Forum Feedback

There are people trying to turn that thread into a French vs German thread rather than just focusing on FCAS. Don't take the bait.
We'll need to go back and clean up some of the more nationalistic posts that don't really contribute to FCAS discussion.
Click to expand...

You nailed it. This the exact reason why I asked to be thread banned.
 
EmoBirb said:
I have to admit, it kinda seems to me that recently users think they can deliberately break forum rules because they're long time users and moderators even encourage/celebrate this. Imo this has soured the user experience over the recent weeks.

View attachment 786557View attachment 786558View attachment 786559View attachment 786560

Having two staff members upvote political commentary they agree with, rather than taking appropriate action (I just leave the half hearted statement uncommented, the reaction speaks for itself) is something else. It's not even a lack of action, which would be understandable (time constraints, volunteer work etc.) but actively engaging with it contrary to forum rules. I'm not a fan of the Turkish state either, or many states for that matter, but I try to keep that to myself and I would be quite honestly shocked if staff would like a hypothetical rant of mine about the government of idk Micronesia or something.
Click to expand...
Lol... your reaction says a lot about yourself, and it's quite funny, thanks.
 
I don't know if this has been said but

I think there's been a lot of posts spread throughout the forum of members both very old and very new who post comments and form opinions that completely ignore hard, non-negotiable facts - especially those facts that come straight from government and military officials who have directly worked with the project. Many deliberately cherry picking information or straight up making things up to fit a narrative.

I understand that the nature of defense watching is often guessing at the opaque and I have no issue with guessing if there aren't already facts chewed to death in the forum that blatantly refuse what certain people want to believe.

I don't propose that they get banned or their comments get removed, because no matter how off base their comments are, they're entitled to it. What I do propose is to have pin-able comments that we can use to create a "fact page" for certain platform dedicated threads. I understand that a lot of threads already have something like this, where the person who created the thread writes a blurb about what they already know. However, I think for flagship fighter programs that usually stretch on and on, it's helpful to have a place to organize information and also allow multiple users to contribute to updating the summary comment at the beginning.

Rules of a pinned fact card comment:
  • Every single fact needs to have a backing source linked to the place where the fact came from.
  • Every fact must be a paraphrase or summary of something. No opinions or personal assessments.
  • If the fact came from something forum users dug up, link to the user's comment.
  • Information organized into numbered lists for ease of reference in the thread.
  • Editable by any user provided that they obey these rules
  • Can have a less credible section for information that some users have described but are unable / unwilling to link. i.e quellish with the FOIA info, or shusui with what they saw in regards to the AIM260 missile - as always they should be backed by links to their original comment.
Benefits:
  1. New users or readers of a thread can go to page one, get an overview of what we know about the platform, then contribute to the conversation with greater ease and value.
  2. Forum users won't need to go diving for facts and their sources when we have a good starting place right at the beginning of the forum.
  3. Users won't have to keep repeatedly dispelling wrong information every single time it crops up in a forum because people either didn't know, forgot, or didn't read the whole thread.
    • quellish (with F/A-XX being a strike fighter replacement for the F-18)
    • snne (with turkish S-400 as the reason they aren't getting F-35s
  4. Greatly helps high level understanding of a program's development.
  5. Users can have a frame of reference before straight up making things up (although I suspect the culprits that make stuff up aren't going to look at the fact card anyway).
 
Last edited:
I'll add one more thing:

I understand that everyone has their own concerns and what not about AI, but there's not a single AI related thread in this forum that isn't filled to the brim of AI doom, gloom and shame while possessing literally zero discussion of the actual technical parts of AI/ machine learning or how they can be applied to military matters.

It's bad enough that I can confidently say at least half of the people engaging with in those threads don't even have basic literacy of what machine learning actually is let alone any credibility in their discussion regarding AI. It could really use some better moderation.

The contrast of the discourse here surrounding AI and other topics in the forum is stark. Right now, those threads are comically filled with ridicule and zero effort posts compared to the highly technical discussions on literally every other major topic (like engines, sensors, weapon systems etc).
 
Reddington777 said:
I understand that everyone has their own concerns and what not about AI, but there's not a single AI related thread in this forum that isn't filled to the brim of AI doom, gloom and shame while possessing literally zero discussion of the actual technical parts of AI/ machine learning or how they can be applied to military matters.
Click to expand...
I think it would be useful to split the AI thread into an AI General Discussion thread, where ethics and implementation in daily life are discussed and an AI Technical Discussion thread where the development, advancements, technical details and applications in the military and dual use sectors are discussed based on technical properties and scientific research.

