Windy Skies does not Moderate impartially. In fact, the material censored from All about Knots contained the essence of practical standard kite knot information, the Larkshead and overhand-loop Stopper-knot. He censored the Cosine Functions topic just as brutally. His own topics are not even accurately titled (“all about”). Knot and cosine expertise deserve better.
There is nothing “lenient” about anonymous authority wielding censorship powers over better informed domain experts. Joe Faust is the high AWE standard for helpful informed and lenient Moderation.
I agree that the spam option is the closest match. An occasional reference to one’s own content is okay if it is useful, but here it becomes spam because the mention is not useful (I don’t remember seeing @kitefreak actually posting an actual link to a discussion so you could for yourself determine the existence, relevance and value of the discussion) and it is posted too many times.
I count 75 mentions of “old” “forum” together in a comment by @kitefreak:
I agree with the suggestion. You can flag the post, @kitefreak sees the flag and he can either edit out the mention of the previous discussion on the “old forum” or he can leave it in and give direct links to relevant discussions.
While we’re talking, I think the forum rules should have an update. We are having technical discussions here, and I don’t see how the current forum rules promote high quality technical discussion. They’re mostly about netiquette.
Indeed for such discussions “likes” are not suitable because they are more or less synonymous with “I agree”. Decanting can only happen with time, readers, and achievements.
Nothing really wrong with “likes”. I’m talking about the FAQ - AWESystems Forum As that is now, I think it is lacking, like I said a few times before. Now I say:
The people I mentioned are the current moderators. Sure, having the input of the people you mentioned would be useful as well.
I don’t understand? You say tomorrow a meteor is going to strike the UK, I ask for some evidence. I don’t know how I am being wrong for asking for evidence in that scenario.
Also look at where the rules come from. I’m sure they were discussed at length and ad nauseam first in AskHistorians where they originated and then in AskEngineers to adapt it to engineering discussions.
State your opinion honestly and freely, but respect the need for factual evidence and good logic.
How do you decide if the messages agree with these vague prescriptions (perhaps excepted for “factual evidence”), above all by considering there is no consensus in AWE?
As AWE is not marketed, someone can think some method is good, but not someone other.
AWES has no consensus because there are so many possible choices to investigate.
I heart the ideas and discussions which best resonate with my experiences and I see as most progressive. Can the collection of likes inform the iterating attempts of a Bayesain AWES exploration? Yes, maybe. Have we got a better advisor?
Empirical evidence, and correct maths and physics are better.
We would like to approach the truth about AWE ever closer. We do that by doing research or reading research. AWE is not at all special in that regard. You do tests, you read about tests other people have done, you try to understand the maths and physics and engineering behind it all.
Anyone’s opinion can be wrong. I think most opinions expressed here are wrong. So I try to ignore the opinions. I try to look at evidence. Evidence in this field would be correctly done tests, correctly done maths, and correctly done physics.
If someone claims something or states an opinion without backing up their opinion or claim, a reader cannot verify if it is true independently and make up their own mind. Since an opinion can be wrong, and often is, that’s not good.
Without the rule, you could say: tomorrow everyone in London will lose a leg. I could ask: how do you know that? And you could say: just believe me (I’ve said this before). Without this rule a moderator can’t point to the FAQ and say to you: please don’t do that. You aren’t being rude, you aren’t spamming, and you aren’t calling me names after all.
If you have a specific, concrete, criticism of an entity perhaps that is a basis for discussion. This is just too vague to be useful.
Also if you want to make a topic about how good the collection of North Kiteboarding is, do that, instead of muddying the discussion with vague negativity.
The dramatic success of kite sports continues to build, far overshadowing the tiny angst-world of specific AWE R&D. This video politely shows the engineering culture gap. Even the cinematography and music is better, and the star power kite is dynamite.
Seeing the North 2020 post as representative of kite sport AWE engineering has been removed from view. The probable reason is the term “angst-world”, whose basis ranges from Moderation issues to 2019 being the year of two major crashes, which is very traumatic to those responsible, and also predictable. Ok then, nobody gets to see the cool video of kite engineering success. Blame angst against angst.
Complaints are only noise if Moderation fails to resolve them. Removing knowledge with “noise” is more harmful than tolerating noise. One does not wisely ignore an important message if some noise is present.
At least Moderators can’t change facts by hiding them.
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 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.
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.