Forum Feedback

The things I like as much of other posters relate also to what I brought to it, helping to make what it is worth. It´s a communal effort and not a private venture as was said. Instead of rallying to the clubbing party with derogatory depiction of my participation (when did I myself raised such thing as @Hood mentioned? - I am certainly not the one caught unleashing insulting comments)., you could remind your team of such: there are no narrative that has to prevail.

Moderation is not the power of abjuration.
 
TomcatViP said:
... It´s a communal effort and not a private venture ...

Moderation is not the power of abjuration.
Click to expand...

It is both at the same time. And, on the subject of effort, Paul created this forum and has maintained it for two decades. That, in a nutshell, represents 'ownership'.

We should all value the "communal effort" involved in contributions to this forum. But, surely, that is doubly true of SPF's volunteer moderators.

As for "Moderation is not the power of abjuration" - if that term is defined as 'refutiation of certain behaviours' - isn't that exactly what is expected of a forum's moderator?
 
If I were to throw a tantrum everytime a post of mine got deleted I'd be upset pretty often lol. Quite frankly I don't know why that's such an issue. Especially when, if you feel your stuff was deleted without justification, you can just DM the mods and work things out in private.
 
MrPhantomMan said:
I vote to change the forum to pokemon.

All in favour?
Click to expand...
I think that's an interesting point to me. We start with a joke, but it prompts me to reflect about the forum's evolution.

This is a private initiative from a particular, Paul, who had both knowledge and generosity to provide a group of people with a tool to share their knowledge on a specific topic (unbuilt aircraft projects). Most of the early members visited different forums but felt enthusiast with the idea of having one devoted to our favourite interest alone. Paul asked some us to volunteer as a moderation team under a list of rules. And that's how it started.

Complains about specific moderation criteria should be solved referencing to the forum's rules. After all that time, that's a quite effective method to solve conflicts. Remember the foundational idea of the forum is about a place to learn and exchange knowledge, nothing else. That's a call for everyone, moderator or plain user.

After 20 years running, the forum has grow in users and expanded in topics. Some of the simplicity of the beginning has been also lost because it seems that new members enter the forum with different interests from that original and core ones. As a consequence of this evolution we have very active members that never post anything in the core sections. Seems that there is a drift that is taking us away from the original course.

If we've reached a point where it feels necessary to vote on a fundamental change to the forum's core purpose, it's because we truly need to split up and no longer share common interests. This forum should remain true to its essence, and those who want to discuss other topics should honestly create their own forum for that purpose, instead of trying to restructure this one. This forum, as I said, was formed by people who participated in other forums. It's that simple.
 
Antonio said:
I think that's an interesting point to me. We start with a joke, but it prompts me to reflect about the forum's evolution.

This is a private initiative from a particular, Paul, who had both knowledge and generosity to provide a group of people with a tool to share their knowledge on a specific topic (unbuilt aircraft projects). Most of the early members visited different forums but felt enthusiast with the idea of having one devoted to our favourite interest alone. Paul asked some us to volunteer as a moderation team under a list of rules. And that's how it started.

Complains about specific moderation criteria should be solved referencing to the forum's rules. After all that time, that's a quite effective method to solve conflicts. Remember the foundational idea of the forum is about a place to learn and exchange knowledge, nothing else. That's a call for everyone, moderator or plain user.

After 20 years running, the forum has grow in users and expanded in topics. Some of the simplicity of the beginning has been also lost because it seems that new members enter the forum with different interests from that original and core ones. As a consequence of this evolution we have very active members that never post anything in the core sections. Seems that there is a drift that is taking us away from the original course.

If we've reached a point where it feels necessary to vote on a fundamental change to the forum's core purpose, it's because we truly need to split up and no longer share common interests. This forum should remain true to its essence, and those who want to discuss other topics should honestly create their own forum for that purpose, instead of trying to restructure this one. This forum, as I said, was formed by people who participated in other forums. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
And you have the right stuff what it takes to moderate for twenty years so many extraterrestrials like us :oops: have passed through here to stay.
 

Attachments

  • some-species-i-would-love-to-see-as-jedi-in-the-good-guys-v0-boeuz46ri5df1.png
    some-species-i-would-love-to-see-as-jedi-in-the-good-guys-v0-boeuz46ri5df1.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 10
@Forest Green : Seems to work for me. Are you using the attach file function (and then insert a thumbnail) or uploading directly with the drop image tool?

I know that @overscan (PaulMM) has required at length we attach files when inserting images. (see ex. below)
 

Attachments

  • Cost-Benefit ratio of decreasing mandatory deorbiting delay.jpg
    Cost-Benefit ratio of decreasing mandatory deorbiting delay.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 7
TomcatViP said:
@Forest Green : Seems to work for me. Are you using the attach file function (and then insert a thumbnail) or uploading directly with the drop image tool?

I know that @overscan (PaulMM) has required at length we attach files when inserting images. (see ex. below)
Click to expand...
Where is the attach file function?

Seems to be working just with Copy Image > Ctrl+V today anyway.
 
The only text editing tags I see are the toggle BB code ("[" and "]"). No bold or other features.
 
Not sure if this signifies at all but ~15:00 PM PST response time dropped to a snail's pace, then ...

Bad gateway Error code 502
Visit cloudflare.com for more information.

www.secretprojects.co.uk
Host
Error

Function resumed for on link ... followed by more unresponsiveness.

Then, after another single link. back to Bad gateway.

Now sluggish responses again. I can be patient ("I guess, if I have to") but wondered if this was otherwise important to forum function.

Added: On trying to post got "Oops! We ran into some problems. Please try again later. More error details may be in the browser console."
 
insidersource said:
I have a suggestion of splitting Aviation & Space into two sections.

