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

Like invoking weasel words? No, its not allowing sound technical claims or critique that is “suspect”, in an engineering context. The Netiquette crisis is overblown, AWE has not been harmed as much as by aside-comments as by venture technical secrecy, and now hidden Forum content.

I have unlisted Censored Content

I don’t see the value of the back-and-forth between the different people to a wider audience. And @kitefreak used it to make visible a comment I had hidden. To appeal a moderation decision, or if you have a question or a complaint about moderation, go here.

1 Like

The main reason for transparency is for future data-mining and historical research. Its very short-sighted to Moderate AWE as a Chat-room, its far more important to capture all the technical content and let the noise be filtered by time.

Its does not matter to complain or appeal here, current Moderation is poorly responsive to critiques. The appeal to transparency and free-speech is for future readers to best decide.

People are filtered by the noise in an unmoderated forum (also meaning less “technical knowledge,” from more limited perspectives, will be posted). This forum is moderated for that reason.

Just try to play nice with the other kids.

1 Like

Moderation wents nuts over Cosine Gain, Analytic Philosophy, and the best knot expertise. That’s the real noise part.

This is not about “play nice with other kids”, but about destructive mis-moderation of sound AWE technical content. AWE itself is for the kids, who don’t need anonymous moderation either.

Dave spam twitter if you want to post endless trolling or weakly associated AWES conspiracy chat.
This is a forum for people interested developing AWES.

No Rod, my role is to provide knowledge “for people interested in developing AWES”.

Better Knot content is not spam. Kite Cosine Functions topic is not trolling. Twitter is not where Kite-related Analytic Philosophy is discussed.

This is the correct place for “questions and complaints about moderation”.

I have a complaint about moderation.
We’re not strict enough.
The rubbish around the valuable knot data in your posts was spam @kitefreak

I’m considering splitting this recent exchange from the topic if no answer to this is given:

And answer to this could be “I can’t provide examples.” I also fail to see a relevant use case.

Some comments should perhaps also be moderated out of principle:

Let’s not hope we are trying to accelerate kites to relativistic speeds in our, or any, atmosphere.

1 Like

Windy Skies,

Consider revealing just who you are to be constantly messing up worthy technical content.

If you insist on moving my posts from intended topics, they must be deleted in protest. Your moderation is not helpful. Try and add to the discussion, not stop it.

Actually, AWE is highly relativistic due to the acceleration of gravity. That is why the lemniscate in the kite window is flattened.

This is really wonderful stuff for anyone who has done the homework. A moving kite does have a bit more mass, even if this does not interest everyone.

Perhaps that is still a bit too premature.

This is the topic: Patent list It asks for list(s) of patents related to AWE or kites — I’ll say individual links to patents are okay too. Your post is not that, so it is off-topic.

I’ll say after some more patent lists are posted it’s okay to wander a bit from the topic of the thread, but I’d like to keep the topic narrowly focused for now.

I’ll hide the topic until this is resolved.


I’ll hide the topic until this is resolved.

Windy Skies,

Its clear that you know almost nothing about AWE, or engineering generally, nor how new technical ideas can emerge without previous citation. The original reference is precious, not trash for you to take out.

You probably have no idea whether soft kites are subject to brittle aeroelastic failure, or that I am expert enough to be allowed an opinion without censorship.

You clearly have no idea if I actually wrote an incorrect statement about Titanium tethers, but you hide the content as if you did.

Pierre complained that he does not support your censorship in his name, but you continue to do it.

Just who you are, to intend never to be known, while being a troll with moderation power over harder working better informed contributors, is surely a sad case.

The topic covering possible applications of “heat-kites” is valuable, and should not be hidden by Windy Skies with Doug as a pretext.

Heat resistant kites can serve in wildfire-fighting and volcanology, as two active topics of study.

Wayne German’s space-tether kite ideas are worth sharing. Doug’s hate for these ideas is irrelevant.

Windy Skies is incredibly inept at nurturing open intellectual discussion. Anonymous censorship is not helpful.

In Sweden, he would be a criminal-

This topic has been severely censored of current high-value content.

The new topic on soft kites not being subject to classic aeroelastic failure has been wrongly hidden. The reference shows rigid wings suffer from cracking up by aeroelastic failure. Anyone knowledgeable about kites can attest that soft kites are not brittle, but resilient.

Any new AWE idea or insight is at risk under Windy Skies profoundly destructive moderation. Windy Skies has proven to have no AWE engineering insight, but an obsession with hiding information.

No one even knows who this troubled person is, or why they cannot be known openly. They do not add anything on this forum of serious value.

After closer inspection, I’ll unhide the topic for now. It is obvious that a soft wing does not suffer from the mentioned problem a rigid kite has. The claim that therefore soft wings are the solution I consider soapboxing, and therefore the topic overall also, but it also shares some research.

This decision is tenuous. A better topic would have probably been a thorough summary, with references provided, of all the ways rigid wings are bad. Then you have the criticism contained in one topic instead of multiple topics essentially saying the same thing.

I consider soapboxing to be bad because you don’t want to start from a preconceived position – that rigid wings are bad – and then cherry-picking data to support your position. That’s not how science works.