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

No, this is not a settled Moderation problem, but a standing Protest.

The Cosine topic in Math and Physics Category or Analytic Kite Philosophy in the Analysis category were not created for Moderation to impose Lounge, Scrapyard, or deletion. Deletion is only the desperate reaction to undue Moderation interference. The protest against such Moderation stands.

Further, Windy Skies as a capricious “Anonymous Authority” superuser should end. Let him or her keep their identity secret without imposing such poor judgement on better informed contributors, or let Windy Skies honestly reveal who they really are (why the secrecy and power-trip combination).

Windy Skies, please completely delete the Cosine Functions topic you messed up. May this “silly idea” topic be left where just as you created it, without misplaced Moderation.

The silliest methane generation AWE idea would be a Flying Cow as the generator, with an aeroponic pasture in the sky. As for the serious engineering barriers to economically generating H2 aloft, the Old Forum covered the technical aspects better than any other source.

image

Classic kite culture has a most highly evolved sense of what is properly “silly”, for example “silly hats” has long been a serious cultural specialty at leading kite festivals, sort of like this (could not find better quick example)-

image

Windy Skies’ vague unwise technical goal of generating methane with AWE is quite consistent with the moderation abuse of postings by better informed players with open identities.

This is not a healthy sustainable pattern. When Windy Skies’ identity is finally revealed, the secret motive for practicing anonymous authority will not very likely be honorable.

What will it take to get Windy Skies to stop mis-moderating my topics from ignorant and cowardly anonymity? Must I just stop posting anything here?

On another side this topic is in Lounge Scrapyard rubric, so the hypothesis of making methane with AWE is not taken too seriously.

Once again, futzing topics by unqualified anonymous moderation.

It should not have to be made clear why Methane Generation by AWE is a distraction from serious AWE research.

Public Notice: Windy Skies is censoring posts on this open topic to a hidden topic.

You’re now just repeating talking points.

See my comments in the cosine topic on why it was moderated. You haven’t backed up your claim with references, after being asked to do so repeatedly. To avoid spreading misinformation the topic should be moderated.

At this point I’d be dubious about any claim you make if you can’t see how providing references and representing them accurately is important.

I will continue repeating my complaints just as long as you motivate them.
The Cosine Functions topic had many references, starting with Wolfram in the first post.

You are spreading the worst misinformation of anyone in AWE, ever, like the 25th “Law” of engineering, or hoping that Methane can be made by AWE, or claiming that Weasel Words anonymous authority doe not apply to your anonymity.

Go ahead and continue as you have, and the complaints will continue. Now I will delete the H2 post you put that stupid valentine on, after so much wronglful moderation.

Speaking of unsupported misinformation by an anonymous authoritarian hypocrite-

Windy Skies: “unproven rope drive system”

In fact both the first successful autonomous groundgen (KiteMotor1), and now the first serious AWE product (Kiwee), use the rope-drive method. I shared on this site the classic Rope Driving treatise from the historic industrial era before electrical grids. Rope driving is far more proven than your Methane or H2 production aloft concept, for which no refences are given.

Surely when your true identity becomes known, it will be consistent with your failures here.

What the creators of this Forum have set up is an SPE, where the self-selected Moderators lapse into authoritarian abuse of moderation power over those who have no such power. Its even more asymmetric, because instead of a coin flip, those attracted by the power were able to self-select. The bloated software array of available moderation powers further encouraged the abuses.

Should we just close the forum here?
Same old roundabout

Less intrusive more open moderation, like JoeF practiced, would be better.

Look what happened to Knots topic under draconian moderation by an unknown party.

Oh well, let the most interesting content, like what is the NOT State of kite line, find a better home.

Windy Skies is a terrible moderator of AWE knot content. The bold claim, that kPower has set the state of the art in AWE knots, stands unfalsified.

Please delete all posts of mine that WIndy Skies moves.

One of the misconceptions is perhaps that the other forum participants are your personal volunteer peer review system. They are not of course.

1 Like

I did not support @kitefreak’s “kPower has set the state of the art in AWE knots” claim. That does not mean I agree with moderation to split his message from All about knots topic. Indeed @kitefreak’s message comprised an interesting photo of different knots in the AWE field, while the initial topic does not seem to be connected to AWE.
So I disagree with moderation for this.

My suggestion would have been the simplest solution. If they don’t follow that suggestion I have the choice to moderate the entire post (and the off-topic discussion after that), or to edit part of the post (and moderate the off-topic discussion after that). For the moment I have chosen not to edit posts of others, so the choice defaults to option one. A poster is free to resubmit without the problematic part.

A simpler example is that from today:

The bolded part here is off-topic. It is also about something another member is supposedly doing wrong, so it is suspect.

Best option here would be to ask the poster privately to edit that out, or resubmit in a more appropriate place. That has been done in the past without result. So again here, I have the same choice to moderate the entire post or only edit part of the post, and my choice would again default to option one.

I am moderating with considerable leniency, so many posts that could be moderated are not.

1 Like

There is another possibility which is to affix a note of the moderator on the doubtful part and to leave in the state.

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 think we should start treating any messages with have the anonymous claim
“As documented on the old forum”
Flagged as spam

Here are the flagging options:

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:

https://forum.awesystems.info/search?q=old%20forum%20%40kitefreak

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.