After all there should be plenty of papers from even decades ago, which would be interesting to pick apart and analyze to understand how we got where we are now etc.

This kind of duality kinda exists already in a way with Speculation/Discussion and their counterpart News Only threads.
 
Reddington777 said:
What I do propose is to have pin-able comments that we can use to create a "fact page" for certain platform dedicated threads.
Click to expand...
I'd love this. Trying to keep up with what the latest is with so many different things, with limited time, is not really practical for one person. After our back and forth with the F-47 I went and looked at things again and I'm still not sure if today's iteration is the same as the one they thought would cost $300 million a pop and paused the program on or something else. And hypersonics programs? Good luck (though it does seem many have fallen to the wayside).

It would be nice to put a pin in programs that have been ended/truncated (Zumwalt, THAAD-ER, RATTLRS, X-47, etc.), without having to comb the entire site for breadcrumbs. (I know Quellish gets frustrated that people don't remember details he's posted over the years.) Although we might not ever get official closure on why a thing got cancelled or if it mutated or got folded into something else, at least there would be a place that sums up "this is what we know". Also, with sections like those, it might be easier to keep them clean as they should have fewer posts because speculation and opinion wouldn't be permitted.

Maybe create a new section in "Research Topics" called "Program Details" or something with one topic per program of interest, maybe Post #1 is a pinned timeline, and the section only contains meaningful news or details, with a high bar. No TWZ / Sandboxx for example (unless by some miracle they've managed to scoop truly new and true information). I like your idea.
 
EmoBirb said:
I think it would be useful to split the AI thread into an AI General Discussion thread, where ethics and implementation in daily life are discussed and an AI Technical Discussion thread where the development, advancements, technical details and applications in the military and dual use sectors are discussed based on technical properties and scientific research.

After all there should be plenty of papers from even decades ago, which would be interesting to pick apart and analyze to understand how we got where we are now etc.

This kind of duality kinda exists already in a way with Speculation/Discussion and their counterpart News Only threads.
Click to expand...
I think I'll just put together a little write up and make the AI technical discussion thread then
 
While we are at it. I'm freakkin' fed up about @publiusr derailing all the space threads with the same bullshit, again and again and again. He should really be banned from posting in the space sections.

Last example: how does Saturn IB cluster relates to Gemini paraglider ?

Just ask @Byeman how long @publiusr has been trolling aerospace forums - almost three decades. SD-HLV and S-IB cluster, always the same horse crap.

 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
...
Having two staff members upvote political commentary they agree with, rather than taking appropriate action (I just leave the half hearted statement uncommented, the reaction speaks for itself) is something else. It's not even a lack of action, which would be understandable (time constraints, volunteer work etc.) but actively engaging with it contrary to forum rules. I'm not a fan of the Turkish state either, or many states for that matter, but I try to keep that to myself and I would be quite honestly shocked if staff would like a hypothetical rant of mine about the government of idk Micronesia or something.
Click to expand...

I'm somehow torne. Haven't checked, if, when and how that statement was dealt with, but this is a kind of fundmental problem. To my very best knowledge, all of the admins/mods here still are human, so it's not a big surprise, that they may have a personal and political opinion. As far as I know, no admin or mod posted a queried political statement, and if so, it simply could be reported and I'm still quite confident, that it would be dealt with in a proper way, e.g. simply deleted. I agree, that members of the staff should be more careful with their posts, than others, and It may be near to hair-splitting, but setting a "like" under a post isn't quite the same, as posting it by myself. Depriving staff members of this way of expression of their opinion perhaps would be too much ? At least, as long as objectionable posts aren't just ignored by the staff altogether ?
It may be the same here, as in our daily life. My doc, for example, always tells me to avoid alcohol, but I know the favourite brand of beer he consumes regularly ... but this doesn't make his advice pointless, as long, as he doesn't invite me to a booze-cruise. ;)
 
Jemiba said:
I agree, that members of the staff should be more careful with their posts, than others, and It may be near to hair-splitting, but setting a "like" under a post isn't quite the same, as posting it by myself. Depriving staff members of this way of expression of their opinion perhaps would be too much ?
Click to expand...
I would agree if the content for which they expressed their opinion wasn't breaking forum rules, something they should be aware of. That was the issue I was pointing at. The post has been deleted since then, good. But why like a rule breaking post, in essence acknowledging and reaffirming it, rather than just deleting it immediately? After all, they have clearly noticed and read the comment at hand, so it's not like deleting it would have been significantly more effort than "hitting the like and subscribe button".

