I will detail by soon on https://forum.awesystems.info/t/split-from-mawes-misinterpretation-and-misunderstanding/493 as it looks to be a private topic.
Its 100% chance to the unlucky poster. Tell me your withheld identity if you want more-willing compliance.
I will not be replacing posts already posted. I’ve never had due cause to do that on the old forum, nor here.
Having trouble getting the text-editor to open in a Windy Skies moderation note. This is to state that I have not “relaxed (my) standards” in defending Shepard from Doug’s Monocopter post. What Shepard monocopter? Windy Skies is just imagining a relaxed standard on my part. The actual relaxed standard is his intrusive moderating with poor domain knowledge under a secret identity. Open information standards are higher.
Just reloaded AWES window, which fixed the frozen page. This moderation complaint concerns the mysterious Windy-Skies, who’s moderation of my posts on subjective non-technical pretexts is unacceptable. Let him reveal his identity if he wants his whims respected.
The reply came through and I replied again there in the private message.
Everyone is free to stay anonymous. I have come to trust @Windy_Skies. He has shown good judgement.
I cannot understand why you wish to know more about him. He does not use his own authority as an argument.
1 Like
I object to unexplained reliance on “private messag(ing)” in AWE, on grounds of societal urgency for AWE, and open-science.
We are free to complain about anonymous players in AWE, even if Luke does not share the open-ethos and chooses to defend anonymity…
The private messages are used for politeness. For example to give people a chance to correct their violation of rules. Doing this publically could embarass them and is unneccessary noise.
You don’t have to use private messages.
My anonymity benefits you as I allow myself to write with less of a filter, or at all. And it forces me to rely only on facts and arguments, not authority, again benefiting you. There’s enough written about privacy in public (discourse) to educate yourself on my thinking without me having to spell it out to you.
“Politeness” is at odds with timely best-informed expert knowledge and practice. A confused patient does not need to be polite to a medical doctor for competent care, as impoliteness itself may a symptom of something amiss, best not masked by etiquette, certainly not cause to punish or deny.
In aviation, modern Pilots are trained to be blunt. Politeness-training was reversed after a major crash resulted where a politeness trained co-pilot was found too polite in reporting imminent hazard. Luke is gambling on politeness. Americans are just not as polite on the whole as EU norms, its a real cultural bias on both sides.
Under Windy Skies warped logic, his anonymity is superior to us all, as a claimed “benefit” that cannot be validated openly. His true motive may not be to better us, by hiding his identity.
To go with the patient - doctor metaphor:
You don’t want your doctor to tell you, that maybe inserting a lightbulb into your bum wasn’t the brightest idea, when you’re surrounded by your family. 
The lightbulb thing would never happen to me. If that’s your legitimate fear, state it first-person.
I did it.
I would prefer my message remains private, putting the link: https://forum.awesystems.info/t/split-from-mawes-misinterpretation-and-misunderstanding/493/32?u=pierreb. Perhaps some observations could unblock the situation as @Tom and @Windy_Skies moderation is justified.
“Warped logic” is just name-calling. You have to actually point out, what exactly is wrong with his logic.
I do see his point. For example if he was working at an awes company it would severely restrict what he can say here.
His anonymity doesn’t change wether you can verify his statements about awes.
As for statements about himself… he hasn’t made those.
Why? It was a good idea you just justified: “The private messages are used for politeness…”
1 Like
The Old Forum mission applies to this discussion, RAD (Rapid AWE Development). In this, moderation and practice motivated by politeness or secrecy may not be as essential as technical focus that ignores etiquette distractions.
Let those who require secrecy and politeness at least not enforce these priorities on those who do not.
My impression of Windy-Skies’s justification of his hidden-identity as “warped logic” is that it puts his secrecy beyond logical scrutiny, which really is a warping of open-logic norm, where anyone can judge the argument’s premises as laid out. We are forced to take his word only. Its not straight-forward logic, but an “appeal to (his) authority” logical fallacy.
Yeah, private messages are good to talk to people about certain posts that were not ok, but moving formerly public posts into a private message has caused some confusion.
You’re the one who derails a lot of formerly technical conversations. So if you want to keep a technical focus, please do.
Politeness is not enforced. Politeness was only mentioned as a courtesy of moderators towards posters. What is enforced, are the rules stated in the faq.
Arguments stand for themselves. The logic is open. The arguments can be judged as laid out. Noone requires you to take his word for anything. Not being anonymous is only required if you want to make an argument by your own autority. (This is correct, because I have a reputation of being correct)
WTF? You’re arguing for the sake of arguing, twising anything like “politeness” or “appeal to authority” that has been mentioned before.
Please also note, that none of us need to engage you. We’re just showing good faith.
Which " formerly technical conversations" do your refer to, Luke? Lets repair the technical breaks.
“Appeal to Authority” arguments are a classical logical fallacy. Windy-Skies is claiming we can trust his authority in deciding to be anonymous for reasons known only to him. Proper scientific authority is open to scrutiny of the specific logical merits provided.
Thanks for your Good Faith.