unreasonable Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Wake up and find that the FM thread is locked just as I think can (probably ) see why people are talking past one another. Rama et al are taking a frequentist position with respect to probability, which assumes an appropriate distribution depending on the phenomenon. Samples build up a confidence according to some quantified rules within (rather arbitrary) margins, which is why they want to disallow that small or partially defined samples that fall outside these margins can carry useful information content. Others are taking a bayesian approach, which requires a prior probability for any uncertain statement based on current knowledge and then modifies it with each individual new sample, so that even a sample size of one can carry information. The certainty that you reach is up to you. Frequentist interpretations are essentially limit cases and are valid in carefully defined situations, unfortunately modeling rare WW2 aircraft is not one of them since sample sizes are small and conditions poorly specified. A Bayesian approach, in contrast, is completely general and can be applied to any probability calculation. Perhaps someone will disagree with my characterization: it really does not matter, this is an interesting subject well worth researching for anyone who is interested in what it actually means to test or quantify probabilities, better to read about it in an external source where no-one has an axe to grind. 1
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 All I can hear is Miss Othmore's voice becuase I am not technical enough for this discussion.
Marauder Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Completely untechnical statement from someone doing statistical evaluations for a living: Statistics are no substitute for common sense. 1
Yakdriver Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) well i don't do any of this, but i still understood the different approaches to the same subject. So you propose to the gentlemen involved to view FM development from a Bayesian PoV, and also propose to take the discussion to a "place" other than here. what would give a lot of sense to your unreasonable post, is if you could give the involved FM-debaters a few links to where their discussion can be held/ is more welcome? where should they go? yay, i am smart!...or i had too much coffee.Hmm.Must be the coffee. [Edited] OK... enough of this kind of stuff from you... Edited March 3, 2015 by Bearcat
unreasonable Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 well i don't do any of this, but i still understood the different approaches to the same subject. So you propose to the gentlemen involved to view FM development from a Bayesian PoV, and also propose to take the discussion to a "place" other than here. what would give a lot of sense to your unreasonable post, is if you could give the involved FM-debaters a few links to where their discussion can be held/ is more welcome? where should they go? yay, i am smart! ...or i had too much coffee. Hmm. Must be the coffee. cuz' i ain notin' but a dumcunt. (jim jeffries) Yakdriver, I suggested that they READ about it somewhere else, in relevant books, articles or web pages, so they can make up their individual minds about when Bayesian vs frequentist statistics are applicable in peace and quiet. After that they can argue about applications to FM testing to their heart's content in the forums as far as I am concerned, not that I decide. As long as everyone states the basis of any statistical claims, no-one should claim a privileged position to be the high priest of statistical method and attempt to shut down any discussion not to his liking. [should not, but still probably will, prior p = 0.8]
Rama Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Others are taking a bayesian approach, which requires a prior probability for any uncertain statement based on current knowledge and then modifies it with each individual new sample, so that even a sample size of one can carry information. The certainty that you reach is up to you. I agree that the bayesian approach is very attractive. But... the drawback of it is that everyone making research about WWII plane performances will set up his own prior probabilities to a given set of "anecdotal evidences", according to his own expertise and mental representation of the "WWII plane piloting feeling".... and will disagree with others about the same set of "anecdotal evidences". The result is to feed the FM debates on forum, up to the inevitable neverending loop (and I can't see any other possible concrete result, unless the researcher works in the same lab or team and accept to redefine prior probabilities, and so to doubt and to be skeptic about their own perceptions). Everybody (me included), who has read lots of WWII aviation books (historical studies, pilot diaries, novels, etc....) is building his own mental representation of what should be the "WWII pilot reality", and is pleased with it (that's one of the reason one is interested in "WWII combat flight sim". This representation is different for everybody, to stay coherent with their different real exeperiences (not directly related to "WWII pilot reality", but indirectly by engineering knowledge, piloting knowledge, other kind of knowledge....). So everybody has some very good personal reason to believe in his way to "setup prior probablities", and to stick to it. The hard part, and not attractive at all, is to put aside this mental representation (despite the attrativeness of it), to be skeptic and doubt about all the evident interpretations of "anecdotal evidences" to try find the real pieces of meaningfull information in it. To get rid of the preconcieved "knowledge" is the hardest thing to do... even for scientists. in carefully defined situations, unfortunately modeling rare WW2 aircraft is not one of them I disagree with that. For the most common WW2 aircrafts (the one that are generally displayed in WWI flight sims), there are quantities of data available, that can be found in factories archives, air force archives (about flight tests, commissioning tests, captured aircraft tests, etc...), state archives, etc.... There's enough to build a reasonably accurate performances set. That's where the sim users may really help the dev, who certainly have the capacity to collect some archives, but not all (Some archives, actually in private founds, are not really accessible), and can't use enough Manpower to retrieve all what can be. If that's done, then almost all the "anecdotal évidences", which are mostly (vaguely) related to the same performances, can be discarded, since all the information you could retrieve form them can be found, more easilly, with much less interpretation problems, in the archives.
AbortedMan Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 First thing that comes to mind when reading OP...Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite. Do you like Huey Lewis and the news? Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in '83,I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consimante professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far much more bitter, cynical sense of humour. In '87, Huey released Fore, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip to be Square", a song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself. 4
=LD=Penshoon Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 First thing that comes to mind when reading OP...Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite. Do you like Huey Lewis and the news? Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in '83,I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consimante professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far much more bitter, cynical sense of humour. In '87, Huey released Fore, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip to be Square", a song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself. 1
unreasonable Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I have no body parts in my apartment. (Except mine). Edit: missed the opportunity for a joke here: "I may have the head of an old man, but I have the heart of a young man, which I keep in a jar in my bedroom". Good book btw, never watched the film. Edited March 3, 2015 by unreasonable
unreasonable Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 @Rama - I understand your point of view. However part of your post, raises another reason why I was unhappy with the attempts, as I see it, to shut down "anecdotal" evidence in FM discussions, which has to do with the function of the forum. If a specific area is wanted where those who are doing testing of the current FM build against set conditions is wanted, fine. Similarly for those seeking to share and compare primary source documents. Such a forum area or threads can be clearly marked, and I believe the vast majority of people respect those sorts of limits. I think it would be better to leave these in the forum rather than go to PMs, since at least others can still watch, but that is another option. Turning to the General Discussion area, however, I believe it also serves a different purpose. There is a constant turnover of people coming into flight sims, with more or less background in relevant RL experience and education. The FM debates which you seem to find so frustrating, because you have seen them so many times before and expect them to add no new knowledge to the community, often add a great deal of knowledge to some of the people taking part in them. They may go on to be the new blood needed as the old Grognards die off. You might think that people would be better advised to get their education in some other more structured form. Actually I would think that too, to a degree, but the interaction of discussion is often more stimulating than simply reading a book. I have learned a great deal about many subjects through taking part in, or just reading discussions in flight-sim forums since I started on RB3D. Especially when I include the additional research that I was prompted to do by trying to understand someone else's pov, find a relevant piece of information or frame an argument in a clear way. In other words, the benefits from FM discussions are not just measured in the maximum extent of community knowledge: they also should take into account how many people partake of that knowledge. Keeping discussion open will impose some costs on the most knowledgeable people, but if they have defined places where more strictly limited discussions can take place where hoi polloi like me can watch, learn but not get in the way, all they have to do is stay out of the free wheeling areas if they are not in the mood to act as guides. Closing discussion will often lead to individuals feeling rebuffed and excluded: hardly ideal for a struggling genre. Complaints of this nature crop up quite often in this forum (no I have not counted them ) and I believe this is unhealthy and unnecessary.
CaK_Rumcajs Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I'm blown away by how reasonable unreasonable is. Also I'm sure there are qualitative records that are usable to build FMs or that at least should be taken into account when judging the outcome of simulation. Probably most of us understand that pilot reports about who/which plane they were able to catch and easily out turn, out climb, out smart are irrelevant. But claims like "We didn't like flying our Yaks above 4000m because of lack of altitude performance comparing to Messers" are importatnt. If the model gives a different picture then it's a good time to check it again. Also subjective remarks about difficulty to control given AC are usable. For example I find the LaGG3 in BOS very pleasant to fly. It's not a great dogfighter but it's pleasure to fly it. There is no difficulty to control it in the air whatsoever. But I suppose this plane to be a difficult ride. If the sim brings an LaGG 3 interpretation that doesn't sport most accented real world shotcomings then there is something important that the simulation doesn't take into account. I do not know what it is but it seems to be important for the final outcome. I know, no hard data. Is it of low importance because of lack of data? Not in my eyes. I'd love to see a dev maintained page on the forum that would list performance goals for individual aircraft. No need to post all data the simulation processes. But main characterictics would certainly help. Something like ROF has. Max speed, time to climb or better speed and climb performance envelopes. Openess is something that I do not see here. Like it was secret or prohibited to see and speak about. And openess seems to be crucial for some of us.
