VATSIM Discord Server

[Daniel Hawton]

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.

So, if local staff don't bring it up...?

CoR 6.01(b)(9) has a problem:  It says any "computers utilized in any way by VATSIM.net members for communicating via text or voice for purposes of" blah blah.  How does that account for shared hosting instances?  Does that mean that my personal computer is now subject to the CoR/CoC?  That's written in a broad way as a catch-all.  It doesn't mean it's right nor should it be there.

Do multiple members use it for use by multiple members of VATSIM for the purpose of participating in the network?  If yes, then yes, the CoC and CoR cover that.  And if the local staff doesn't report it, but a user does it will still be handled as if the action was done on VRC, VATSIM.net's forums, etc.  IE, if John Smith tells Jane Doe to commit suicide, hurt themselves, or constantly engages in behavior against the CoC and CoR, Jane Doe can report the incident to a supervisor and after a post factum investigation, the situation be handled by the network.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Do multiple members use it for use by multiple members of VATSIM for the purpose of participating in the network?  If yes, then yes, the CoC and CoR cover that.  And if the local staff doesn't report it, but a user does it will still be handled as if the action was done on VRC, VATSIM.net's forums, etc.  IE, if John Smith tells Jane Doe to commit suicide, hurt themselves, or constantly engages in behavior against the CoC and CoR, Jane Doe can report the incident to a supervisor and after a post factum investigation, the situation be handled by the network.

Multiple members?  That sounds like an interpretation of the rule.

I just find it hard to believe that you feel that there's any basis for such a rule on any kind of system you don't foot the bill for.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

If local staff don't bring it up, then maybe a Supervisor who is part of the particular ARTCC/ATO/whatever will, if they witnessed it. Or maybe one of the individuals involved in the incident wishes to request a post-factum investigation (or a witness reports it, etc. There was a reason I said "I.e." because there are plenty of examples). If we want to stick with the ARTCC example (assuming that's what you're most interested in considering you're representing yourself as a member of the Houston ARTCC on this forum), if someone says something distributing, infringing, obscene, vulgar, profane, or unlawful (use your imagination here, you wouldn't believe what some people will say to each other), but they are on an VATSIM ARTCC TeamSpeak server, are you saying that the VATSIM Code of Conduct shouldn't apply? They are VATSIM subsets and, therefore, fall under the CoC and all other policy/regulation.

And, no, CoR 6.01(b)(9) does not end in "blah blah." I'm not going to cite the full text here because it's readily available, however, the focus isn't on your computer, it's on you (the member). Hence, "which are utilized in any way by VATSIM.net members for communicating . . ." So, if you're in an officially recognized VATSIM organizations TeamSpeak engaging in public discussion, yes, you fall under the CoC and all other policy/regulation.

As for the exact wording? I don't write the rules. I'm simply explaining to you why they apply in these situations. If you're looking for a debate on wording, you're on the wrong forum, as no one hear can change that (not that it should be changed in the first place).

VATSIM ARTCC TeamSpeak server is the issue I bring up.  Just because an ARTCC uses it doesn't mean it's VATSIM property or a VATSIM system.

[Sam Lambert]

Is this Discord, runned by Vatsim or a member of Vatsim?

[Camden Bruno]

VATSIM ARTCC TeamSpeak server is the issue I bring up.  Just because an ARTCC uses it doesn't mean it's VATSIM property or a VATSIM system.

If a VATSIM ARTCC (or FIR, vACC, etc.) sponsors it as their ARTCCs official TeamSpeak server, the ARTCC is agreeing to the fact that said TeamSpeak is an official VATSIM communications outlet. Ownership (who's paying/whose property it is) isn't the focus, the focus is on whether its an ARTCCs official TeamSpeak or not. If an ARTCC is using the server as their official TeamSpeak, it is subject to everything listed above.

Now, let's say members of VATSIM or a particular ARTCC are on a separate gaming TeamSpeak server, completely unrelated to VATSIM, and get into an argument. Just because they are members of VATSIM does not mean it then makes that TeamSpeak subject to VATSIM policy/regulation. But if the TeamSpeaks purpose is for the use of VATSIM members (i.e. an ARTCCs controllers) as a part of participating in the network? - Yes, it is subject.

[Fred Michaels]

If a VATSIM ARTCC (or FIR, vACC, etc.) sponsors it as their ARTCCs official TeamSpeak server, the ARTCC is agreeing to the fact that said TeamSpeak is an official VATSIM communications outlet. Ownership (who's paying/whose property it is) isn't the focus, the focus is on whether its an ARTCCs official TeamSpeak or not. If an ARTCC is using the server as their official TeamSpeak, it is subject to everything listed above.

I am not taking sides in any way, shape or form on this particular discussion. However, I would love to see someone legally justify the above statement. There is a huge conclusion jumped that would never hold up if the issue was really pushed. For example, VATSIM states a particular individual should be banned from future participation on the network. There is no practical authority to force an ARTCC to enforce such a ban on their TeamSpeak system not funded or owned by representatives of the organization. Demand to see a copy of server logs, for a server they don't own? Threaten to remove someone if they fail to comply? How are other aspects of voice servers utilized monitored to ensure CoC compliance? What system exists for reporting abuse? Due process exist or can a group of people annoyed by a third party simply insinuate a situation on a TeamSpeak server occurred?

Slippery slope that can (and has) transitioned into real-world implications with other "virtual" organizations in the last 27 years. Hell, AOL ran into such a situation in the early 1990s. If there is then a decision to no longer allow that particular TeamSpeak system to be "official," the ownership and monetary costs can become a factor depending on interpretation. Not stating such a scenario would ever occur, but when operating a system based on volunteers, infrastructure donations cross into the real world (where a CoC has no practical authority) and things can suddenly become not as clear cut as implied.

[Daniel Hawton]

Fred, VATSIM doesn't enforce rules that way generally.  VATSIM enforces the other way and usually only when a complaint occurs.  There are lawyers within the BOG and on staff for the BOG, I'm fairly sure this is one of the areas that has also been checked by them.  It is actually a good thing, in that members cannot get away with threatening other members, treating them like garbage, etc.  As soon as a complaint occurs, an investigation is done and the issue handled but the supervisors don't go around policing teamspeak servers.

The intent is to enforce section 6.03 of the Code of Regulations.  For example, if a member was bullied to the point of committing suicide and left behind any shred of evidence that the users of their facility's teamspeak were to blame, the family of that member would proceed to go after VATSIM for allowing such activity.  As the teamspeak is the "official" for that facility, the facility is recognized as part of VATUSA, and VATUSA is recognized as part of VATNA which is recognized as part of VATSIM ... that means that VATSIM is overall responsible legally for all actions within any part of its organization.  So long as the teamspeak, forums, website, etc. are part of any part of its organization, it has the right and obligation to ensure its regulations and code of conduct are enforced.

The ability of VATSIM to do so is not a secret, it's clearly laid out in the Code of Regulations which is something you said you read and agreed to when joining the network.

[Fred Michaels]

Fred, VATSIM doesn't enforce rules that way generally.  VATSIM enforces the other way and usually only when a complaint occurs.  There are lawyers within the BOG and on staff for the BOG, I'm fairly sure this is one of the areas that has also been checked by them.  It is actually a good thing, in that members cannot get away with threatening other members, treating them like garbage, etc.  As soon as a complaint occurs, an investigation is done and the issue handled but the supervisors don't go around policing teamspeak servers.
...
The ability of VATSIM to do so is not a secret, it's clearly laid out in the Code of Regulations which is something you said you read and agreed to when joining the network.

