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?

 

[rmpitzer]

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... )

 

[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... )

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...

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

Mark \\.