Can’t even post to a hidden topic without Windy Skies “approval”.
This cannot go on indefinitely. This forum must decide if abusive censorship is better than normal tolerance of opinions.
If posts were moderated for technical quality, its Windy Skies who would be restricted.
Your argument should be that what you wrote is on-topic in the topic, not AWE generally. I still think my flag is correct. I don’t think you’ll be able to convince me using similar reasoning. Perhaps another moderator sees things differently.
This is what the forum has decided upon: FAQ - AWESystems Forum
No the Forum has not decided on your censorship practice as its goal.
There is no democratic process. You are anonymous and have taken power for yourself.
I have read the Forum guidelines for the third time. Its Windy Skies abuse of moderation powers that most violates the spirit and letter of the guidelines.
How does my flagging a comment as off-topic violate the spirit and letter of the guidelines?
Its your entire history of posting and censorship, not just one tiny flag, which still was undeserved.
There are hundreds of similar and worse instances where you have abused the spirit and letter of the Forum Guidelines.
Can the underclass here even flag a Moderator? I would flag Windy Skies, if it has come to that.
In any technical forum, high-quality content providers are the most important ingredient.
No Guidelines exist to support mis-moderation. Abusive moderation is toxic.
We should be discussing kite cosine functions, polar kite geoengineering, state-of-the-art kite knots, and many other lost topics, caused by mis-moderation.
We should rename this topic like this: praise about moderation.
The censorship Rod and Pierre are praising continues to cause damage to technical sharing. Nothing is resolved.
Let them praise in vain. Complaints will continue as long as censorship stands.
Windy Skies is still combining stubborn technical ignorance with ever worse censorship.
The multi-body topic is the latest example. Windy Skies had no knowledge of basic multi-body orbital mechanics (multi-body problem, since 1647), opined the topic was “lazy and uninformative”, while reasoning from a “children” perspective, while still hiding messages that contain no error.
Luke, Tallak, and Rod are wrong to think this is “excellent” moderation. Its the worst moderation ever in AWE, and they are responsible, but do not even care who is doing the censorship.
Yes it is Pierre. You are not allowed to see deleted postings.
The same is true across the New Forum.
I’m allowed to see them.
Dave Santos
Your behaviour on forums is appallingly rude,
Intolerant, lazy and contemptuous.
Thank yourself for thinking such hidden censorship was not happening, because you are not allowed to know.
This was just flagged AGAIN by some anonymous troll. There is nothing wrong with this post. I can now edit it, at least, having had to re-earn “basic” rights more times than anyone here. It really sucks to work so hard to post good content. I can’t flag Windy Skies, whose posts are far worse.
Go ahead and mention it to Roland on the other Topic if you want. He can also discuss it here if he wants.
The broader topic is whether the automation-dependent developers have underestimated the tractability of dynamically unstable architectures. Hundreds of millions have been spent to settle this question by current MTBF statistics.
I don’t really see the problem with this post.
I will be less patient with someone who looks at other forum members like that, and this comment actually does deserve a flag.
Flags are abused in a troll-like dynamic when the post does not deserve flagging. That is why moderators are depended on to not allow wrongful flags.
I honestly consider Windy Skies to have the most troll-like behavior of anyone on this forum. We can agree that most members are not abusing flags and moderation powers.
You’re often going over the line or skirting very close to it. If you don’t spend your time so close to the line you’ll end up with less false positives, if this was indeed a false positive. Try to decrease your rate of detections.