Safe Practice

[Fred22]

Ladies and Gentlemen TRF is at present going with NAR and CAR safety practices as a baseline for LPR. All referances to unsafe practices as defined by these codes will be removed and repeated referances in a fashion to seem deliberate will become infractions. If any folks have a problem with the codes in question please feel free to PM us as we are always looking for input paticularily in as regards to safety. We had to pick a baseline and this would be it for now. To repeat myself I welcome any positive input on this matter.
Cheers
fred

[Fred22]

I would also hasten to add if a person is discussing a incident in terms of "man I made a mistake" or something to that effect fine. I figure common sence has got to figure in there somehow but if it does not then we will help :)
Cheers
fred

[Mr Peabody]

I would suggest a slightly less brute force solution.

For example, the recent Shorty motor thread, where someone asked about sawing off an A8-3, and the response to use a mini motor and adapter is perfectly appropriate and a rather common question.

I'd agree that discussion of making your own propellant is out of bounds for a forum based on the NAR safety code.

[Fred22]

I would suggest a slightly less brute force solution.

For example, the recent Shorty motor thread, where someone asked about sawing off an A8-3, and the response to use a mini motor and adapter is perfectly appropriate and a rather common question.

I'd agree that discussion of making your own propellant is out of bounds for a forum based on the NAR safety code.

Well I see nothing brute force about using NAR/CAR safety code as a basis for discussion. I have not seen the thread you are talking about but it sounds like safe practice being advocated ie don't tamper with a motor. This what we are after.I would also say we need some bar for measurement and those are good. Editing a post has been mentioneed as preferable to just pulling it.I also agree that ex is simply not acceptable here. I would also say with our new large crew of mods there are the time and resources to moderate the forum in a more sophisticated way. I thank you for you input :)
Cheers
Bill

[AKPilot]

I would suggest a slightly less brute force solution.




Can you help me to sincerely understand something? Why do you perceive it to be "brute force" if NAR/CAR baselines are used and unsafe practices are removed?

Then if these unsafe practices, references, or actions are again, delibertly, brought up, yet, again - why shouldn't the individual be subject to further action.



This seems to be completely in align with the guidelines of TRF, that everyone's agreed to abide by when using the forum. First a person receives a cursory warning, than if they continue to display the same behavior again, further action is taken.

[rstaff3]

I think the point made is that if a newbie comes here asking to do something dumb, maybe it's better to educate rather than to pull the thread.

So is any mention of EX acceptable? In V1.0 much was allowed as long as the formula details aren't allowed. Now, how about reporting on a an EX launch? A vendor who sells EX hardware?

BTW, shouldn't this thread be in the rules and guidelines forum?

[Rich Pitzeruse]

Pardon any ripples in the pond I may create. I can understand the desire to yank a post about a potentially unsafe practice. What I can't understand is leaving the thread for all to see, where all that remains is the fight over the unsafe practice, and someone calls someone else names. That doesn't sound very 10 year old friendly.

[Peartree]

This sort of thing is a matter of considerable discussion among the Mods. Hopefully a reasonable and enforceable policy will be the result.

[rstaff3]

Thanks for the response Mr. P. From the silence I assumed there was a discussion going on :) I have absolutely no problem with what I sensed was the goal of the policy and don't think it was meant to exclude the type of stuff I mentioned. The rub with such rules is getting a clear, concise and understandable policy. Policy statements beget more statements.

[delta22]

In the thread on the shorty engine, a couple posters described NAR/CAR compliant alternative solutions.

That seemed like a great way for the thread to go, both for good, safe technical suggestions, and as a self correcting mechanism for the thread.

Whenever possible, that approach by posters or admins is very desireable: it leaves posts intact, provides good technical info, and communicates what is NAR/CAR compliant.

[MarkII]

In the thread on the shorty engine, a couple posters described NAR/CAR compliant alternative solutions.

That seemed like a great way for the thread to go, both for good, safe technical suggestions, and as a self correcting mechanism for the thread.

Whenever possible, that approach by posters or admins is very desireable: it leaves posts intact, provides good technical info, and communicates what is NAR/CAR compliant.
I don't want to start a big old debate about the Shorty motor thread, but it seemed to me that there were at least a few posts in it that were tongue-in-cheek, and not serious. My last post to that thread certainly was. I don't think that there was any dispute that the NAR/CAR-compliant solution was the best (and the only acceptable) one to use. After all, shorty motors never really went away; they just got smaller in diameter.

Mark \\.

[AKPilot]

The tongue-n-cheek thing I really do understand. The problem with printed sarcasm is that you never know if the receiver of the message takes it in jest or takes it seriously.

[MarkII]

The tongue-n-cheek thing I really do understand. The problem with printed sarcasm is that you never know if the receiver of the message takes it in jest or takes it seriously.
OK, I'll grant you that one. Members need to take reasonable steps to insure that the real meanings (even of sarcastic or ironic comments) of their posts are apparent (but it might be OK if achieving that understanding requires re-reading the post two or three times). Often that true meaning is readily apparent when the post is viewed in the context of the overall thread or subthread, and is lost if the post is viewed in isolation. But anyone making a post cannot totally insure that no one will ever misunderstand it, and the member should not be penalized just because there is a remote possibility that someone might miss the message's meaning. (When there is a greater possibility of it, well, that's a different story.)

All of that notwithstanding, I do agree with your rule that the forum not be used to promote or advocate practices that undermine our hobby's safety record or its acceptance by all relevant jurisdictions.

Mark \\.

[Fred22]

I think the point made is that if a newbie comes here asking to do something dumb, maybe it's better to educate rather than to pull the thread.

So is any mention of EX acceptable? In V1.0 much was allowed as long as the formula details aren't allowed. Now, how about reporting on a an EX launch? A vendor who sells EX hardware?

BTW, shouldn't this thread be in the rules and guidelines forum?

Hi Dick,
The situation is fluid within the bounds of the guidelines and common sence. As a group we now have the numbers and motivation to do more editing then pulling:) I agree if some new person asks a question that reflects unsafe practice and is given tips and encouragement towards safe practice that seems fine to me. What is not fine is advocating as normal or acceptable breaches of the codes in question paticularily by experianced folks. I honestly belive we can discern the differance.
Ex is a topic we will need to explore as a group but IMO detailled discussions ie formulas have no place here. In as regards to the other aspects of ex like vendors we need to discuss it ampngst the staff. Input from others if worded in a reasonable way would be welcome.
Cheers
Fred

[Fred22]

OK, I'll grant you that one. Members need to take reasonable steps to insure that the real meanings (even of sarcastic or ironic comments) of their posts are apparent (but it might be OK if achieving that understanding requires re-reading the post two or three times). Often that true meaning is readily apparent when the post is viewed in the context of the overall thread or subthread, and is lost if the post is viewed in isolation. But anyone making a post cannot totally insure that no one will ever misunderstand it, and the member should not be penalized just because there is a remote possibility that someone might miss the message's meaning. (When there is a greater possibility of it, well, that's a different story.)

All of that notwithstanding, I do agree with your rule that the forum not be used to promote or advocate practices that undermine our hobby's safety record or its acceptance by all relevant jurisdictions.

Mark \\.

I think when we as mods act it usually is pretty blatant as referanced by the not so subtle.ridiculous attack dog posts we have gotten around here.I would hasten to add nothing you have posted is what I am talking about. My compliments to our newer mods in their efforts to be fair and positive in their new resposnsibilities.
Cheers
Fred

[H_Rocket]

Can you help me to sincerely understand something? Why do you perceive it to be "brute force"

Look at the simple verbiage the moderator used. Basically, any and all discussion of practices that do not lie in line with the established safety practices will be removed and a user who persists in the discussion faces sanction.


Ladies and Gentlemen TRF is at present going with NAR and CAR safety practices as a baseline for LPR. All referances to unsafe practices as defined by these codes will be removed...

And it continues


...If any folks have a problem with the codes in question please feel free to PM us as we are always looking for input paticularily in as regards to safety.

So we should discuss safety utilizing PMs as opposed to public discussion? I really hope that can not be the intention. One of the most valuable tenets of the sport rocketry community is a clear public understanding of safety. Burying discussions of what may be unsafe practices because certain individuals are uncomfortable is an anathema to the way safety is practiced in sport rocketry.



I honestly belive we can discern the differance.

That level of, and I cannot think of a better word, hubris is what led to posts as referenced below


I think when we as mods act it usually is pretty blatant as referanced by the not so subtle.ridiculous attack dog posts we have gotten around here.

by many highly experienced rocketry enthusiasts and their exodus form TRF 1.0

In a separate discussion with a moderator in TRF 1.0, his opinion basically was that these individuals and the knowledge they bring to the table are not worth the effort to corral them into the TRF set of rules. Disappointingly, that seems to be a continuing philosophy.


Ex is a topic we will need to explore as a group but IMO detailled discussions ie formulas have no place here.

I have never understood this, and I doubt you can make me understand it. While I am not a hard core research enthusiast (although I want to be), The detailed discussion of propellants and the theories behind them is one of the joys of rocketry. Having those discussions might attract some of the above mentioned talent to TRF. However as stated, I have been told that what these people bring to the table is not worth dealing with the fact that they are hard to deal with and tend to enjoy pushing the envelope.


Of course this site belongs to Troy and if these are his rules, then those are the rules I will adhere to while posting here. It does make me tend toward posting where the understanding of rocketry is more important than the maintenance of a specific user environment or meeting the comfort level of the moderators who have a different view than I do of what sport and amateur rocketry is about.

As I write that, I have to ask myself...What does the "policy" posted in the initiation of this thread have to do with a family friendly environment?

[Peartree]

It has been publicly stated that this is an actively moderated forum. That seems to be the part that you have difficulty with. This also connects to your last question.

The stated intent of every forum will vary and will attract users whose interests match its users and its basic intent. YORF is a great place, but since it focuses on rockets originating in an era I did not build or fly rockets. Most of its discussions focus on things I don't remember and folks are very excited about kits I tend to not like very much. No hostility or hard feeling between any of us, our interests simply do not match. I don't bash anyone there for not being interested in the things I am interested in, I just go to the forum where they do, here.

The focus of this forum (as I have always understood it) is to be a place where all persons interested in rocketry can come and chat but in particular being a place where new hobbyists and young people (as young as ten) can safely come and hang out. Active moderation is intended to keep adult topics and adult language from interrupting that safety. Some parents see no problem with using such language in front of children, we do.

Likewise for safety discussions. An open discussion of why some rule are in place is important to a free society. Such discussion is welcome here insofar as it does not specifically describe to a young or inexperienced audience specifically how to do things that are unsafe. There will be a lot of grey areas. We will make mistakes. We're human. Stuff happens.

In light of all that, EX, while fascinating, may simply be advanced enough and complex enough that the owner of this forum does not wish to promote its use in front of an invited audience of beginners and young people. I can't speak for Troy, but he has said that the moderators will discuss it and has invited others to offer reasoned discussion. Your input is welcome.

With no malice or ill will intended, if you don't want to hang out in a forum that whose publicly stated intent is to be friendly in the ways described, there are plenty of places that would be happy to have you and would benefit from your wealth of experience.

[H_Rocket]

It has been publicly stated that this is an actively moderated forum. That seems to be the part that you have difficulty with.

Nothing could be farther from correct. Active moderation has a integral place in the structure that has been stated as the goal here. My problem is with capricious moderation that decries entire topics related to rockerty being off limits. (and for the record, I will set research discussions aside for the moment). In the case of this discussion -> who has certified the moderation team at TRF as experts in the safety code?



The focus of this forum (as I have always understood it) is to be a place where all persons interested in rocketry can come and chat but in particular being a place where new hobbyists and young people (as young as ten) can safely come and hang out.

