Forum Rules 8.0 - ALL users please read

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know that we are all entitled to a bit of privacy but, how do we know who has been in the industry be it engineering or design etc? I know that nothing in life is exactly how it seems, in my day on Chieftain for example, we had a belief in our vehicles (Apart from that bleeping engine) that they would do whatever job we needed them to do. Fact is that the side armour was less useful than that on a late war Panther etc. What a revelation that was. Basically, I have armoured vehicle hands on experience but how can I prove that? People suggest that a reduced crew or various other changes would be beneficial but having operated these vehicles (Without having to take charge of 'wingman vehicles') I can state the increased work load will reduce efficiency of a unit below the acceptable. Just a few examples but you get my drift. Is there some way to indicate the status of those with relevant experience? It might help.
I know, nothing perfect is possible and frankly, that the system works as well as it does is testimony to those who run the system and manage our excesses. Thank you, Sir.
 
Some forum members are (former/current) engineers with years of industry experience, or respected journalists in their fields. Be respectful of their knowledge and experience where appropriate.
Click to expand...
I guess I wanted to
  1. emphasise some people here are really knowledgeable in their field, so be respectful in general and don't assume the person you are arguing with is a clueless amateur.
  2. make it clear that some authors/engineers/etc have 'outed' themselves and you should be respectful of their knowledge and experience in their field in particular.
We could have badges or titles for users based on real-world experience, but obviously I can't easily verify that you really were in the Army for example.
 
Last edited:
sgeorges4 said:
what the problem with reposting picture exactly?
Click to expand...

Re-attaching pictures already posted into a new topic increases the amount of disk space used on the server. Disk space is not infinite. If you want to crosspost a picture already uploaded to the server, to another topic, post as a link to the existing picture.


sgeorges4 said:
Also should I by respectful of someone knowledge if I know they have spread false information?
Click to expand...
You should always try to be respectful of others even if you disagree with them. I don't always manage it myself, but its a good ideal to work towards. Accusing someone of knowingly spreading false information is a serious allegation requiring substantive proof - people can be factually incorrect or hold differing opinions without attributing malicious intent.

If you believe someone is wrong, then say so respectfully. Note I said respect "where appropriate". Nobody is infallible or an expert on everything. Maybe don't pick an engineering argument on the B-2 with an engineer who worked on the B-2, but don't uncritically believe the same engineer on things outside their field of expertise.
 
Read and agreed to. *GRIN* And,. yes, I was an engineer involved with developing the B-2, among other aircraft over a 40+ year career.
 
Understood.

My own involvement in projects relevant to this site is mostly academic, save for a few years early in my career around the edges of US Navy ship procurement policy.
 
I'm strictly an amateur, with 1 year of an Aeronautical Engineering degree, a lifetime interest in aviation, and a published book.
 
Read. I'd like some clarification about theoretical and speculative projects - particularly, I like discussing various concepts, trends and fads in aircraft design, as well as limiting factors behind design compromises... is this appropriate there, in the alternative history forum, or only in the bar?

For instance, if I wanted to discuss the reasons why retractable horizontal stabilisers have not been pursued (and look for examples of proposals for such a design) - where would be appropriate? Is it permissible to post one's own aerodynamic or computer models for comparison with an existing design (or analysis of it)?
 
Avimimus said:
Read. I'd like some clarification about theoretical and speculative projects - particularly, I like discussing various concepts, trends and fads in aircraft design, as well as limiting factors behind design compromises... is this appropriate there, in the alternative history forum, or only in the bar?

For instance, if I wanted to discuss the reasons why retractable horizontal stabilisers have not been pursued (and look for examples of proposals for such a design) - where would be appropriate? Is it permissible to post one's own aerodynamic or computer models for comparison with an existing design (or analysis of it)?
Click to expand...
To be honest, the purpose of that section was to take those type of projects (generic or artistic ones) out of the main forum sections and stop polluting them.

I would suggest Aerospace would be appropriate for general discussion of aerospace technology like the ones you mention.
 
overscan said:
Some of our older members in particular are actively turned off from the forum by rudeness, lack of respect and pointless slanging matches, and some valuable former engineers have been lost from the forum's membership
Click to expand...

That's sad. Who?
 
marauder2048 said:
overscan said:
Some of our older members in particular are actively turned off from the forum by rudeness, lack of respect and pointless slanging matches, and some valuable former engineers have been lost from the forum's membership
Click to expand...

That's sad. Who?
Click to expand...
Two older British engineers both visited the forum some years ago but were put off by some vulgar language and rudeness. That’s when the rule was added.
 
overscan said:
Rules updated!

Please take a minute to read, especially if you haven't read the rules before.
Click to expand...
Read. As for badges, "we don't need no stinking badges" :) Might some in industry prefer some anonymity or at least not glaringly note they are such?

I want to take this opportunity again to thank you for all you've done and continue to do to make SPF what it is and give us a platform to share and learn from.

Thanks! Mark
 
Duly read and noted.
Sorry for some past mishaps.
Have used this site for many years now. Hope have not freeloaded too much. It beats most of the books in my library.
 
uk 75 said:
Duly read and noted.
Sorry for some past mishaps.
Have used this site for many years now. Hope have not freeloaded too much. It beats most of the books in my library.
Click to expand...
Ralph, your only crime is an unreasonable attachment to the AVS and similar technical 'wunderwaffen' of the 1960s and 70s. It's a common affliction :)
 
lastdingo said:
I would like to see the changes highlighted (colour).
Users learn most rules by observing others, not by reading them. Thus only the changes are really of interest.
Click to expand...
Could do, except I didn't, and its a bit late now. Maybe for Version 9. I've put a last modified date at the top.

However a lot of people have never read them. New starters get an automatic message which directs them to this topic, plus I tried a different method (notification).
 
Last edited:
overscan said:
However a lot of people have never read them. New starters get an automatic message which directs them to this topic, plus I tried a different method (notification).
Click to expand...
I saw the auto message and visited the thread after I logged in. The auto message remains after that, the only difference it says my username instead of guest. By leaving a post here will the auto message now not appear again, I did use the 'X' button to close it down but it still comes back.
 
overscan said:
Avimimus said:
Read. I'd like some clarification about theoretical and speculative projects - particularly, I like discussing various concepts, trends and fads in aircraft design, as well as limiting factors behind design compromises... is this appropriate there, in the alternative history forum, or only in the bar?

For instance, if I wanted to discuss the reasons why retractable horizontal stabilisers have not been pursued (and look for examples of proposals for such a design) - where would be appropriate? Is it permissible to post one's own aerodynamic or computer models for comparison with an existing design (or analysis of it)?
Click to expand...
To be honest, the purpose of that section was to take those type of projects (generic or artistic ones) out of the main forum sections and stop polluting them.

I would suggest Aerospace would be appropriate for general discussion of aerospace technology like the ones you mention.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
marauder2048 said:
overscan said:
Some of our older members in particular are actively turned off from the forum by rudeness, lack of respect and pointless slanging matches, and some valuable former engineers have been lost from the forum's membership
Click to expand...

That's sad. Who?
Click to expand...

I might not be as august or valuable a member - but I can say that I was rather turned off at some points by people advocating summary executions (or mass murder). It always seemed a bit unsettling and off-topic to me. So it might not be a bad thing to have someone tighter rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom