The above comment moved to here from: Burt Rutan talking about designing his SkiGull seaplane
I have addressed your comments on this. Probably in this thread. I’m not going to keep repeating myself.
Windy Skies, you have not explained how your own anonymous authority statements are not “weasel words” under the exact WP criteria you first posted.
You continue to break my topics from your technically naïve perspective, and do not respond to any complaints with any reforms.
Don’t repeat yourself then; answer to these points seriously for once. You should not be “moderating” as you have. Unmask yourself or give up your wrongful authority.
I have closed this topic:
Because I think too many of the posts go against the spirit of the rules of this forum:
https://forum.awesystems.info/faq
In particular this bit:
1 Like
Windy Skies, more “anonymous authority”, now imposed as the “spirit of the rules”. True community is never dictated. Shutting down discussion is a false means to “leave our community better”.
Most of the posting was polite and helpful. It was an important topic. I was cut off in mid-answer to Luke and Olivier. We’ve been here before with heavy-handed moderation.
You own Weasel Words topic stands unlocked. The Newtonian “we” was nuttily repressed. That’s not a better a topic or spirit.
Rather than resolving posting problems, Moderation abuse of Topic Locking has caused posts to become permanently frozen, never to be properly corrected or improved. Readers will forever find legitimate questions left hanging by the sudden Topic Locking, with no way to find answers displaced elsewhere. Post-locking also seems to be occurring by unaccounted Moderation.
Windy Skies resolutely remains anonymous, with no accountability for ongoing immoderate moderation, and no particular AWE domain expertise. Anonymous Authority suppressing knowledge-sharing is the opposite of authentic AWE community values. Windy Skies should either uncloak or refrain from Moderation.
Community improvement tools are being taken away by Moderator power-
"Discourse provides tools that enable the community to collectively identify the best (and worst) contributions: bookmarks, likes, flags, replies, edits, and so forth. Use these tools to improve your own experience, and everyone else’s, too.<
No users here have a verified identity.
It does not seem worthwhile to single out any one user as anonymous.
1 Like
You are Tallak, I am Dave Santos. No mystery.
Who is Windy Skies to moderate engineering discussion so badly?
Curiosity beats willful-ignorance.
I saw you trying to reply after I had already locked the topic. Look up from time to time when you reply to see if anyone else has made a reply to minimize surprises.
You are misusing the term. Here is as good a definition as any:
In this context it’s just another way of saying, please do this, if even a bit less rigorously: https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/writing/cite_sources
1 Like
Contribute or be damned Dave.
Most of your posting was an affront and attack based.
And as @Windy_Skies has pointed to… anonymous authority… If you have a contentious point
Provide us with a reference from one of your thousands of worldwide collaborators… Shouldn’t be hard.
Rod,
You seem to think being easily affronted as a Moderator is good. Quote offensive parts that deserve severe Moderation, to compare with Doug’s oft tolerated “attack based” posting, with no useful portion. Feel free to collaborate as ever, if you are not too affronted. I count hundreds of great contacts in kite tech, not the thousands of affronted hyperbole.
Windy Skies,
“Looking up” does not protect anyone from your sudden topic-locking. “Anonomous authority” clearly applies to you here. Terms often have multiple correct connotations, and this instance is particularly ironic, how you only accept the pop connotation you absurdly misapplied to the Newtonian “we” of classic scientific grammar.
No,… I think I’m quite reasonable in my relationships…
Unlike the imbalanced nature of the data on 2 users in particular
It is true that I have been flagging many messages of the sort to steal everyone’s attention but providing no information. I may not have been the only one to flag these. The way I see it, as long as the flag button is there on the forum, I may use it according to my own preferences. Let a moderator be the arbiter if the flagging is appropriate.
2 Likes
That can mean both @kitefreak and @dougselsam refuse the game of likes, thinking that it only leads to consensual ideas on an emotional basis. Can we really blame them? No, of course, both understanding that great ideas encounter immediate resistance before being accepted when realized.
1 Like
I agree you are wrong about using the name kPower.
Even though the “power” part is not realized, it’s just a name. Whether they have some current government-registered status as some certain type of taxable or invest-able entity does not mean they can’t achieve any AWE progress. Lack of progress is a separate issue from whether someone is currently “registered”.
People can use whatever name they want.
There is nothing admirable about wasting tons of other peoples’ money on useless paperwork to start some “official” “company” that nonetheless is clueless and can never achieve what they say except to take money from people and never give it back.
Such useless official companies are just examples of people creating their own version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, which is why, starting with Magenn and most of the rest, a little kid, if he had some wind energy knowledge, can easily debunk many of these "current-full-official-looking-paperwork-compliant “companies” based on reasoning a little kid could explain. Amazing to me there are grownups that fall for a lot of this stuff. I do agree though that the name kPower is overused in a way of posturing as some sort of intergalactic mega-entity with some undeniable and admirable track record of success. Obviously it’s just Santos and whomever is not busy that day in his sphere of influence. Still, I don’t see anything wrong with picking and using a name, except they (he) do not deliver on it.
Never even thought about the new thing of “likes”.
But I can tell you one thing, anyone counting how my “likes” people do has too much time on their hands. Now the way to solve WE is to keep track, statistically, of how many “likes” people like, like, like, like, well, like. Like, like, like, like, dude, you didn’t, like, give me back a like, like! WTF? This is how possibly good ideas swirl down the toilet bowl.
“Likes”. “Netiquette”. Like…, sure dude.
1 Like
I could agree with this,
But then we’d both be wrong.
They’re cantankerous.
1 Like
Likes are simply a way to interact on the forum without actually writing a sentence. Like a small nod that you read the message and found the contents worthwhile, or just congratulating someone on writing something good.
It shouldn’t be about counting at all.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the “gamification” of the forum. It’s there by design of the people who designed the forum software. It’s not important at all, but again, it doesn’t really degrade the experience. Most people will probably ignore it. Some people will find it cheesy.
Now lets move on to the AWE discussion.
1 Like
Like this?
https://forum.awesystems.info/t/untethered-airborne-wind-energy-systems/857/2?u=pierreb
@tallakt I do not buy you liked it for technical reasons or to advance the “AWE discussion”. The result is quite the opposite. That can confirm what Doug wrote:
1 Like
Do not forget that those who like to judge are also judged.
1 Like