The management and visibility comes from both Supervisors who are part of the facility as controllers and from the Administration (Senior Staff) at the ARTCCs, ATO, etc.

I.e. If a negative incident occurs between two controllers on TeamSpeak/Discord, and the Senior Staff think it warrants not only local disciplinary action but also VATSIM-level action, they can refer the case for post-factum investigation. If CoR 6.01(b)(9) did not exist, that would mean everything could only be handled on a local level. There are most definitely some things that can and should be escalated to a VATSIM suspension rather than just local action. Although local facilities are given a lot of discretion on policy and procedure, we must keep in mind that we are all part of VATSIM and all fall under the CoR, CoC, etc.

I would caution those interested in Discord.  The company behind Discord was previously sued for involvement in violations of privacy, wiretap and various California state laws. The privacy policy and past of the company involved is questionable.

The other issue here is that while a few airports (LAS, ATL, DCA) have a dedicated Ramp controller position, that position is not an FAA position. At LAS, that position is filled by the local aviation authority (in this case, Clark County Aviation Authority), while some others may be under the control of the airline in question. None of these are official FAA positions, and each one may have their own standards which to adhere.

So until that issue is resolved throughout the US ADIZ (which may never be, as it is airport-dependent), there may never be an official FAA position to cover this.

BL.