Rama Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 the attempts, as I see it, to shut down "anecdotal" evidence in FM discussions. It was never my goal to try to shut down "anecdotal évidences" in FM discussions. It would be equivalent as trying to shut down all FM discussions, something not achievable by a simple discussion (and I'm usually too lazy to try to achieve what can't be done). Now, I just wanted to show, probably too loudly, to those that display (also loudly) some kind of "astonishment" for the non-use of the "truth" of these anecdotal-evidences driven FM discussions, that they're in fact asking the dev to square the circle.... And also, knowledge epistemology is one of my favorite subject.... sorry for that. Closing discussion will often lead to individuals feeling rebuffed and excluded: hardly ideal for a struggling genre.. Well, I hope that you understand that Bearcat closed the discussion, not because of the subject discussed, but because name calling started to fly all over At least, this is how I understand it. That's also the problem with the never-ending FM discussions. At some point, it start to become a struggling fest. It may be the Policy of some forums to allows these battles. It's not the Policy of this forum. Individuals that are taunted in forum battles also do feel rebuffed and excluded.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 It was never my goal to try to shut down "anecdotal évidences" in FM discussions. It would be equivalent as trying to shut down all FM discussions, something not achievable by a simple discussion (and I'm usually too lazy to try to achieve what can't be done). Now, I just wanted to show, probably too loudly, to those that display (also loudly) some kind of "astonishment" for the non-use of the "truth" of these anecdotal-evidences driven FM discussions, that they're in fact asking the dev to square the circle.... And also, knowledge epistemology is one of my favorite subject.... sorry for that. Well, I hope that you understand that Bearcat closed the discussion, not because of the subject discussed, but because name calling started to fly all over At least, this is how I understand it. That's also the problem with the never-ending FM discussions. At some point, it start to become a struggling fest. It may be the Policy of some forums to allows these battles. It's not the Policy of this forum. Individuals that are taunted in forum battles also do feel rebuffed and excluded. As a third party, this had become most apparent in the last two pages. But never fear, I'm sure we are less than two weeks from the next Fw thread!
Yakdriver Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I'm blown away by how reasonable unreasonable Yea, the man is a master of camouflage...enjoying this one.not the FM guy per se, but the open, option, exchange, education aspects sound solid.
SharpeXB Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Something to help the rest of us dummies here What's Bayesian? Me know new word now! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability Edited March 3, 2015 by SharpeXB
BraveSirRobin Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Completely untechnical statement from someone doing statistical evaluations for a living: Statistics are no substitute for common sense. Whose common sense are you referring to? I've seen plenty of clueless people who think they're right about something because they have complete certainty about their own common sense.
JtD Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 For the most common WW2 aircrafts (the one that are generally displayed in WWI flight sims), there are quantities of data available, that can be found in factories archives, air force archives (about flight tests, commissioning tests, captured aircraft tests, etc...), state archives, etc.... There's enough to build a reasonably accurate performances set. In other words, you've never programmed a flight model for a WW2 aircraft. If you did, you wouldn't make such a claim. Plus, modelling aircraft (which is what unreasonable wrote and you disagreed with) is not just limited to some performance figures. Try handling characteristics. Do you think there is reliably quantified data on the Fw190's high speed snap roll or P-40 spinning characteristics?
SKG51_robtek Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 A really good FM gives the feeling of anecdotal evidence within the margins of the hard numbers. I.e. the Spitfire Mk I is, from the numbers, easily able to outturn the Bf109 E3. Yet the Bf109 gave the pilots such a stable and forgiving feeling of flight at the limits, that they were able to outturn the Spitfire in some cases, because the Spitfire became unforgiving at the limits (stall) so that the pilots didn't risk to reach them.
Rama Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 In other words, you've never programmed a flight model for a WW2 aircraft. Correct, but I collected data for peoples who did. BTW, did you programm a flightmodel for a WW2 aircraft? Do you think there is reliably quantified data on the Fw190's high speed snap roll or P-40 spinning characteristics? Don't know for Fw190 high speed snap roll, but yes, I think at least some factory test flight data can be found. Maybe I'm wrong, but you don't know. For the P-40 spinning characteristices, yes, they are plenty of descriptive and quantitative data, for almost all the versions, data include: - Loading conditions (load description and weight) for different tests - description of methods to enter spins - attitude angle change at spin start for both left and right spins - governs "natural" direction tendencies in the spin, while placed to neutral and released - Number of turns to recover spin (depending on method used) - Altitude lost during 1 spin turn, and during the full spin until recovery - Attitude and speed (IAS) of the plane at spin recovery And more.. depending if the test is a factory test, a war department air corps test, etc... So for the P40 Spin, I don't have to think, the documents are easy to find.