Space topics has become increasingly popular and it would be definitely worth having it's own section.
Click to expand...
I personally like this idea.. we already have a secret aircraft project sections and a secret space project section, but not up to me.
 
Aviation & Space also has the most viewers and new posts by a fairly large margin so it is an ideal candidate to split.. About a quarter of the posts on the first page are now Space topics. The percentage of space topics will definitely increase with the race to the moon and space based data centres.
 
I suggest open up a discussion post about P-500/70/700/800/1000 Russo-soviet heavy anti-ship missile onboard guidance and control systems. They are still kinda mysterious to me, but someone probably find something.
 
My previous post about the number of AESA radars in the French Rafale fleet was deleted for being “not technical enough.”

It’s becoming somewhat frustrating to see posts about production rates, the industrial ecosystem, or aircraft standards removed for unclear or questionable reasons. How is the current technological standard of a fleet not technical ?

I understand why political content might be removed, but AESA % within a fleet seems like relevant factual information that should have a place somewhere.

Am I allowed to create a new non-technical Rafale thread, or is that against the rules? How should i title it and where should it be ?
 
Titus K said:
My previous post about the number of AESA radars in the French Rafale fleet was deleted for being “not technical enough.”

It’s becoming somewhat frustrating to see posts about production rates, the industrial ecosystem, or aircraft standards removed for unclear or questionable reasons. How is the current technological standard of a fleet not technical ?

I understand why political content might be removed, but AESA % within a fleet seems like relevant factual information that should have a place somewhere.

Am I allowed to create a new non-technical Rafale thread, or is that against the rules? How should i title it and where should it be ?
Click to expand...

I'm with you here @Titus K . Seriously, moderation WTF ? @Ronny has been spewing that F-16 RCS shit for almost a week, and now @TomcatViP has made things worse - and you cut @Titus K balanced answer to that horse manure ?

Seriously ?

Please check @Ronny recent posting. There is a lot of biased crap to be deleted there. I really have nothing against him, it is just that, a week ago he has started grinding that (silly) axe and would not stop. He even started a separate thread about it.
 
I've overruled the deletion of the Titus K post, I think its fine in the context of the Rafale radar discussions. You could consider moving the discussion to an Avionics specific topic in the appropriate forum area.

If you have an issue with a moderation decision the first action should be messaging me about it.
 
We have some threads, labelled as "NEWS ONLY". That means, posting news in the form of links, videos, or pictures is ok, but please no further comments. Posts without such content could be news, but if the source isn't given, it has to be counted as personal statement only.

"TECHNICAL NEWS ONLY" principally is the same, but those news should be limited to technical details, so excluding news (even with given sources) about, say, procurements, or procurement plans.

When a purely technical post has fallen victim to my recent deletions there, I apologize for that error.
But the Rafale thread didn't get this limitation without any reason, as several participants without doubt know.
 
Archibald said:
I'm with you here @Titus K . Seriously, moderation WTF ? @Ronny has been spewing that F-16 RCS shit for almost a week, and now @TomcatViP has made things worse - and you cut @Titus K balanced answer to that horse manure ?

Seriously ?

Please check @Ronny recent posting. There is a lot of biased crap to be deleted there. I really have nothing against him, it is just that, a week ago he has started grinding that (silly) axe and would not stop. He even started a separate thread about it.
Click to expand...
Bias how?. Did I just make up a claim without any supporting evidence?. No I didn’t. Did I said Rafale is bad because French made it? No I didn’t. I said Rafale RCS seem to be roughly the same as F-16 level because their head to head exercises results seem to indicate so. Now if you have Rafale manual or simulation or anything similar to prove that I’m wrong, feel free to post it. But information isn’t bias simply because it challenges your view.
 
Archibald said:
@Titus K and @BonPlan2 have provided answers.
Click to expand...
Both Titus and BonPlan are talking about number of AESA radar available for Rafale fleet. Which is nice, but not at all related to my comment about Rafale RCS.
Archibald said:
Meanwhile... how many threads do you need for that debate ? We have three so far. Maybe just one would be enough ?


Click to expand...
I originally posted in Rafale News thread. But as the discussion gone off topic, I created a new thread. for that.
It is not my fault that Ainen quoted me in another different thread.
 
dannydale said:
Sudden global telnet increase? What would cause that?
Click to expand...
It was a bot net attack on telnet ports. In the 90s we saw this scenario when Slammer was spreading. With all of the vulnerable IoT devices in the wild, it could of been bots operating on washing machines for all anyone knows. In most cases the open source OSes (e.g. Linux and BSD) users were getting hammered. Open Source developers tend to react quickly which is why much of it went away so fast.

www.theregister.com

Ancient telnet bug happily hands out root to attackers

: Critical vuln flew under the radar for a decade
www.theregister.com www.theregister.com
 
helmutkohl said:
Some of the responses above are pretty much the reasons why some threads become News Only.
too much bickering and nationalistic sentiment between members.
Click to expand...
I have to be honest, I watch arguments on technical topics between defense enthusiasts with some amusement--because I find a lot of people make confident assertions on topics they're woefully unqualified for. Rarely do they have any actual experience or expertise and they're often just parroting something they read from some OSINT chucklehead who has an equally poor/abstracted understanding of the underlying concepts/systems.

I've mentioned before, I've worked in my domain for a quarter of a century now--first as an operator, then in integration and engineering... and I've had people try to tell me how stuff I literally designed and built "really works" or how it's employed.

I don't understand it. I feel like there are too many enthusiasts who aren't genuinely interested in learning anything, they just want to collect a bunch of nuggets and factoids they have zero fundamental understanding of just so they can "win" some argument later. It's baffling.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom