then claim in our defence that we could not have known their reasons, to which the countercharge is, of course, we could not have known their reasons, but we could have known that we could not have known, and as such, we don't really have a good reason for assuming that we are justified in being impolite to someone for not doing what we expect them to have done simply because we didn't know. In the end, we acted as if we did know, even when clearly, we did not.

 

Politeness, if misplaced, is easier to bear than misplaced impoliteness. It also easier to defend.

I'm usually not one to suggest others follow this or any other rules (I usually leave that to the admins), but I do find it interesting that "Johnathon Barfolomew Doe III" is weighing in on the topic.

I'm usually not one to suggest others follow this or any other rules (I usually leave that to the admins), but I do find it interesting that "Johnathon Barfolomew Doe III" is weighing in on the topic.

I saw that too, reminded me of an article I read on the unintended consequences of irony earlier today.

I merely asked what the reason would be to require someone to continue to have to use their full name if (a) they had already done so in their initial support request, and (b) if it was also in fact, their screen name.

 

I know that the mods/devs cant be here full time as they have normal jobs to do, and allowing the commentariat  to assist in resolving issues that may be a user issue and not a development issue (user development not withstanding) is generally ok.  But to also allow the fu*kery that some person(s) exhibit towards someone who merely asked a question should be questioned by all, and should not be allowed to continue.

I merely asked what the reason would be to require someone to continue to have to use their full name if (a) they had already done so in their initial support request, and (b) if it was also in fact, their screen name.

I imagine that it is simply to make it easier for whoever is responding to the post to recognise that the person is an actual customer without having to scroll through the thread to see if any post had been signed in accordance with the rules.

 

As for the location of the signature, I don't know, perhaps consistency, creating a single spot that everyone knows where to look rather than having to hunt around for it.

 

Either way, I think it's just common courtesy to comply with the rules in this regard as it shows that you are trying to make it easier for people to help you.

And the justification of the requirement for persons who are posting but are not requesting support?  Also, two days ago someone posted requesting support, signed his full name on the original post, but only his first name on a follow up post.  He was "attacked" by a person without a "PMDG" signature about the forum rules, except...his full name was also his screen name!  It seems some people who read this board seem to do so with the only intention of being the first person to jump on someone for failing to follow this one specific rule.  This is what they live for.

 

You broke the code.  :smile:

 

Sure it's the forum rule, and should be respected, but if I see someone not signing with their full name, what difference does it make to my life? My simming experience?  Zero, that's what. Let the mods set the poster straight, that's what their there for. Personally I'd rather read comments that were germaine to the topic rather than acts of oneupmanship. Unless they're funny, funny is always good. 

 

But you get teachers pets and school prefects in all forums. There's no reason why this one should be any different.

I don't know who read it and who didn't or what the reasons behind it are, neither does anyone else, my point is that we should not assume a poor reason for not reading something, which is unfortunately something that is assumed all too often, even in the absence of any justifiable reason for doing so.

 

And were we then to find that the person actually had a good reason for not doing what we consider a bare minimum requirement, we will then claim in our defence that we could not have known their reasons, to which the countercharge is, of course, we could not have known their reasons, but we could have known that we could not have known, and as such, we don't really have a good reason for assuming that we are justified in being impolite to someone for not doing what we expect them to have done simply because we didn't know. In the end, we acted as if we did know, even when clearly, we did not.

 

Politeness, if misplaced, is easier to bear than misplaced impoliteness. It also easier to defend.

 

 

That was a superb impersonation of Sir Humphrey Appleby.  :Applause:

 

Agreed, by the way.

I honestly appreciate it when people remind each other. It's one less time I need to remind someone, and I have to do it all day (it gets tiring).

 

 

 

...so, knock it off. If someone reminds you of the rules, then mind the rules and correct the behavior. It's really, incredibly simple. If they say it to someone else, and you end up getting on their case about it, you're falling victim to the same thing you're telling them not to do: telling other people what to do...so...there's that.

As for the location of the signature, I don't know, perhaps consistency, creating a single spot that everyone knows where to look rather than having to hunt around for it.

That's exactly why.

That was a superb impersonation of Sir Humphrey Appleby.  :Applause:

 

Agreed, by the way.

Embarrassingly, that is not an entirely inaccurate observation. Note to self, less Godel more Shermer.

Well one must keep in mind it's a private forum andso can have house rules that have nothing to do with free space etc.

 

You won't come into my house and tell me what's what. .. I'll show you the door.

Well, I will try not be the typically smartassed, petulant and ALWAYS complaining regional airline pilot that I once was and not making any cracks about being very careful about how you pet a pussy...err...cat.

In other news, SIMPLY OUTSTANDING work with all your products and I have all of them...Even did some beta testing on the MD-11. The J-41 is actually replicates my past life flying the BE-1900, SAAB-340 and DHC-8-100/300/400. I was based in IAD at one time, and was at the Z-gates the night the last "Blue Ridge" taxied past...Sure miss the Indy Air F/As in boots!

Scott Austin Fitzpatrick ATP (BE19,SF3,DH8,CL604)

Meeeeeeeow....

20 minutes ago, wolfee said:

Meeeeeeeow....

Signatures are a fun way of following rules! #MakeSignaturesGreatAgain

Robert and Kyle,

      I get the analogue but found it rather amusing considering we have 4 cats.