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

Forum Feedback
455


Here’s an article on where a corporate entity was corrupt in its safety practice…

From the article…
This arrangement, which largely allows chemical companies to regulate themselves, is the reason that the E.P.A. has restricted only five chemicals, out of tens of thousands on the market, in the last 40 years.

That was the crucial start point…
We need capable governing oversight, over the power of our corporate systems when they have power to harm.

Does anyone see a need for AWES to have a change in safety oversight regulation?

457

There’s plenty of censorship on this forum. We call it moderation. We don’t pretend that this forum is not moderated. Low quality or abusive posts get moderated, posters that consistently post low quality or abusive content may get timeouts or bans. That your posts rarely get moderated is because your posts only rarely trigger moderation.

In this case it is self-serving. He is also doing it in a hostile manner. Instead of improving the quality of one’s own work so that other parties may see the value of it, blaming one’s lack of success in communication on censorship is an excuse to continue business as usual. Try to write a research paper if you want to get taken seriously. The content or analyses I have seen on here from Dave have been on the whole too superficial and biased to be of much use, beyond as a starting point for own work. Combine that with the continued hostility and his volume of posting and we have to give more consideration to the other users of this forum and reign in his posting.

A newspaper has standards, a scientific journal has standards, this forum has standards.

2 Likes
458

Missing seeing and considering matter from posters because of deletions by forum owner sterilizes the scene for me. I never know now what W_S hides, deletes, stalls out of sequence, etc. That this very topic is not public radically disturbs me. Let all workers judge what they might derive from posters’ offers. The sieve of W_S seems to be leaving out core matters. The “standards” of W_S will play itself out; I wish its evolution the best, but investment in a different path might be more effective for finding and developing terrific AWES for the world. Whatever the standards are herein, it is not letting DaveS flow naturally his talents for the benefit of AWE; indeed, it is hidden what else is being moderated out from public view; trust is injured; how to repair trust is a big challenge. The constant thrust of “quality” remarks by W_S seems to be part of the standards herein. If I had to summarize: it feels like W_S wants each post to be a priorly peer-reviewed polished research paper. Straight-jacketing pioneering remarking shunts creative potentials, I hold. This forum might not be able to let natural styles flow as AWE scratches into the future. Moving content from a topic flow to hidden places seems to detract from research and may waste important time-content investments.

latticewavesample
latticewavesample704×405 143 KB

Consider letting each reader see what they might derive from posters’ offers. Hiding and deleting matter from serious researchers robs readers from the chance to apply their own deep eyes to see what might be there. It is already evident that the W_S cutting team (?) blocks content from serious researcher. Step aside and let readers discover AWE matter from AWE sharers.

459

Its not too late to correct any such past censorship by reposting the excluded messages here.

Can Pierre or Windy Skies please provide specific examples of technical messages censored on the Old Forum? No shortage of such examples on the New Forum, if anybody wants to review them.

This is once again a challenge to JoeF’s honor in AWE. Its important to examine Windy Skies and Pierre’s evidence for their accusations, presuming JoeF innocent if no such evidence is supplied. The standard here regarding Old Forum claims is to present the original instances, as Rod has rightly noted.

Here is a reference copy of a blocked message defending against Pierre and Windy Skies accusations here, which the public still cannot see.

As sent to AWEurope Leadership-

///////////

Windy Skies is right: “There’s plenty of censorship on this forum.”

Can’t post message below to answer Pierre’s and Windy Skies accusations in a hidden Topic, due to blocked account.

AWEurope is only receiving this email directly because of the censorship, which AWEurope should oppose. No censored post of mine has violated professional standards. Many where quite good technical sharing.

Can anyone help post to the New Forum the factual Rebuttal below, for balanced debate in AWE? Calling on AWEurope leadership to properly stand up for Free Speech over Censorship in AWE.

========= blocked message ===========

Pierre, Windy Skies,

Joe and I in fact just published A Brief History of Kite Physics in the current Physics World, the oldest and largest circulation of any such Journal. Their extremely well qualified Editors reviewed and accepted core kite physics ideas Pierre ridicules. Poorly informed anonymous moderation and censorship on the New Forum is a lower standard.

Aviation Safety Culture publishes somewhat like academia, in special channels, like the FAA’s Open Call in AWE. Here is TACO, unmatched in AWE (compare against Makani’s weak submission to same FAA call, and other efforts)-

Tethered Aviation ConOps (TACO) v0.8

460

Moderation, for a forum, is a limit linked to rules accepted by all participants, as for this forum. To not accept those limits means to not accept the rules.

On the other hand, censorship is exercised at the good will of those who hold the control, the rules being adapted to the conditions in order to favor the main editor in any situation.

461

Its the “plenty of censorship” and false accusations that most violates Forum guidelines, not Joe or me.

We are against censorship. We only want to reveal what censors want to hide, as scholars of AWE history.

Pierre is not presenting the requested evidence for his own censorship accusations.

462

This is how the censors become those who complain the most about what is only the application of the rules.

463

A not so random quote:

464

Great.
Why not have separate low oxygen and breathable environments…
@kitefreak you can complain as bitterly, accusingly maybe even violently to your hearts content on a separate blog. Get the link to it.
Explain calmly, clearly and without offence here that the link will take you to a complaint issue.
Sorted.
Can we move on now please.
Great

1 Like
465

Rod,

This is the place to complain about censorship in AWE. If you had been censored by Windy Skies as I have, you would feel different than declaring the censor “excellent”. Accusing JoeF falsely was a new low here.