Daniel, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I guess my point on this particular topic is that it is clear legal representatives of the Board of Governors do not have realistic standing with the Code of Conduct outside of the virtual world (such as to a TeamSpeak server). A simple review the material and it doesn't take long to note irregularities that would not meet the mustard within half the countries network users call home (many with conflicting requirements, not even including states or cities with laws on the books to make online entities accountable for things like bullying). Now jumping to assert the Code of Conduct extends to assets not directly under the organization's jurisdiction (VATSIM servers vs hundreds of voice servers used by global regions) is a stretch I honestly don't believe would hold up. Note, I'm not disagreeing with the policy in any way, simply stating concerns regarding enforcability beyond the VATSIM network itself.

When transitioning from a virtual organization to the realities of a brick-and-mortar infrastructure this can become a problem. Case and point: If a legal complaint was filed within the State of Florida of cyber-bullying against a TeamSpeak server associated with a VATUSA ARTCC, the owner of that server would be the one needing to comply with legal requests and who a crafty attorney could claim was partially responsible. Claiming regulations of a third-party (VATSIM/VATUSA/VATNA) constitute a contract for use and they are responsible for management, especially considering the five components of a legal contract existing are iffy at best, wouldn't hold up for very long. This isn't even getting into legal definitions relating to what harassment is which can often vary country to country, state-to-state, city-to-city (which would supersede anything listed by VATUSA).

Before someone says it, this scenario isn't science-fiction. Such questions are nothing new and have been put to the test before, as noted with my earlier AOL example, back when they "were" the Internet in the 1990s. In that particular case, Community Leader volunteers (for those older than 20, think ARTCC Staff) who had assets on personal FTP websites were forced to discontinue use after a claim of harassment was made. Those items had to be relocated to official company servers, where the Terms of Service held legal standing since the CLs were acting as representatives of AOL. The exact argument noted in your post was used...and it did eventually succeed in a way...after an out of court settlement.

As I noted earlier, a slippery slope exists. We all agree VATSIM states the CoC is in place for all activities, but then admit there is no mechanism for ensuring compliance on the vast majority of their voice server related assets (which would be TeamSpeak style servers, not the 15 official network servers)? Having a regulation (Code of Conduct) without any type of enforcement mechanism (clearly the case here) is a black hole. Would a poll of most VATSIM users show they even knew of their right to report bullying on a TeamSpeak server? There is a reporting mechanism for it, okay. Does this comply with the legal requirements of country/state/city the server or server owner is located in? How about the person making the complaint? What about if the server owner has legal mandatory reporting requirements, which vary often (law enforcement official, educator, etc.)? This is a concern with claiming organizational jurisdiction with a private asset.

Honestly, to me, this is a grey area I hope never gets explored. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on how clear cut the practically of the policy is with enforcement outside of the core network infrastructure.

[Daniel Hawton]

Fred there are members on the BoG who practice law. The implementation is no different than a school being held liable for bullying on the playground. There is no expectation of constant policing... There is an expectation of handling complaints and looking into signs of it happening.

Yes.. users know who to complain to. They report it to staff more often than I think you are aware of. They report it to supervisors they see on the network.

This isn't a gray area... There is case law behind it. As a ts recognized by an organization within VATSIM places VATSIM responsible for activity on that ts. Issues brought forward are to be investigated. But there is no expectation of active enforcement, but not saying there isn't. If I'm on a ts and see things against the CoC I will address it or someone complains I will address it... But there isn't an expectation of me being everywhere.

In the end... There is case law about it... And when situations arise where the legal system may come into play then VATSIM has the resources to take over. Other than that, if you are on a service linked to VATSIM, you play by VATSIM's rules. Every member agreed to it at sign up before VATSIM even gives you a chance to give it any information.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Fred there are members on the BoG who practice law. The implementation is no different than a school being held liable for bullying on the playground. There is no expectation of constant policing... There is an expectation of handling complaints and looking into signs of it happening.

Yes.. users know who to complain to. They report it to staff more often than I think you are aware of. They report it to supervisors they see on the network.

This isn't a gray area... There is case law behind it. As a ts recognized by an organization within VATSIM places VATSIM responsible for activity on that ts. Issues brought forward are to be investigated. But there is no expectation of active enforcement, but not saying there isn't. If I'm on a ts and see things against the CoC I will address it or someone complains I will address it... But there isn't an expectation of me being everywhere.

In the end... There is case law about it... And when situations arise where the legal system may come into play then VATSIM has the resources to take over. Other than that, if you are on a service linked to VATSIM, you play by VATSIM's rules. Every member agreed to it at sign up before VATSIM even gives you a chance to give it any information.

Except the school owns the playground.  That analogy is nowhere near representative of the situation presented.  If the kids are off at a park, wearing school tshirts, but otherwise doing nothing associated with the school, the school has no liability.  Fred has made some very valid points and was able to articulate them far better than I could!

I'd be curious to see an opinion written by one of the lawyers (and perhaps maybe some of our members that are lawyers without such a vested interest in the status quo), rather than a he-said, she-said game that you're delivering.  This is something that deserves conversation rather than the totalitarian "we said so, shut up!" we're getting from VATUSA/VATSIM representatives here.

[Daniel Hawton]

Matthew, except schools are being held liable for even off school behaviors.

Long story short: even if VATSIM doesn't own the server, since it is donated for the use of VATSIM you agreed that the rules are applicable there.  VATSIM doesn't pay for this website, yet, the CoC is applicable here.  There is case law that can back that up (not of/to VATSIM).

Unfortunately, you all agreed that you would follow the policies of VATSIM on any services joined to create the VATSIM network.  Therefore, you agree to behave appropriately on any VOIP servers, forums, etc. as well.  That's the end of the discussion, you agreed to it.. therefore you're bound to it.  No lawyer with a shred of integrity and in their right mind would attempt to argue otherwise.

And since VATUSA ARTCCs and CCF aren't organizations, complaints can't be brought against them.  They are brought against the organization itself, which is VATSIM.  ZLA/ZNY/ZME/ZHU/etc are equivalent to a department within an organization, and not a separate organization that is partnered with the parent.  That means VATSIM is liable for the services offered by the "underlings" for use with the network ... because we're part of the same organization.  We're not separate.  You cannot sue Houston Virtual ARTCC, you can sue the Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network, however, as it is an entity.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Matthew, except schools are being held liable for even off school behaviors.

Long story short: even if VATSIM doesn't own the server, since it is donated for the use of VATSIM you agreed that the rules are applicable there.  VATSIM doesn't pay for this website, yet, the CoC is applicable here.  There is case law that can back that up (not of/to VATSIM).

Unfortunately, you all agreed that you would follow the policies of VATSIM on any services joined to create the VATSIM network.  Therefore, you agree to behave appropriately on any VOIP servers, forums, etc. as well.  That's the end of the discussion, you agreed to it.. therefore you're bound to it.  No lawyer with a shred of integrity and in their right mind would attempt to argue otherwise.

Schools are not held liable for out-of-school activities.  If your kid goes and beats some kid up after school at a neighborhood park, the school isn't even in the question.

It brings me back to shared resources, though.  How can you claim that an entire computer is subject to CoC in that case?  If a channel were dedicated to non-VATSIM use, it could be argued that the channel isn't subject to CoC.  That logical separation is no different than the logical separation of any other teamspeak virtual server and analogous to any channel space donated to a VATSIM entity.  Where is the line?  From your statements, it sounds like it's wherever you arbitrarily decide to draw it depending on mood.

[Daniel Hawton]

Schools have been sued for activities off school grounds, most definitely.  And they've lost cases for off school issues.  It's been that way for decades.

Yes, that wording is poor... VATSIM doesn't attempt to enforce CoC on the non-VATSIM related services running on the computer.  It's a wording from the day when servers were dedicated to the network rather than virtual systems and cut ups that exist today.  However, the intent is still there and still enforced.

As I said, this is the stand point of the network.  This is not the place for this and there is nothing more to discuss.