And while Moderators are at the end users as well and entitled to their opinion, this shouldn't conflict with their role in keeping threads clean and dealing with nonsense when the opportunity (as in this case) present itself.

That's the issue at hand in my eyes. If Deino for example, for which I hold genuine respect, makes a comment or likes a comment that says "The J-20 would look better in pink camouflage" that's fair. If the comment in question is "I hope Xi and his CCP goons get the noose ASAP" it's not an opinion but reinforcing rule breaking behavior (and rules should be applied equally).

While military matters are inherently inseparable from politics, even technical aspects and development histories, it's one thing to lay information down objectively and another to inject personal opinions on political matters more suited for Reddit and Twitter.
 
EmoBirb said:
I think it would be useful to split the AI thread into an AI General Discussion thread, where ethics and implementation in daily life are discussed and an AI Technical Discussion thread where the development, advancements, technical details and applications in the military and dual use sectors are discussed based on technical properties and scientific research.

After all there should be plenty of papers from even decades ago, which would be interesting to pick apart and analyze to understand how we got where we are now etc.

This kind of duality kinda exists already in a way with Speculation/Discussion and their counterpart News Only threads.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, having split threads on some of the hot topics (especially those that are emerging and/or more speculative) is par the course here. I.e. a thread on news or technical aspects and another more on general discussion.

That being said, on the moderation side, based on the experiences of News Only threads, you'd be surprised how many people are unable to understand the title, go off topic and post discussion, then become surprised and insulted when their posts get deleted at some point.

I personally believe it's better to ban repeat offenders rather than limit the entire thread, but that's just me.

While moderators here are all strive to be unified, at the end of the day as mentioned earlier, they're still human and have areas where we differ from each other as well.
 
EmoBirb said:
I have to admit, it kinda seems to me that recently users think they can deliberately break forum rules because they're long time users and moderators even encourage/celebrate this. Imo this has soured the user experience over the recent weeks. (not meaning to attack the individual users, but criticize the normalized behavior)

View attachment 786557View attachment 786558View attachment 786559View attachment 786560

Having two staff members upvote political commentary they agree with, rather than taking appropriate action (I just leave the half hearted statement uncommented, the reaction speaks for itself) is something else. It's not even a lack of action, which would be understandable (time constraints, volunteer work etc.) but actively engaging with it contrary to forum rules. I'm not a fan of the Turkish state either, or many states for that matter, but I try to keep that to myself and I would be quite honestly shocked if staff would like a hypothetical rant of mine about the government of idk Micronesia or something.
Click to expand...
Indeed and thanks for bringing this issue up. I decided not to engage @Deino on the hypocrisy that he let @NMaude post up (and liked it btw) and deleted my reaction to it, only to find it to be deleted as well today. Which of course is the right decision. Thanks to whomever deleted that post. Even if it's @Deino himself. Self-corrective behavior is always welcome.

Btw I didn't got a notification when my post was deleted. Not a major issue but still worthy to be mentioned IMO.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
I'll add one more thing:

I understand that everyone has their own concerns and what not about AI, but there's not a single AI related thread in this forum that isn't filled to the brim of AI doom, gloom and shame while possessing literally zero discussion of the actual technical parts of AI/ machine learning or how they can be applied to military matters.

It's bad enough that I can confidently say at least half of the people engaging with in those threads don't even have basic literacy of what machine learning actually is let alone any credibility in their discussion regarding AI. It could really use some better moderation.

The contrast of the discourse here surrounding AI and other topics in the forum is stark. Right now, those threads are comically filled with ridicule and zero effort posts compared to the highly technical discussions on literally every other major topic (like engines, sensors, weapon systems etc).
Click to expand...
From my limited perspective it's an outcry against the abuse of the People by techbros and social media and the fact ai is being used to enable newer and more infuriating and damaging forms of it. When these excesses get sanded down by time and case law, the tone might shift to a more conciliatory one toward ai. Alas, ai is the province of weird authoritarians like Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, and Curtis Yarvin. For now.
 
dannydale said:
From my limited perspective it's an outcry against the abuse of the People by techbros and social media and the fact ai is being used to enable newer and more infuriating and damaging forms of it.
Click to expand...
I not only understand where you come from, but I recognize and support the need for that outcry.