A honorable and respectworthy goal. However if you make the people with the most knowledge feel unwelcome, who do those new people learn from? There are some phenomenal talents who have made every mistake there is (and invented a few new ones) who will not take part here due to the perception that content they place is subject to editing by people who are less knowledgeable on the subject matter. That is a regrettable situation.


Active moderation is intended to keep adult topics and adult language from interrupting that safety. Some parents see no problem with using such language in front of children, we do.

And I wholeheartedly agree. There is no need to use profane language to get a point across. If I want to act like I am in the frat house with like aged buddies, there are other places I go. I do not deliberately subject young folks or those who may be offended to that kind of behavior.


Likewise for safety discussions. An open discussion of why some rule are in place is important to a free society. Such discussion is welcome here insofar as it does not specifically describe to a young or inexperienced audience specifically how to do things that are unsafe. There will be a lot of grey areas.

That was not the thesis that the thread originator indicated (at least in my perception). It was a black/white binary policy. Think about it. Someone (let's say for argument sake a beginner, posts a thread on drilling holes in a SU motor case because "Wow that was cool" -> how do you actively moderate that content without removing information that assists people in recognizing the inherent risks?


We will make mistakes. We're human. Stuff happens.

Yup, that's true -> I would hope that a polite, as I have tried to be here, indication of those is welcome. There is a sense in the community however that the moderators of TRF are above reproach and any challenge will be dealt with in a disciplinary manner.


In light of all that, EX, while fascinating, may simply be advanced enough and complex enough that the owner of this forum does not wish to promote its use in front of an invited audience of beginners and young people. I can't speak for Troy, but he has said that the moderators will discuss it and has invited others to offer reasoned discussion. Your input is welcome.

I would truly look forward to it


With no malice or ill will intended, if you don't want to hang out in a forum that whose publicly stated intent is to be friendly in the ways described, there are plenty of places that would be happy to have you and would benefit from your wealth of experience.

I think I said that in my closing statement. I participate in most all of them. I like varied places to learn from.

[tazzdevl1]

I think, maybe, the intent of the first post has been misunderstood. My understanding of it is this; In the event someone posts info about some knuckleheaded stunt they pulled that is not in line with model/hobby rocketry standards as we know them. Such as the stupid unsafe stuff we see kids doing with rocket motors on Youtube. It should be pulled. Not left on the forum for other knuckleheads to see. IMHO

If something is posted that goes against NAR/CAR, then it's up to the admin to handle it how they see fit. But, I would hope that there would be some sort of communication from them to the poster telling them why the thread was pulled/edited. Most of us are responsible people and we know the rules of the hobby. But, those that are new to the hobby that may need guidance can be helped here on TRF.

As far as EX is concerned, the admin of TRF does not wish for it to be discussed here. Therefore, like Peartree said, use one of the other forums where EX is discussed.

Cliff

[AKPilot]

Just to clarify something . . . TRF does not make people uncomfortable.

It's an individual's own personal actions that make them uncomfortable or comfortable.

[Peartree]

A honorable and respectworthy goal. However if you make the people with the most knowledge feel unwelcome, who do those new people learn from? There are some phenomenal talents who have made every mistake there is (and invented a few new ones) who will not take part here due to the perception that content they place is subject to editing by people who are less knowledgeable on the subject matter. That is a regrettable situation.


There is a sense in the community however that the moderators of TRF are above reproach and any challenge will be dealt with in a disciplinary manner.

All such talented people are welcome here and are welcome to contribute within the framework that has been laid out. As long as they work with us and not against us, they need have no fear of moderation.



That was not the thesis that the thread originator indicated (at least in my perception). It was a black/white binary policy. Think about it. Someone (let's say for argument sake a beginner, posts a thread on drilling holes in a SU motor case because "Wow that was cool" -> how do you actively moderate that content without removing information that assists people in recognizing the inherent risks?

All suspect posts and pulled posts are discussed by the pool of moderators and is generally not the final decision of any one person. Even so, in some situations (like the one you describe) threading the needle may not be easy. We'll do our best, that's all I can promise. I hope you'll give us a chance.

[H_Rocket]

In the event someone posts info about some knuckleheaded stunt they pulled that is not in line with model/hobby rocketry standards as we know them. Such as the stupid unsafe stuff we see kids doing with rocket motors on Youtube. It should be pulled. Not left on the forum for other knuckleheads to see. IMHO...(snip)...But, those that are new to the hobby that may need guidance can be helped here on TRF.

This is, to me a flawed argument. I would think that in an open discussion of safety that ****** *** stunt should be thoroughly dissected and shown in a harsh light for how unsafe it is.That is education, That will help keep folks from doing stupid things. Deleting the content only serves to force it underground.

Funny thing is if you go to the place reputed for the coarsest conduct by members (N3) you will find there is little or no discussion of those kind of stunts beyond ridicule. The membership there has little or no tolerance for unsafe behavior.

[tazzdevl1]

Funny thing is if you go to the place reputed for the coarsest conduct by members (N3) you will find there is little or no discussion of those kind of stunts beyond ridicule. The membership there has little or no tolerance for unsafe behavior.

Neither does the membership here at TRF. Therefore, it should not be on the forum. The education would come in the form of the communication I mentioned in the same post.

Cliff

[MysticalRockets]

Neither does the membership here at TRF. Therefore, it should not be on the forum. The education would come in the form of the communication I mentioned in the same post.

Cliff

I severely disagree.

Such derision could very well serve to STOP someone from doing the exact same thing, and perhaps prevent an tragedy.

Somebody does something stupid, and says so publicly, should be called on it publicly, so no one else does it. Not just removed like it never happened.

[rstaff3]

Under the stated guideline, which I may or may not agree with but will respect (at least as I understand it), if someone talks about something dangerous and provides the gory details, I could see that the details would be 'xed' out. I still think the general post should remain with the proper cautions. If it spins too far, threads can always be locked. As was requested of me dozens of times, it is good mod etiquette to post about what has been edited or removed.

[Peartree]

I severely disagree.

Such derision could very well serve to STOP someone from doing the exact same thing, and perhaps prevent an tragedy.

Somebody does something stupid, and says so publicly, should be called on it publicly, so no one else does it. Not just removed like it never happened.

Derision and flaming offenders might be good for a) staring a flame war, b) scaring or chasing away beginners, c) causing hard feelings but human nature being what it is, I doubt that it is particularly useful for modifying behavior.

In any case, that is not the tone that this forum chooses to set. Family friendly is NOT flaming a beginner who made an innocent mistake. You don't make a quality product by studying all the things that can be done wrong. Your time is better spent studying all the things that can be done right and done well.

[Peartree]

Under the stated guideline, which I may or may not agree with but will respect (at least as I understand it), if someone talks about something dangerous and provides the gory details, I could see that the details would be 'xed' out. I still think the general post should remain with the proper cautions. If it spins too far, threads can always be locked. As was requested of me dozens of times, it is good mod etiquette to post about what has been edited or removed.

With a full staff of moderators, this is exactly what we are hoping to accomplish (whenever possible).

[MKP]

Well, if we're going to remove threads referring to unsafe practices, doesn't that mean the Cosmos Mariner thread should be removed?

(I kid, I kid... :D)

[JAL3]

Well, if we're going to remove threads referring to unsafe practices, doesn't that mean the Cosmos Mariner thread should be removed?

(I kid, I kid... :D)

I hope so!!!!

I am starting to get really intrigued and am wondering if I should have some GOOD video equipment on hand as opposed to letting my camara do it in video mode.

[MarkII]

I hope so!!!!

I am starting to get really intrigued and am wondering if I should have some GOOD video equipment on hand as opposed to letting my camara do it in video mode.
Yes! You want to give the FAA all the footage you can when they arrive to investigate the crash site... :p

But I digress... Back to the main discussion, now.

Mark \\.

[MarkII]

This is a very interesting and thought-provoking policy-level discussion. Everyone is giving the site owner and the moderators much to think about and discuss at the management level. Nevertheless, after having interacted with all of them online over the past two years, I do trust that they will make decisions that are in the best interest of the forum and I am confident that they will endeavor to do the right thing in every case. No one is perfect, and we have all made decisions that we later regret, but cannot go back and change. Many important decisions in life cannot be reversed through instant replay. All any of us can hope for is that we use our best judgment and make the best decision we can, given the set of circumstances that exist at the time. We need to give the operators of this forum the space to do that as well, and avoid incessant second-guessing.

Mark \\.

[Fred22]

Look at the simple verbiage the moderator used. Basically, any and all discussion of practices that do not lie in line with the established safety practices will be removed and a user who persists in the discussion faces sanction.



And it continues



So we should discuss safety utilizing PMs as opposed to public discussion? I really hope that can not be the intention. One of the most valuable tenets of the sport rocketry community is a clear public understanding of safety. Burying discussions of what may be unsafe practices because certain individuals are uncomfortable is an anathema to the way safety is practiced in sport rocketry.




That level of, and I cannot think of a better word, hubris is what led to posts as referenced below



by many highly experienced rocketry enthusiasts and their exodus form TRF 1.0

In a separate discussion with a moderator in TRF 1.0, his opinion basically was that these individuals and the knowledge they bring to the table are not worth the effort to corral them into the TRF set of rules. Disappointingly, that seems to be a continuing philosophy.



I have never understood this, and I doubt you can make me understand it. While I am not a hard core research enthusiast (although I want to be), The detailed discussion of propellants and the theories behind them is one of the joys of rocketry. Having those discussions might attract some of the above mentioned talent to TRF. However as stated, I have been told that what these people bring to the table is not worth dealing with the fact that they are hard to deal with and tend to enjoy pushing the envelope.


Of course this site belongs to Troy and if these are his rules, then those are the rules I will adhere to while posting here. It does make me tend toward posting where the understanding of rocketry is more important than the maintenance of a specific user environment or meeting the comfort level of the moderators who have a different view than I do of what sport and amateur rocketry is about.

As I write that, I have to ask myself...What does the "policy" posted in the initiation of this thread have to do with a family friendly environment?
I use "simple verbiage" so people can people can clearly understand what is being said. I dont feel the urge to be pedantic. Simple ,clear, concise. Give it a whirl.
Its pretty basic. I stated that if people ask questions about unsafe practices and were given advice that was in line with the CAR/NAR safety codes thats okay. I stated in this thread if people, paticularily experianced folks, discussed unsafe practice as okay then it should be removed. Our policies are evolving however and we may do things differently from time to time with the same framework of the NAR/CAR safety code. As you can see nothings being buried. Safety is being enhanced by not advocating either explicitly or implicitly unsafe practice in the course of normal discourse on the board. Is that clear enough?
I frankly dont believe lots of experianced rocket enthusiast left TRF due to excessive moderation. IF you look closely with no statement we would do anything all that differentlly hundreds have signed up and more are coming everyday. Some folks left because like small children they thought rules should only apply to others and when they were held accountable under our guideleines left. Good riddance. Some left for other reasons but most stayed for the very reasons you quote as having drove them away. My question would be is if you find how we do things here so objectionable then why are you here. There have to be other places where you can exercise your debating skills with absolutely no checks.
Ex is done in other places but not here. Not having ex discussed in detail neither diminsishes ex or TRF. I also see no benefit to having people who like to push limits and are difficult to deal with. I also suspect there are lots of folks who do ex who are not as you describe them. They follow the rules around here and discuss ex elsewhere.
If the moderation policy around here makes you uncomfortable then by all means post elsewhere. Given our intent to prevent namecalling, belittling others, use of profanity amongst other things to enhance the TRF experiance I see very little to prevent high levels of rocketry discussion and just plain fun stuff.
Given everything that has been said I fail to see how you can state that we are not striving for a family friendly atmosphere unless your defintion of family is at extreme extreme variance with what most people consider normal. I stand by our numbers and would advise you to simply go do a build thread or perhaps provide positive safe advice on rocketry. Its really simple when you look at it.
Cheers
fred

[Fred22]

Nothing could be farther from correct. Active moderation has a integral place in the structure that has been stated as the goal here. My problem is with capricious moderation that decries entire topics related to rockerty being off limits. (and for the record, I will set research discussions aside for the moment). In the case of this discussion -> who has certified the moderation team at TRF as experts in the safety code?




A honorable and respectworthy goal. However if you make the people with the most knowledge feel unwelcome, who do those new people learn from? There are some phenomenal talents who have made every mistake there is (and invented a few new ones) who will not take part here due to the perception that content they place is subject to editing by people who are less knowledgeable on the subject matter. That is a regrettable situation.



And I wholeheartedly agree. There is no need to use profane language to get a point across. If I want to act like I am in the frat house with like aged buddies, there are other places I go. I do not deliberately subject young folks or those who may be offended to that kind of behavior.



That was not the thesis that the thread originator indicated (at least in my perception). It was a black/white binary policy. Think about it. Someone (let's say for argument sake a beginner, posts a thread on drilling holes in a SU motor case because "Wow that was cool" -> how do you actively moderate that content without removing information that assists people in recognizing the inherent risks?



Yup, that's true -> I would hope that a polite, as I have tried to be here, indication of those is welcome. There is a sense in the community however that the moderators of TRF are above reproach and any challenge will be dealt with in a disciplinary manner.



I would truly look forward to it



I think I said that in my closing statement. I participate in most all of them. I like varied places to learn from.

No one has certified us as experts on safety code. However being literate we can read the codes and the posts. Pocessing a modest modicum of intelligence we then interpret it within our guidelines. Once again if you find our policies that objectionable feel free to vote with your feet. Our moderation is not capricious at all but being individuals and not robots we sometimes interpret things differently or even make mistakes :) Once again if you find the moderation here so negative in intent why are you here?
We do nothing that makes experianced rocketry enthusiasts uncomfortable. Take a look at the membership lists and you will see a great deal of experiance. I would suggest your premise is incorrect and is not a statement of fact but an opinion you put forward as you do not like this the way this place is run. Facts not bland assertions should be the basis of informed discussion.
I am glad you like the fact we dont allow profanity. I think if you look harder you might find other things you like.
I would remove posts for unsafe practice wheras others on the moderation team might prefer a differant method. We discuss the matter and try to come up with the best approach. I dont always advocate removal of posts. read the whole thread.
There is a sence of what in what community? Who appointed you the spokesperson for any significant proportion of the rocketry community? What specific proportion of the rocket community have you appointed yourself spokesman for? Could your claim to be a spokesman simply be hubris:)
I truly look forward to seeing a build thread by some new person getting advice from the kit maker. I look forward to seeing some clever designer illustrate the methods of making a new kit and show it's development process. I look forward to seeing rocketry enthusiasts of all ages compliment and encourage one another without fear of being ridiculed. Wait a minute that actually happens here inspite of capricious mods who stifle thoughtful debate by using tools like nationally accepted safety codes.
Cheers
fred

[Fred22]

This is, to me a flawed argument. I would think that in an open discussion of safety that ****** *** stunt should be thoroughly dissected and shown in a harsh light for how unsafe it is.That is education, That will help keep folks from doing stupid things. Deleting the content only serves to force it underground.

Funny thing is if you go to the place reputed for the coarsest conduct by members (N3) you will find there is little or no discussion of those kind of stunts beyond ridicule. The membership there has little or no tolerance for unsafe behavior.

We dont always delete things. Read the thread please. Your opinions on educating people are interesting. We should let folks post really unsafe practices then ridicule,bully them oh sorry dissect the statement in a harsh light. People busy being angry or embarassed dont generally learn a lot. I really think you need to study the learning process a little.
Having looked at your interesting theory of how to teach safety I can see why you would hold N3 as a shining example of where to learn safety. I also find it interesting you seem to make your statement in a fashion that indicates you speak for them as well.
Cheers
fred

[MysticalRockets]

Why does this not surprise me? Fred locks another thread (or moves it to where no one would bother reading it) because someone disagrees with him. There was no argument, no flaming. Just simple, honest discussion. And Fred, as usual, locks the thread because somebody disagreed with him.

Business as usual.

(And, since someone would say it, yes, I do care about this place. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother saying anything. I'll just sit here and wait for my ban now.)

[Rich Pitzeruse]

I find this discussion interesting, and am glad to see it wasn't locked completely.

That being said, I still don't understand why the original thread in question remains. The point of that thread was erased, and the resulting 'fight' remains. Is it ok to call people names if you change the spelling of name (ie. 'jurk')?

[Peartree]

Why does this not surprise me? Fred locks another thread (or moves it to where no one would bother reading it) because someone disagrees with him. There was no argument, no flaming. Just simple, honest discussion. And Fred, as usual, locks the thread because somebody disagreed with him.

Business as usual.

(And, since someone would say it, yes, I do care about this place. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother saying anything. I'll just sit here and wait for my ban now.)

Observations:

a) Fred moved this thread to where it probably should have been to begin with.

b) If this thread was locked, you wouldn't be posting here.

c) He locked the old one AND posted a note telling everyone what he did and where you could go if you wanted to continue the discussion.

Good grief! What more do you want?

Would everybody just take a chill pill?

Lighten up will 'ya?:D

[MysticalRockets]

Observations:

a) Fred moved this thread to where it probably should have been to begin with.

b) If this thread was locked, you wouldn't be posting here.

c) He locked the old one AND posted a note telling everyone what he did and where you could go if you wanted to continue the discussion.

Good grief! What more do you want?

Would everybody just take a chill pill?

Lighten up will 'ya?:D

What do I want?

Intelligent discussion is what I want. Not moderators who, when confronted with what is obviously their errors in logic, act like children and throw a fit, using their almighty moderator powers to crush any dissent.

Fred went just a bit too far in this thread, and the CATO one. I expect that one to be locked shortly as well.

[rstaff3]

Observations:

a) Fred moved this thread to where it probably should have been to begin with.

b) If this thread was locked, you wouldn't be posting here.

c) He locked the old one AND posted a note telling everyone what he did and where you could go if you wanted to continue the discussion.

Good grief! What more do you want?

Would everybody just take a chill pill?

Lighten up will 'ya?:D

Seriously. :rolleyes:

[H_Rocket]

An open note to Fred


Fred -

In several conversations with you over time I have come to the conclusion that you and I will probably not agree an many bits of philosophy. That is OK, nobody says we have to. However your twisting my words to state (and these are paraphrased) is not appreciated:


I think N3 is a shining example of a forum -> No, I simply stated that there were alternative methods (and provided an example) to dealing with safety discussions that did not require post removal. Yes, there are people I like there and I do share ideas in a manner there not appropriate here. That is why there are different forums. They set different rules for different communities.

That I asserted to speak for any part of the community -> No, I related my observations from other rocketry portals. Rocketry Planet, N3, ROL, (not much from YORF -> mostly because the choice of fonts and colors is hard for me to read). Everything I wrote was my opinion based on my observation.

That riducle and embarrassment is a useful teaching tool - I do not advocate ridicule in any way when dealing with beginners. If a beginner posts the same stupid thing over and over, yes, I might get terse. There was a young man on TRF1.0 named Jordan Raice who had the remarkable ability to invoke that sort of response out of me. What I do advocate is making sure every possible bit of information that will assist the beginner, and those around them at all levels of experience, to recognize, explain, and deal with a potential safety violation.


Your repeatedly state, and again I paraphrase: "If you don't like my way, find someplace else" And I decidedly chose the words "MY WAY" as your discourse indicates that is your point of view. Why do you take this stance? With a full team of Moderators (as John P. indicated), Having a few cowboys might actually be a good thing.

You ask about my hubris, OK perhaps. However I was part of the TRF community well before most of the folk in the current administrative community were. That gives me, in some small, part a sense of history and perhaps the ability to note some historical trending.

I firmly stand by my assertion that there are some seriously talented rocketry enthusiasts who choose to stay away from TRF due to the site management methodology you so fervently defend. That you choose policy over knowledge is somewhat disappointing.

My intent was to offer polite commentary from my point of view toward some opportunity to appeal to a wider segment of the high power community. It is of course your choice whether or not to accept those ideas. As it also is your choice to take a highly defensive stance and respond in a manner just this side of personal attacks.

It is obvious I failed to make my case. and even more so considering the action taken with this discussion. As Troy basically stated, what you have done/said hurts me only if I choose to let it do so. I do not.



On a closing note -> you essentially challenge me to go do a build thread or some such. I challenge you right back. Demonstrate that your hobby is indeed sport rocketry and not site moderation. I'll do the same and demonstrate my hobby is sport rocketry and not critiquing TRF policy.

[Peartree]

What do I want?

Intelligent discussion is what I want. Not moderators who, when confronted with what is obviously their errors in logic, act like children and throw a fit, using their almighty moderator powers to crush any dissent.

Fred went just a bit too far in this thread, and the CATO one. I expect that one to be locked shortly as well.

If Fred wanted to squash dissent, this thread would be gone and so would you. That hasn't even been suggested. Yet.

I'll allow that Fred's tone might have been more friendly, but his reading of your posts on most counts was accurate. You DO sound as if you speak for a wider group. You DO seem to hold up N3 as iconic even when you say you don't. You DID advocate ridicule and did not make exception for beginners (the first time).

We could all benefit from some self examination here.

You have repeatedly noted that talented rocketry people are staying away because of the moderation policies here. I think I DO speak for the mods here when I say, We're fine with that. If Albert Einstein was a regular at the public library and regularly refused to obey the rules there, spoke in a loud voice, threw trash on the floor, and wrote in the books. Regardless of his obvious knowledge and great intelligence, he would be asked to stay away. I would love for everyone to come here and enjoy themselves but this is not the Wild West, there ARE rules. Everyone is welcome. If they don't care to follow the rules then don't come.

Finally, you said:


On a closing note -> you essentially challenge me to go do a build thread or some such. I challenge you right back. Demonstrate that your hobby is indeed sport rocketry and not site moderation. I'll do the same and demonstrate my hobby is sport rocketry and not critiquing TRF policy.

I look forward to it. If I could stop spending so much time putting out fires like this one, I'll have more time to actually build something.


Right after I clean up the Rocket Lab....

[rokitflite]

On a closing note -> you essentially challenge me to go do a build thread or some such. I challenge you right back. Demonstrate that your hobby is indeed sport rocketry and not site moderation. I'll do the same and demonstrate my hobby is sport rocketry and not critiquing TRF policy.

At high noon both Fred and Al will each take a rocket kit. They will walk 50 paces away from each other, turn and start building. There must be plenty of photographs and feedback on the kit.

Oooowee oooowee oooooooo, waaa waaa waaa (The Good The Bad And The Ugly)

[jderimig]

If Fred's message is (paraphrasing) "Do not even think of posting here if the subject may be an activity against NAR/CAR safety codes"....then I believe that will work against rocket safety in general.

If some is thinking about a potentially unsafe modification like:
1. Modifying MMX motors for multistage duty
2. Modifying ejection charges
etc etc...

It is much preferable to let that person post (or search previous posts) on the subject to gather as much information as possible so that he/she can be exposed to arguments on specifically why it shouldn't be tried, rather than banish all possible views on this which may lead people to try it because they is no public information on the subject.

For this reason I believe responsible less or unmoderated forums serve public safety better in this regard. I have yet to see a post on RP or N3 where the poster suggested an activity that might be dangerous was not enlightened to the dangers of what he/she was suggesting.

[H_Rocket]

At high noon both Fred and Al will each take a rocket kit. They will walk 50 paces away from each other, turn and start building. There must be plenty of photographs and feedback on the kit.

Oooowee oooowee oooooooo, waaa waaa waaa (The God The Bad And The Ugly)


West Systems and An Ultimate Endeavor at 100 yards

Bring it....

[MysticalRockets]

If Fred wanted to squash dissent, this thread would be gone and so would you. That hasn't even been suggested. Yet.

I'll allow that Fred's tone might have been more friendly, but his reading of your posts on most counts was accurate. You DO sound as if you speak for a wider group. You DO seem to hold up N3 as iconic even when you say you don't. You DID advocate ridicule and did not make exception for beginners (the first time).

We could all benefit from some self examination here.

You have repeatedly noted that talented rocketry people are staying away because of the moderation policies here. I think I DO speak for the mods here when I say, We're fine with that. If Albert Einstein was a regular at the public library and regularly refused to obey the rules there, spoke in a loud voice, threw trash on the floor, and wrote in the books. Regardless of his obvious knowledge and great intelligence, he would be asked to stay away. I would love for everyone to come here and enjoy themselves but this is not the Wild West, there ARE rules. Everyone is welcome. If they don't care to follow the rules then don't come.

Finally, you said:



I look forward to it. If I could stop spending so much time putting out fires like this one, I'll have more time to actually build something.


Right after I clean up the Rocket Lab....

Seems like you're combining two different posts into one response. Am I correct? If I am, I'll respond to my parts.

I believe you totally misunderstood my meaning. That, I'll take the blame for. My intention was good natured ribbing, not 'Hey you moron." Believe me, I've earned some good natured ribbing. As an example, I messed up my first reload. And I posted what happened. And I got ribbed for it. (Not here, as this place was crashed at the time) And I laughed at it.

Honestly, if someone can't take some good natured ribbing in THIS hobby, they should go buy a train set. Because with everything we crash, burn up, Cato, and generally screw up, we have to have a sense of humor. Otherwise, some of us would probably start crying.

But it seems like this particular moderator that is at issue doesn't seem to have a sense of this. The Cato/CATO thread is a good point of this. Who really cares if Cato/CATO is an acronym or not? The moderator started nitpicking at people over what was intended to be a friendly thread of "look what I screwed up, let's all laugh at me." He turned it into a monkey poo flinging contest. That has to be one of the dumbest things I've seen yet here. And then, he brings in threads from other boards to support an argument that nobody supports him on. If he wanted to have this argument, why didn't he go there instead of here?

John, its not you I have any issue with. You're cool. You're just kinda stuck in the middle of this, and I understand that. And I do care about this place. If I didn't, I wouldn't even bother.

And as soon as I get this bloody hobby room cleaned up, I'll start putting up build threads. Hopefully, I'll have some launch photos tomorrow night to put up. We're flying tomorrow, so I should have some good ones.

[Peartree]

It was pointed out to me that I inadvertently mixed the responses of two different people in my response and made it appear that it was the authorship of only one poster.

My bad.

My apologies to both Mystical Rockets and H_Rocket.

Sorry folks.

[Peartree]

Seems like you're combining two different posts into one response. Am I correct? If I am, I'll respond to my parts.

(snip)

But it seems like this particular moderator that is at issue doesn't seem to have a sense of this. The Cato/CATO thread is a good point of this. Who really cares if Cato/CATO is an acronym or not? The moderator started nitpicking at people over what was intended to be a friendly thread of "look what I screwed up, let's all laugh at me."



Ironically, you've become similarly confused.

Fred Shecter (aka Shreadvector)

is NOT

Fred (aka the Moderator)

Please aim more carefully...

[MysticalRockets]

Ok, I'll go into the corner and shut up now.

[Balsa Bob]

(The God The Bad And The Ugly)

Yikes... I hope this was an unintentional typo!

[rokitflite]

Yikes... I hope this was an unintentional typo!


Duh... Thanks... Fixed in the original;)

[tbzep]

Given our intent to prevent namecalling, belittling others

Why is the one sided belittling and namecalling still there for all to see in the MMX thread? I was pointing out an infraction to the NAR/CAR code that he had previously chastised me about, and he went off. The only thing that was removed from that thread was the evidence that he was advocating the violation with instructions on how to do it. :confused:

[Fred22]

Why does this not surprise me? Fred locks another thread (or moves it to where no one would bother reading it) because someone disagrees with him. There was no argument, no flaming. Just simple, honest discussion. And Fred, as usual, locks the thread because somebody disagreed with him.

Business as usual.

(And, since someone would say it, yes, I do care about this place. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother saying anything. I'll just sit here and wait for my ban now.)

So you hoist the "I am a martyr" flag as an attention seeking ploy? Not a chance. I moved the thread as it had become one of feedback not announcement. I would assume you will simply post stuff designed to stretch limits and aggravate mods so eventually you can appear tough I suppose. Why dont you do something useful and post a build thread or go advise a new person ? If you like this place drop the F lee bailey act and go talk about rockets. Over seven hundred people are doing it practically every day here without whining.
Cheers
fred

[Peartree]

Why is the one sided belittling and namecalling still there for all to see in the MMX thread? I was pointing out an infraction to the NAR/CAR code that he had previously chastised me about, and he went off. The only thing that was removed from that thread was the evidence that he was advocating the violation with instructions on how to do it. :confused:

It could be that we forgot and it could be that we are really trying not to be so heavy handed about carving up posts with our editing. If you think it needs a second look, just remind me where to look and we'll (the mods) talk about it.

[Fred22]

Ok, I'll go into the corner and shut up now.

Dont shut up just say something useful. You used to design rockets so talk about that :) Had some good designs if I rmemeber correctly.
Cheers
Fred

[kjohnson]

And as soon as I get this bloody hobby room cleaned up, I'll start putting up build threads. Hopefully, I'll have some launch photos tomorrow night to put up. We're flying tomorrow, so I should have some good ones.

Like an Anubus?

kj

[MysticalRockets]

Like an Anubus?

kj

I so wish I could release those now. Its a money thing. I was just about set last March, but then my company decided to screw around with the labor laws and fire me unlawfully. Since then, work has been far and few between.

And yes, I did seek legal council.

Maybe I'll just set up an Ebay auction for 10.00 each for the startup costs. I could do it with 500 people... hrmm... offer a nice signed thank you letter and maybe a nice gift after it gets going...

Hrmm... getting ideas.... gears turning... hamster is going to have a heart attack...

:D

[MysticalRockets]

Dont shut up just say something useful. You used to design rockets so talk about that :) Had some good designs if I rmemeber correctly.
Cheers
Fred

You got it. Gimme a few days to get some pics and such. I do have vids though. I could put those up...

[Fred22]

If Fred's message is (paraphrasing) "Do not even think of posting here if the subject may be an activity against NAR/CAR safety codes"....then I believe that will work against rocket safety in general.

If some is thinking about a potentially unsafe modification like:
1. Modifying MMX motors for multistage duty
2. Modifying ejection charges
etc etc...

It is much preferable to let that person post (or search previous posts) on the subject to gather as much information as possible so that he/she can be exposed to arguments on specifically why it shouldn't be tried, rather than banish all possible views on this which may lead people to try it because they is no public information on the subject.

For this reason I believe responsible less or unmoderated forums serve public safety better in this regard. I have yet to see a post on RP or N3 where the poster suggested an activity that might be dangerous was not enlightened to the dangers of what he/she was suggesting.

And in what manner were they enlightened?

[Fred22]

An open note to Fred


Fred -

In several conversations with you over time I have come to the conclusion that you and I will probably not agree an many bits of philosophy. That is OK, nobody says we have to. However your twisting my words to state (and these are paraphrased) is not appreciated:


I think N3 is a shining example of a forum -> No, I simply stated that there were alternative methods (and provided an example) to dealing with safety discussions that did not require post removal. Yes, there are people I like there and I do share ideas in a manner there not appropriate here. That is why there are different forums. They set different rules for different communities.

That I asserted to speak for any part of the community -> No, I related my observations from other rocketry portals. Rocketry Planet, N3, ROL, (not much from YORF -> mostly because the choice of fonts and colors is hard for me to read). Everything I wrote was my opinion based on my observation.

That riducle and embarrassment is a useful teaching tool - I do not advocate ridicule in any way when dealing with beginners. If a beginner posts the same stupid thing over and over, yes, I might get terse. There was a young man on TRF1.0 named Jordan Raice who had the remarkable ability to invoke that sort of response out of me. What I do advocate is making sure every possible bit of information that will assist the beginner, and those around them at all levels of experience, to recognize, explain, and deal with a potential safety violation.


Your repeatedly state, and again I paraphrase: "If you don't like my way, find someplace else" And I decidedly chose the words "MY WAY" as your discourse indicates that is your point of view. Why do you take this stance? With a full team of Moderators (as John P. indicated), Having a few cowboys might actually be a good thing.

You ask about my hubris, OK perhaps. However I was part of the TRF community well before most of the folk in the current administrative community were. That gives me, in some small, part a sense of history and perhaps the ability to note some historical trending.

I firmly stand by my assertion that there are some seriously talented rocketry enthusiasts who choose to stay away from TRF due to the site management methodology you so fervently defend. That you choose policy over knowledge is somewhat disappointing.

My intent was to offer polite commentary from my point of view toward some opportunity to appeal to a wider segment of the high power community. It is of course your choice whether or not to accept those ideas. As it also is your choice to take a highly defensive stance and respond in a manner just this side of personal attacks.

It is obvious I failed to make my case. and even more so considering the action taken with this discussion. As Troy basically stated, what you have done/said hurts me only if I choose to let it do so. I do not.



On a closing note -> you essentially challenge me to go do a build thread or some such. I challenge you right back. Demonstrate that your hobby is indeed sport rocketry and not site moderation. I'll do the same and demonstrate my hobby is sport rocketry and not critiquing TRF policy.

Al you use words like capricious and hubris to decribe me and my actions and this constitutes polite commentary? You anaylse my posts word for word and then object when I do the same?
My hobby was and is LPR. My business and family in the last four monthes have claimed most of my time. I will accept you challenge tommorrow. I. Have a Hawks hobby Bomarc and I fully hope you advice. You're a smart fella and I hope to benefit from that.The only reason I moderate this board is to help. If I. Sound less then diplomatic blame it on ten years in the army being raised in very modest circumstances and little time. For fun as I try to get my business to grow. Let's do this as I could use some fun :)

[MarkII]

I don't think that it reflects well on the forum when a moderator gets into a ******* match with a forum member. And that's what seems to be happening here. I think that you both need to let the matter drop. Just let it go.

Mark \\.

[Fred22]

I don't think that it reflects well on the forum when a moderator gets into a ******* match with a forum member. And that's what seems to be happening here. I think that you both need to let the matter drop. Just let it go.

Mark \\.

I agree and this ones now over :)

[H_Rocket]

Done

I launched and watched my only football game of the year today.

Tomorrow I pick something to build and post. First to the pad with a completed rocket wins...


I'll even go LPR to make it even. You have the upper hand there as it has been 2 years since I built anything with a MMT less than 29mm.

[jderimig]

And in what manner were they enlightened?

en·light·en (n-ltn)
tr.v. en·light·ened, en·light·en·ing, en·light·ens
2. To give information to; inform or instruct.

Sometimes the enlightenment was in the form a simple "That's dangerous and here is why.....". Other times its more subtle like "Make sure you record this in video for your heirs to see".

[Peartree]

This horse is dead. Leave it lay.

[jderimig]

This horse is dead. Leave it lay.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust......

[Fred22]

Well Al it's on in the MPR section :) I am about to do my BOMARC. I tried to meet you halfway :)
Cheers
fred

[Fred22]

I am also closing this thread now as the silly level is gone way to high. Feel free to PM me about it.
Cheers
fred