Let the anonymous censor “move on now please”, not the abused, whose complaints have not been resolved.

Here is the latest technical post blocked by automatic “Moderation” limits on my posting, a post that may never be seen publicly now, given the barriers imposed. Its not just the willful censorship, but the punitive account status. The Old Forum was never deliberately inequitable in user powers.

///////

Reeling tether life factors and Soft Kite life factors differ. A KPS video disclosed a reeling line that had jumped the fairlead wheel, and was chafing on the sheave under load*. That was not a kite wearing factor.

On the other hand if flight automation failure caused the parafoils to often crash at full speed (“thump”), that is a kite life factor unrelated to tether wear.

Comparing special cases like this does not well predict whether tethers or kites are comparable in life-duty. The advantage will go either way according to specific design and conditions.

///////////
(*) See KPS Video Linked at 4:30-

466

There’s nothing urgent in that technical observation. It doesn’t look like a post which deserves its own thread. Find a place for it in a logical analysis of AWES and fit it in the forum thanks.
If you want your complaint to be public… Do as I suggested.

467

Its the censorship that “urgent”.

Can’t edit this waiting for approval for hours. It does contain urgent knowledge because line wear causes breakaway-

////// first revision ///////

kitefreak

I am carefully referring to All lifecycle factors of tethers and reels in the specific context of any AWES. Absent metrical data, these are heuristically considered.

Not just KPS, but many of the ventures have been extremely closed about their detail engineering. If AWE is a urgent societal need, and safety knowledge is being hidden, that’s a serious ethical concern. Open AWE of course tries to figure out what is hidden from any clues leaked. Its been a great game for many years.

KPS fairlead design and the jumping of the line out of its pulley wheel groove is such a clue. In this case, vertical-axis fairlead rollers are absent that would have prevented the line from jumping laterally, as observed on the video.

468

I am debating whether to approve this post. For now it looks like soapboxing to me, and is also off-topic.

Also vague:

469

Any engineering factor that affects lifecycle, known or unknown. Necessarily an open topic.

470

Rod seems unaware how vicious and ignorant WIndy Skies is censoring.

Still can’t answer George. Third Revision. Post keeps disappearing from the approval queue.

Note key technical solution to identified flaw in bold.

/////////

George,

I am carefully referring to All major lifecycle factors of tethers and reels, in the specific context of any AWES. Absent metrical data, these are heuristically considered.

Not just KPS, but many of the ventures have been extremely closed about their detail engineering. If AWE is a urgent societal need, and safety knowledge is being hidden, that’s a serious ethical concern. Open AWE of course tries to figure out what is hidden from any clues leaked. Its been a great game for many years.

KPS fairlead design and the jumping of the line out of its pulley wheel groove is such a clue. In this case, vertical-axis fairlead rollers are absent that would have prevented the line from jumping laterally, as observed on the video.

Fairlead design and line wear are critical design issues, as proven by Kitepower’s runaway incident in Valkenburg.

471

AWEurope will have to soon address the worsening censorship of public awe discussion under the secret identity of Windy Skies, or be held accountable as wrongfully acquiescent and complicit, by non-response.

Information is being systematically censored in a pattern that favors the secretive venture players failing after missing milestone by years, after many millions invested. Windy Skies could even be a paid agent of AWEurope, hence the anonymous authoritarian control.

Censorship here forces the debate over AWE moderation to go into every direct channel available. This is a crisis in AWE. Windy Skies is a far bigger problem than any pretext he uses to censor.

472

I’ll ask the other moderators.

473

@kitefreak, you were crowding me by trying to repeatedly get a post of yours submitted. Don’t do that. To give myself some time I have silenced you. Also I refer back to what I wrote previously on that:

…

I think you managed to shift my Overton window for a moment there. I now stand by my initial assessment.

I was following the democratic primary election. It should be no surprise who my favorite is. YouTube’s radicalizing algorithm suggested this to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU-AkeOyiOQ I think the ideas expressed there can be applicable here.

474

Anonymous Censorship of Free Speech and Soapboxing and Concern Trolling Netiquette is far outside the Overton Window of modern working scholars and engineers. It won’t help AWE progress.

“Overton Window” is a political or social science term, not a term for one’s personal bias.

en.wikipedia.org

Overton window

The Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse. The term is named after Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians’ individual preferences. According to Overton, the window frames the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or kee Overto…

475

OK the machine moderated me - too similar to my other post - let’s try aagain. Moderation is now a disease in itself. Yeah I was also thinking of getting an oxygen concentrator, (spellcheck auto-moderator seeks to "correct the word to “concentration”) since the normal ancient practice of quarantine has long been recklessly abandoned, but what does this have to do with airborne wind energy? I’m thinking Windy Skies will delete this when he sees it, but no, the reply is from him, and he’s happy to add his two cents!
Could this be just one more glaring example of how uncaring about “the rules” any AWE supposed-“moderator” actually is, and how they simply let any post they happen to like be posted, and delete the ones they don’t like, regardless of the rules? That the more “politically-correct” your post, the more likely it will be welcome no matter how far off topic it is? Sorry to point this out. It feels like I must be missing something. Am I missing something here?