I would just like to separate that outcry from the discussion of the technology itself and more importantly, how it can be used to minimize reprehensible consequences while providing greater utility and autonomy. I'm also not sure that said outcry belongs on a military tech forum though if it's in a bar topic then I don't really mind. The problem I want to address is that the outcry currently drowns out all attempts to explore the technology and it's military applications.

I guess even more than asking for moderation, this is a plea for users of this forum to take this field seriously, look beyond the mouthpieces, shitty advertising and reprehensible people behind it, and evaluate the actual technology behind AI and machine learning with regards to military applications. People happily post papers, read papers related to aerodynamics, engine design and intake designs and what not, but none of the users here actually want to or bother to do the same for AI before just outright dismissing it. I got into a spat with DWG over the use of AI in ABMS because apparently he thinks that the reduction in execution time that AI brings is apparently meaningless... even though the simple math doesn't even add up.

A balanced, technical discourse - even if it goes into the negative aspects of AI - is still a lot more valuable than generic bashing and outcry. After all - there's plenty of reason to dislike Elon and yet the SpaceX thread isn't filled to the brim with Elon hate and SpaceX hate is it?

This problem of attitude towards AI is a broad (and very concerning) reflection of a what I find to be society wide problem of pouring out hatred for something for all the wrong reasons while refusing to recognize, expand and improve upon it's strengths. Outcry does nothing but hinder competition against adversaries in the same field. Technical discussions about it's deficiencies and how they can be addressed not only highlights the lack of accountability of the reprehensible people behind AI in a concrete way, but also helps advance the field technologically.
 
Last edited:
My 2c regarding general behaviour on this forum; the freedom to post an opinion or factual statement is undoubted, but that doesn't mean being rude, derogatory, or outright hostile is acceptable. It is possible, and should be expected, that people can have a level-headed debate about their differing points of view. It would be nice if some of the more rude members on here learned to show a modicum of respect to other users and their commentary. The old mantra "do unto others....."

I had noticed however, that in recent months some of the more tiresome boors have either been posting less, or have outright disappeared, which is nice. I've personally been finding it less confrontational recently YMMV.
 
EmoBirb said:
….. But why like a rule breaking post, in essence acknowledging and reaffirming it, rather than just deleting it immediately? …
Click to expand...

Splitting hairs again, but maybe those are two different things ? One is the post, which is against the rules and has to be deleted. And in the end it was. The other thing is agreeing to the posters opinion and showing it, mainly to him. For the one, who principally has to delete that post it’s a „Here I stand and can‘t help it“ situation. I‘m occasionally using the comment of the delete function for this purpose, but I have no idea, if this is better. And if liking a reported/deleted post is forbidden, shouldn‘t all other members who liked it be sanctioned then, too ? Especially, if they didn’t report it at once ?
As said before, doing forbidden things is not quite the same, as having a positive attitude about it. Certainly not all those people, who applauded to Luigi Mangione, now have a gun in their pocket, waiting to shoot down another manager of an unpopular company.
 
Jemiba said:
As said before, doing forbidden things is not quite the same, as having a positive attitude about it.
Click to expand...
To further Emobirb's point, I think there's a certain moderators that will upvote political statements they approve and sometimes not doing anything about these statements but then as soon as political statements that they don't agree with start showing up, they actively start posting "no politics" comments. That or it's other forms of outright rude and provocative behavior where a simple explanation + removal is enough.

I don't care so much that they upvote or not. If you're gonna ban political statements, then you ought to be harping on every transgressor with equal frequency. Not just the ones you don't agree with.
 
Some time ago, I came across a newspaper article espousing a new theory for the Air India Ahmedabad plane crash, however the appropriate thread has been locked. Where should I post the link to this story, as I believe it has some merit . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
Jemiba said:
... And if liking a reported/deleted post is forbidden, shouldn‘t all other members who liked it be sanctioned then, too ? Especially, if they didn’t report it at once ?...
Click to expand...

Perhaps but, sanctioned or not, all members of SPF have to remember that they are free to go elsewhere. Go spit venom at the pigeons in the park ... they probably won't care or agree with your pearls of wisdom either. [1]

Then, if you do choose SPF over the winged vermin, remember that others have put a vast amount of time and energy into establishing and maintaining this forum. Paul has no obligation to paste a gold star on your forehead just for showing up and 'sharing'. And SPF moderators aren't your Mum - no DNA-bonds drive them to repeatedly clean up after you.

Nor should moderators have to justify having human opinions. The noisy few are more than happy to vent spleen over trifles while feeling entitled to knowingly break forum rules. And, yet, it is often those same members who would insist upon perfection in volunteer moderators. Please! Grow up and exhibit some decorum and self-control.
_____________________________________

[1] BTW, this statement is not aimed at any particular individual. However, if the shoe fits, by all means, do take offence.
 
publiusr said:
At least I try to be pleasant. I am not the one who follows him around the net.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you agree that you only post because you have a grudge with him. Not to say anything interesting. Duly noted...
 
There is nothing that is as UNPROFESSIONAL as posting GIFs or memes in a thread that hasn't yet gone to pot.
And its is unprofessional anyway too to post in a thread that has.

I vote for technically disabling the upload of GIFs
and for a week posting suspension for the upload of memes.

It would convey a message. And seriously help the signal-to-noise ratio.
 
Last edited:
Antonio said:
Moderator's clearly should meet the standards but, since they're humans, an error probability exists.
Click to expand...
And this is already a much better and comprehensive statement than essentially everything before. Thank you for that.

Not saying it's okay because they're people, but saying it may unfortunately happen because of that. Not trying to justify this sorta thing is already a big improvement over the majority of the last posts relating to this issue in the freaking forum feedback section.

(Kinda crazy that there are people who unironically contest feedback as if they're personally attacked, lol)
 
Last edited:
Moderators (and forum owners) wear two hats. We are users, with opinions, and we are moderators following rules.

It's possible to agree with and like a post as a user, and not immediately see it violates policy and should be removed. This most often happens with posts you personally agree with.

Then, you may get a moderator report to action for the same post you reacted to. As a moderator, you should operate under the defined rules for moderation and try to be impartial - is the post violating rules? Is it an edge case you allowed, that started a chain of violating posts?

These are two different things that are not linked.

@EmoBirb is advocating a malicious interpretation here that I simply don't accept. If followed, moderators would be unable to ever express an opinion on any post in case that post is subsequently decided to require moderation.

So, lets put it simply. Reactions to posts are free from wider implications on the forum. You can like a post I remove for being malicious without consequence. You can dislike a post I made that's objectively awesome without me kicking you out the forum. Moderators can like a post that later is deleted under moderation rules.
 
EmoBirb said:
So everyone is free to post and push their political opinions on the forum I suppose.

You wrote 3 main and a fourth additional paragraph being a smug slug yet completely missing the point about defining and adhering to boundaries and rules laid out for the forum and it's usage. The SPF is completely voluntary, yet the rules are put in place to give guidelines for proper forum participation. If moderators don't meet these standards themselves, which is utterly pathetic, how can anyone expect the vast majority of users to adhere to these rules and to expect the mods to uphold forum rules themselves (which they seemingly don't even know).

Yikes.
Click to expand...
Two personal insults in one post, one directed to a user and one directed to multiple moderators.

Is it too much to expect the person pedantically policing the moderators' behaviour to follow the forum rules they want the moderators to follow, in a post about the posting behaviour of moderators? Or do you only care about following certain rules?

Receive a warning and think about the inconsistency of your own behaviour.
 
It would be interesting to see statistics around user mutes. Who tops the leaderboard with the most mutes? Might help encourage a better signal/noise ratio via self-policing. Presumably, outputting a whole lot of noise with very little signal is likely to get you muted.
 
TsrJoe said:
Im not sure i am getting more sensitive to 'chaff' as i get older or if it is a sign of the forum evolving beyond its 'Secret Projects' roots nearly 20 years ago ? Increasingly and over the past year or so i have noticed a marked increase in off topic, irrelevant comment, deliberate thread 'hijacking' and intentionally belligerent postings Over the years I have directed some of my students to the group as a useful information repository and knowledge sharing base (as i understand its original intention ?) Imagine if you are a student from China studying aeronautical engineering finding some of the ill hidden belligerent comment expressed on some of the threads, or likewise same from Iran and more recently Turkey ? seeing constant negativity toward your countries endeavours? ...just maybe we should practice some self-censoring, such as, 'why am i posting this ?' which might go a long way to creating a more equitable and less belligerent environ for all ?
Click to expand...
overscan (PaulMM) said:
...EmoBirb is advocating a malicious interpretation here that I simply don't accept. If followed, moderators would be unable to ever express an opinion on any post in case that post is subsequently decided to require moderation...
Click to expand...

EmoBirb, your profile alleges that you are a 20-year-old from Germany, yet I and others have noticed that you often post about Communist China, and those posts, without exception, conform to the Chinese Communist Party line, especially about the current dictator. Maybe it's all the books I've read about KGB practices since I was a kid, but I find your evident primary interest to be curious, for a young German.

Joe, I am moved to comment on your post. I may very well be mistaken about your intent. I have never used the 'Report' button to inform on someone and I never will, and to my knowledge I haven't yet accrued any penalties on Secret Projects Forum. When writing about what eventually became the Sino-Pak FC-1 fighter plane, I used the phrase "Tiananmen Square massacre" in passing, to explain why Grumman pulled out of that project in 1989. Joe, is this phrase something I should have self-censored, for the comfort of those notional flustered Chinese students? The following is direct and political, not to offend but so that I am completely clear to all here. Fuck the Chinese Communist Party, the worst mass murderer in recorded history, all committed within living memory and documented by, for example, Le Livre noir du communisme, a bestseller later translated into English, German, etc. The Party cares nothing for Han students, much less Tibetans, Uyghurs, or you, but only for its continued ruthless power. As a free man, I will NEVER self-censor my thoughts, words, or deeds to comply with Party directives, even if the demand comes via a foolish dupe. I concede that there may well be students from Communist China who find their first experience of being outside the Great Firewall and away from their source of all wisdom and progress to be disorienting. Those students should be pitied; not indulged. Instead, I invite you Joe, Overscan and the seven moderators, and all those who admire the true China like I do, the great and cultured 4000-year-old civilization, to join me in supporting, as a representative example, this young man (see attached PNG file). I hope and pray he is still alive.

I understand and agree that it's not appropriate to include the above truth in threads on Secret Projects-related aviation, space, naval, and tank/AFV topics, where I find the informed and sometimes pointed technical and historical discussions to be stimulating.
 

Attachments

  • tweet.png
    tweet.png
    2.6 MB · Views: 26
Owens Z said:
When writing about what eventually became the Sino-Pak FC-1 fighter plane, I used the phrase "Tiananmen Square massacre" in passing, to explain why Grumman pulled out of that project in 1989. Joe, is this phrase something I should have self-censored, for the comfort of those notional flustered Chinese students? The following is direct and political, not to offend but so that I am completely clear to all here. Fuck the Chinese Communist Party, the worst mass murderer in recorded history, all committed within living memory and documented by, for example, Le Livre noir du communisme, a bestseller later translated into English, German, etc. The Party cares nothing for Han students, much less Tibetans, Uyghurs, or you, but only for its continued ruthless power. As a free man, I will NEVER self-censor my thoughts, words, or deeds to comply with Party directives, even if the demand comes via a foolish dupe. I concede that there may well be students from Communist China who find their first experience of being outside the Great Firewall and away from their source of all wisdom and progress to be disorienting. Those students should be pitied; not indulged. Instead, I invite you Joe, Overscan and the seven moderators, and all those who admire the true China like I do, the great and cultured 4000-year-old civilization, to join me in supporting, as a representative example, this young man (see attached PNG file). I hope and pray he is still alive.

I understand and agree that it's not appropriate to include the above truth in threads on Secret Projects-related aviation, space, naval, and tank/AFV topics, where I find the informed and sometimes pointed technical and historical discussions to be stimulating.
Click to expand...
Any opinion you have on the Chinese Communist Party you are of course entitled to.

Mentioning "Tiananmen Square massacre" in passing in the context of Grumman withdrawal from Super-7 program is fine.

HOWEVER

When every topic on Chinese aircraft/missiles/vehicles contains the same sentiments of
- China is evil
- China just copied Russian stuff
- China just copied Western stuff
- Chinese stuff is crap compared to Western stuff
- Its probably not even real, just Photoshop / CGI

Then it might well turn Chinese people off participating in the forum.

I'm not convinced that there's any reason to share your opinion on the Chinese Communist Party on a forum about unbuilt projects in general, any more than its appropriate for me to share my opinion of the current US Administration.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I'm not convinced that there's any reason to share your opinion on the Chinese Communist Party
Click to expand...
Paul.
if I understand him right, Owens is pointing out a suspected mole of the CCP operating in your forum. I have no way of knowing whether he is right or not, but I must say I also had doubts about @EmoBirb's insistent stance.

Now, if Owens turns out to be right, whether you would choose to allow such a CCP mole to continue operating on your forum, it is obviously your personal choice.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom