[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--][!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Yet, how amazingly screwed up it has become. This most certainly isn't your father's VATSIM. Too bad, it was such a good place.
Perhaps someone will stand up and fix it.
Best,
JV[/quote]
agreed.
[/quote]
I would have to disagree with the sentiment that VATSIM has become screwed up. Too often in this organization do we tend to look at one issue as if it's going to bring down the network. As RJ said, this network was once a couple of guys who simulated ATC and flying via a now-obsolete version of FS and a now-obsolete program called ProController. The network has obviously expanded, and with expansion comes policy. In no way do I believe the policies enacted thus far create such a burden on anyone to the degree that the network is considered screwy. Anyone can still get on and fly, and anyone can still get on and control with a few hours of training. Nobody has to be involved in the political aspect of VATSIM, but some (including myself) sometimes choose to do so.
Each time an improvement is made to the network, at any level, only a select few seem to come forward and tell those who put work and effort into making the improvement possible. Improvements to the servers; websites of divisions, ARTCCs, FIRs, and ACCs; revisions of policies; and updates to software which we use to more realistically take part in the network happen very frequently -- once a month at the very least.
You can be annoyed by one particular thing that is (or isn't) in the CoC, you can be annoyed at the rather large number of roles filled at any level of the VATSIM bureaucracy (<- which is not a bad word, you know), or you can just be annoyed. But stop dwelling on these minute problems as if we're going to come tumbling down because of them. There are so many good people on and things about this network that make it great, but unfortunately those tend to be overshadowed by a few things that some consider negatives.
I agree with Andrew and many others in that the CoC should include at least a small mention of visibility ranges, if not a fully laid out explanation, if the visibility range issue is indeed fueled by bandwidth cost. (Some say it is, others say it isn't, but I'm not going to go there.) It does not have to be a "suggestion" or a "recommendation" as alluded to by some within this thread. People can simply not be expected to be reasonable with this regulation if there is no written rule about it. If there is something written, even if deemed a matter of interpretation (which I am not saying that it should be), there is at least some substantiation to back up those who enforce this regulation.
I have a suggestion for the BoG if mention of a visibility range is ever considered for entry into the CoC:
"Excessive visibility ranges (or visibility points) may be enforced by SUP- or ADM-rated VATSIM members. "Excessive" is defined as a visibility which exceeds the following conditions:
1.) a viewing of their sector of airspace.
2.) a viewing of the distance at which a handoff is normally initiated to his or her sector of airspace.
In the event that controllers' visibility ranges are deemed excessive with reference to the conditions set forth above, a SUP- or ADM- rated VATSIM member may require them to reduce their visibility range to comply with those conditions."
I really don't know why that is so hard to include. I know that we sometimes have problems with policy, but this is something many of us just don't understand. There's a difference between an annoying policy and a purpose-based policy, and I think (if this is a bandwidth issue) that something like what I wrote is a purpose-based policy.
I would also like to address one other point, which is that it is the responsibility of ARTCC training departments to teach students about the visibility range issue. I spent a year as a Training Administrator in one of the ARTCCs here in VATUSA, and nowhere within any documentation in my ARTCC's archives, in any VATUSA training material, or in any briefing I received from my retiring colleague, VATUSA Regional Director, or VATUSA3 did I ever hear mention of teaching about visibility ranges. I truly would have had my I1s and MTRs incorporate this into training, but I had nothing that requested we do so, verbally or textually. I'm sure not much has changed with regard to the same subject. If indeed this is an issue that should be taught, I believe regions and divisions should be informed (or re-informed) about it somehow.
