Questions and complaints about moderation + unlisted, mostly unmoderated, free discussion

[Windy_Skies]

@kitefreak

defines the state-of-the-art

Right… Third-party reference agreeing with this statement? If you can’t find that please edit this out.

My suggestion would have been the simplest solution. If they don’t follow that suggestion I have the choice to moderate the entire post (and the off-topic discussion after that), or to edit part of the post (and moderate the off-topic discussion after that). For the moment I have chosen not to edit posts of others, so the choice defaults to option one. A poster is free to resubmit without the problematic part.

A simpler example is that from today:

@kitefreak

Windy Skies cannot get third-party prior reference for any true advance. By that moderation criteria, Galileo himself would not have been allowed to post here, as he first wrote of his discoveries.

The Austin Robot Group had early access (1980’s) to super-sensitive gas detectors from Motorola labs for our robotic blimps. We played with them briefly, but they did not prove operationally useful. The simple way to tell if your envelope is losing gas is just let it sit, and the pressure drop will soon be apparent in the stiffness of the membrane.

Top of an LTA envelope is always “higher than atmospheric pressure” in normal use, even for rigid airships with slack in their gas bags.

The bolded part here is off-topic. It is also about something another member is supposedly doing wrong, so it is suspect.

Best option here would be to ask the poster privately to edit that out, or resubmit in a more appropriate place. That has been done in the past without result. So again here, I have the same choice to moderate the entire post or only edit part of the post, and my choice would again default to option one.

I am moderating with considerable leniency, so many posts that could be moderated are not.