=CFC=Conky Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I have it on good authority that 83% of all statistics are made up... 1
JtD Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 BTW, did you programm a flightmodel for a WW2 aircraft?Yes. For the P-40 spinning characteristices, yes, they are plenty of descriptive and quantitative data, for almost all the versions, data include: What's the mean and variance of the altitude lost for getting a P-40F out of an inverted spin to the right with a two square foot hole in the left wing? Spin entered at 4g at the top of a loop due to unexpected reversal of rudder.
71st_AH_Mastiff Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 oh another FM dispute at first I thought it was that Chinese muscle guy selling something again.. 1
Rama Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 the altitude lost for getting a P-40F out of an inverted spin to the right with a two square foot hole in the left wing? Spin entered at 4g at the top of a loop due to unexpected reversal of rudder. And of course you have an anecdotal evidence that will proove us that the altitude loss in this condition was 3800 ft? Don't feel any need to reply... it's not a question.
JtD Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 And why would you care? I'm pretty sure you would disregard the report of a pilot who had that happen in combat - based on all the quantitative data you don't have.
Rama Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Ok, proove me that you can answer your question (the altitude loss in this condition), with an anecdotal evidence.... BTW... the only way you could proove it is if the pilot has provided a quantitative measurement, since it would mean that the pilot had read the altimeter before the spin and at recovery.... so that he had "measured" the altitude loss.... and so has provided us a quantitative data which can be added to the others.
unreasonable Posted March 4, 2015 Author Posted March 4, 2015 It was never my goal to try to shut down "anecdotal évidences" in FM discussions. It would be equivalent as trying to shut down all FM discussions, something not achievable by a simple discussion (and I'm usually too lazy to try to achieve what can't be done). Now, I just wanted to show, probably too loudly, to those that display (also loudly) some kind of "astonishment" for the non-use of the "truth" of these anecdotal-evidences driven FM discussions, that they're in fact asking the dev to square the circle.... And also, knowledge epistemology is one of my favorite subject.... sorry for that. Well, I hope that you understand that Bearcat closed the discussion, not because of the subject discussed, but because name calling started to fly all over At least, this is how I understand it. That's also the problem with the never-ending FM discussions. At some point, it start to become a struggling fest. It may be the Policy of some forums to allows these battles. It's not the Policy of this forum. Individuals that are taunted in forum battles also do feel rebuffed and excluded. I have no problem with Bearcat closing the old thread since it had turned nasty. The question is why had that happened. As I see it the cause of the problem was not people posting anecdotal evidence or even others responding by pointing out the difficulty of making useful generalizations from such evidence. The problem blew up when you started to assert, dogmatically, that such discussion had no information content and contributed nothing to a FM discussion, and only demonstrated the ignorance of the people making the claims. This IMHO is what led to people feeling taunted, rebuffed and excluded, that is certainly how I felt and that is a simple fact. Now I am not interested in another hundred line analysis on who said what and when, parsing each sentence in the manner most calculated to make me look silly. You can do that if you want I will not reply, since my subjective impression of the old thread will remain unchanged. Anyway it is pointless: I am quite capable of making myself look silly without your help. Now I may have misnamed my thread, since I never intended it to be a purely epistemological discussion. [ Epistemology is the study of knowledge, as opposed to Ontology which is the study of the nature of reality, for those dear readers who have never had the pleasure of studying philosophy]. My goal in this thread was to seek a way in which: 1) Anyone who wants to can participate in FM discussions that involve subjective, anecdotal or qualitative issues 2) Those engaged in controlled quantitative testing or comparison of source documents can do so without having their threads cluttered 3) No-one feels taunted, rebuffed or excluded, whether newbies immersing themselves in the Joy of Flight for the first time or ancient veterans of a thousand FM battles I am not expecting the impossible: problems will crop up. Now as I see it Rama, as a clever, well informed and influential member of the community, you can be part of the problem or part of the solution, your choice.
unreasonable Posted March 4, 2015 Author Posted March 4, 2015 Edit to above post: "hundred line analysis" point not referring to Aeroaces posts, since he was at least addressing my points in a way that gave them fair consideration.
JtD Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Ok, proove me that you can answer your question (the altitude loss in this condition), with an anecdotal evidence.... BTW... the only way you could proove it is if the pilot has provided a quantitative measurement, since it would mean that the pilot had read the altimeter before the spin and at recovery.... so that he had "measured" the altitude loss.... and so has provided us a quantitative data which can be added to the others. See, I knew you were going to say that - essentially you are now stating that everything is quantitative. Even anecdotal evidence. In other words, anecdotes may contain usable information.
Rama Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 essentially you are now stating that everything is quantitative. So an altitude difference isn't a quantity? Since when?
NachtJaeger110 Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I once talked to someone who programs flight simulators for pilot training at Diamond Simulation. For a few months now there is one of theirs in the Deutsches Museum in Munich. I had the opportunity to fly a few rounds in it. Felt very very real. Of course this is a 50.000 Dollar device that has motors to simulate control Forces and the Cockpit section is taken from the real aircraft. He said that they always have to fine tune it with pilots who have flown the real aircraft. So even real training-simulators depend heavily on pilot opinion and experience. Besides, there are the Military Specifications for flying Qualities of Piloted Aircraft (e.g. the MIL-F8785C). After WW2 this was and still is the attempt to quantify handling characteristics. New aircraft must then proof that they meet These requirements. For example the cooper-harper scale is a means to quantify control feel. But at the core there is still pilot opinion.
361fundahl Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Well said. We are all human observers, after all.
CaK_Rumcajs Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Well said. We are all human observers, after all. True. And not only that. We are also human consumers which is difficult to understand for some and even more difficult to handle. No pun intended. It's simply true we are difficult to satisfy.
Rama Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 My goal in this thread was to seek a way in which: 1) Anyone who wants to can participate in FM discussions that involve subjective, anecdotal or qualitative issues 2) Those engaged in controlled quantitative testing or comparison of source documents can do so without having their threads cluttered 3) No-one feels taunted, rebuffed or excluded, whether newbies immersing themselves in the Joy of Flight for the first time or ancient veterans of a thousand FM battles I am not expecting the impossible: problems will crop up. Now as I see it Rama, as a clever, well informed and influential member of the community, you can be part of the problem or part of the solution, your choice. 1) So far, nobody forbide anybody to participate in FM discussions and to write subjective, anecdotal or qualitative stuff. 2) Off-topic is something you find in every thread. When the mods try to limit the off-topic, then the forum crowd is screamming about censorship, super-heavy moderation, etc.... If you want to say I was on the off-topic border in the closed thread, Yes, you'll be right (some would see it Inside the limit, other would see it outside) 3) You're asking for the impossible. If the topics are not moderated, then some will be (no just feel..) taunted, and so will feel rebuffed or excluded. If the topic is moderated to avoid off-topic, then some (taunters or not) will feel rebuffed or excluded. Finally the sentence "you can be part of the problem or part of the solution" is over-simplified... since what's a problem for some is a solution for others, so depending on the poster/writer/participant, you will be on both sides... and even in both at the same time. As an example, aside your feelings, your opinion is that my (insert any qualificative you find appropriate) written opinion is the main responsible tor the closing of the other thread..... I tend to think that everybody is directly responsible of his own behavior, and not of the other's behavior.... and I'm sure some others think the same. So yes, I would say you're expecting the impossible..... but maye it's just that I'm not clever enough...
unreasonable Posted March 5, 2015 Author Posted March 5, 2015 OK last try to get over what I am suggesting. Currently the forum has: 1) A rule against political threads. Fair enough in my view, they get nasty quickly, there are other places people can have political debates, this is a sensible pragmatic decision to limit speech. 2) It has specialist sub-forums. If people post on-topic in these, no-one will be in their rights to say "subject is inadmissible". Generally used by those with a specific interest, and general readers seem to respect that active participants should be left alone to get on with what they are doing. 3) It has a free topic sub forum. Anything goes as long as it is not against rule 1 or other general forum rules. Generally used for light hearted topics only marginally related to BoS. 4) It has a General sub forum. Everyone sees this, it tends to set the tone. People feel free to post on-topic in any thread; I have always liked the way you try to prevent people being "shouted down" just because they express an unpopular opinion. Yet in FM discussions this does seem to be happening, making it very difficult for certain kinds of discussion to take place in a measured tone. To me this is a shame, as I believe FM discussions do serve useful roles in a flight-sim forum. So my suggestion is that there should be a Specialist FM sub-forum, with three sections for discussion of source material, quantitative testing, and qualitative and subjective comparisons. FM discussions that crop up elsewhere can be redirected to the appropriate place. Moderation can be stricter because what counts as OT is more clearly defined. I am aware that this is not a panacea; we will still see some messy squabbles, but given that FM discussions are going to happen whether you like it or not, it seems reasonable to help by providing a bit more structure. Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. You can help to improve the situation because of your status, I cannot.
=EXPEND=Dendro Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 FM arguments...... they never make a difference to the GAME. Endless arguing and data that 99% of people don't understand...... yawn.
Recommended Posts