New Opinion Poll:Should Scott do it?

With all the debate about ace's scores, who's measures are right or wrong; how about the Webmaster himself creating a new Opinion Poll.

Here goes the format (and please, speak up, be critical, add your own comments or suggestions, correct my errors, as you wish):

Do you feel that the claims made by WWI aces (all nations) require review and adjustment based upon some sort of international standard?
a) No, leave the claims and records as is.
B) Yes, the claims and records need to be adjusted.

If you answered (a), you are done. If you answered (B), then complete the following (check yes or no):

(1) Adjust all shared claims to a decimal standard.
(2) Delete all OOC's and DD's from scores.
(3) Delete all FTL's from scores unless clearly landed in enemy territory.
(4) Delete all Observer claims from pilot scores.
(5) Delete all Observer aces from ace lists.

If Scott could put something like this on one of his Opinion polls, we could at least see who out there wants change, and some idea of why. It will not settle the controversies in any way, but might shed some light on why. What do you think?
Terry

I say leave the scores as is, while this poll may generate another round of lively debate, you are attempting to grade the past by todays standards. In my opinion, what made aces of the WWI, was not merely the #s of aircraft downed, as in WWII, but the actions of the unit command, the press, and the way the pilot was accepted by the war weary people. The pilots were evaluated by the standards and record keeping of the time and nation. To try and twist these facts around, to see if we can change the who was the REALLY best ace ,by todays standard, or your poll,Tarnish's the memory of the deeds done, and laurels won,by these pilots.

Jim,
Well said. My only comment is that why is it that people feel as you do about WWI scores and aces, but no one really questions the revisions that go on with WWII scores? Why is it ok to revise one set, but not the other? People constantly bring up the "tarnishment" comment regarding WWI, as you do, but this does not seem to be an issue with WWII personages. Again, why is it acceptable to continually revise WWII scores, yet WWI scores (despite some valid known errors across all nations) are written in stone for all time? Inquiring minds want to know? (Bad, I know, got to stop plagarizing bad quotes!)

[Kirby]

Old Jewish saying: "Vas you dere, Charlie?"
Leave all claims, both WWI and WWII, as they are now. That is, unless someone can come up with proof positive to substantiate a change.But I doubt they can.

VBR
Kirby

[Amy]

Terry:

Another aspect in regards to your poll are the Phantam Poll Fixers. Since people are so passionate about the score results (whatever their side is), I cannot see the forum poll amounting to anything but maybe half a dozen people repeatedly voting for what they want over and over and over and over again. The Mick poll is shot to heck as will the poll you recommend even though it is a good idea. If Scott goes for it, just don't be too surprised if you see a massive jump of 120+ votes for one result all in one day.

Amy

[Billy_Bishop]

First, as far as I know, the ONLY official organization that has gone around revising aces' scores has been the USAF. And their investigations ONLY affect USAS, USAAC/USAAF, USAF aces of WWI, WWII, and Korea.

I don't think they've done any investigation into Vietnam, at least if they have, it hasn't been made public.

And, as far as revising WWII scores go, the change in different scores has been relatively small compared to what happened to WWI USAS aces records.

With USAS aces, as many of us know, they followed the rules of both the French and British in that shared claims were counted as one for each pilot involoved. USAF Historical Study 133 went through and straightened all this out. Not for really "Official" purposes, but more to determine better how many enemy aircraft and balloons were truly brought down.

This, by the way does not include claims made by USAS personel while in the employ of a foreign service. For instance, Raoul Lufberry's 16 claims were not affected by the study. This is also why Elliot White Springs is frequently listed with 12 victories instead of 16, the 4 he got while in 85 Squadron have been ignored for a long time.

As for the opinion poll, I don't know. If Scott can do it, it might be interesting, but it's not really going to change anything, other than maybe give us a rough idea of how many of us are revisionists, and how many are not.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Al,
I can agree with your comments, especially that maybe the only thing that might come out of this is a guesstimate of how many revisionists vs. status quoers are out there. And Amy may be right too, that the rabid one's might contaminate any poll. So maybe this was a bad idea all along - I don't know.

[Amy]

Terry:

The poll topic is a good idea. How about putting the poll in the form of new thread? That way everyone must place their "one" vote by their name and can only be counted once. Also, if anyone puts a phoney name down, they just aren't counted. Only an idea.

Amy

P.S. Spelling correction from previous reply...It's Phantom, not Phantam.

[Billy_Bishop]

It could be done, but how are we gonna know who's using a phoney name? The only way to know would be if everyone used an email address. But not everyone likes to do that.

But, I think that maybe this might be one of those poll questions that might actually work on Scott's poll. I don't see this question being as polarizing as some of the other past questions have been. At least we can hope.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Amy]

AL:

Why is it that every time I post a reply about Phantom Poll Fixing that you post a reply of your own right after it? Guilty conscience?

Amy

P.S. Obviously I meant phoney names being "Sherlock Holmes" and "T-Bor", just to name a couple of recent ones.