Forum Non Technical issues

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

max steel wrote:People on this forum don't take interest in discussing US and China military developments. I've been updating them but hardly any feedback.

Well, there is a reason for that. The "military" developments between China and US have not yet reached their shooting war phase, at least to the extent that the public are aware of. As the current world war moves away from its phoney war stage and transitions into its real phase to reach to its conclusion in about 20 years, China and US military interactions would probably go through the shooting phase that would be a characteristic of any such war. During that phase the forum members would take interest in discussing the developments.

They've been saber-rattling in S.China already .I've posted my doubts regarding Russian Navy and USN defense system too but hardly got response.

max steel wrote:People on this forum don't take interest in discussing US and China military developments. I've been updating them but hardly any feedback.

some people like me only reading posts and writing if i had to add something informative.

I think we need thank button without limits per day or smth else. Too many people posting interesting info or content.

Agreed on that.  Simply a thanks button or thumbs up one or whatever (which is a counter for a post but not the entire user itself) could be ideal.  Something that tracks for the user as well the posts that had the most likes for it, when that user searches through his/her own profile would be nice.

sepheronx wrote:Agreed on that.  Simply a thanks button or thumbs up one or whatever (which is a counter for a post but not the entire user itself) could be ideal.  Something that tracks for the user as well the posts that had the most likes for it, when that user searches through his/her own profile would be nice.

x2

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Agreed on that.  Simply a thanks button or thumbs up one or whatever (which is a counter for a post but not the entire user itself) could be ideal.  Something that tracks for the user as well the posts that had the most likes for it, when that user searches through his/her own profile would be nice.

x2

How would we deal with the users that use multiple accounts, including their work accounts, to up-thank their own posts?

People on this forum don't take interest in discussing US and China military developments. I've been updating them but hardly any feedback.

Sorry Max, but I am not actually very interested in US equipment... or for that matter Chinese... or Turkish. I came here to find out more about Russian and Soviet equipment.I am not even interested in Ukrainian stuff post the end of the cold war.

george1 also does a great job of posting news items on a wide range of topics... some I do find interesting but it is not all about me... even if I am not interested some other member might find it interesting so I am happy that george1 and yourself take the time and effort to do so.

As a mod I read everything... even the boring economic BS stuff that really sends me off to sleep.

I do however like the new tech stuff... new companies, new businesses, new industries making Russia more independent and powerful.

GarryB wrote:

People on this forum don't take interest in discussing US and China military developments. I've been updating them but hardly any feedback.

Sorry Max, but I am not actually very interested in US equipment... or for that matter Chinese... or Turkish.  I came here to find out more about Russian and Soviet equipment.I am not even interested in Ukrainian stuff post the end of the cold war.

george1 also does a great job of posting news items on a wide range of topics... some I do find interesting but it is not all about me... even if I am not interested some other member might find it interesting so I am happy that george1 and yourself take the time and effort to do so.

As a mod I read everything... even the boring economic BS stuff that really sends me off to sleep.  

I do however like the new tech stuff... new companies, new businesses, new industries making Russia more independent and powerful.

I am glad that people such as I, Austin and KVS are your sleeping pill.

DTA wrote:

max steel wrote:People on this forum don't take interest in discussing US and China military developments. I've been updating them but hardly any feedback.

some people like me only reading posts and writing if i had to add something informative.

I think we need thank button without limits per day or smth else. Too many people posting interesting info or content.  

I fully agree, my exact thoughts.

The only thing that i see as some problem especially since one or two months is that we discuss everything but military stuff. Right now everyone is focused on syria and economies but this forum is in first row a military forum. We should reanimate the military subjects here, because if anyone comes to this forum they are always coming to read or discuss about military subjects rather than economy or politics, but i understand that we are very well interested and some quite educated about politics and want to engage there.

Those who're complaining about Double accounts what proof exactly you've to justify your allegation?

max steel wrote:Those who're complaining about Double accounts what proof exactly you've to justify your allegation?

Actually the accused of such things are very well known and have similiar way of writing or engaging in subjects other thing is that would be very easy to see if there are double accounts used which was asked already before but stayed unreplied if Vlad could just cheeck if someone violating and rigging voting and comments on this forum via multiple accounts.

Delete this user. Used prohibited username.

Can we please enforce that quoteceptions are prohibited unless they are necessary for keeping a context?

This flooding of lazy people not quoting a specific person is just cancerous to the eyes and floods the page unnecessary.

Werewolf wrote:Can we please enforce that quoteceptions are prohibited unless they are necessary for keeping a context?

This flooding of lazy people not quoting a specific person is just cancerous to the eyes and floods the page unnecessary.

What is a quoteception?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
What is a quoteception?

Spoiler:

That is a quoteception, dead quotes in quotes and in more quotes that just unnecessarly spams an entire page with quotes that users are not even refering to but just lazy to delete the unnecessary stuff out of their quote which they are refering to.

It is when someone quotes an entire post with multiple quotes unrelated to the one comment that was being replied to... especially a post with a lot of images or videos on it that takes ages to load.

When you reply so someone right click the reply button at the bottom of the thread and choose to open in new tab.

Then click between tabs and copy the comment you want to discuss and paste it into your post... highlight it and then click on the icon above that has the little speech bubbles on it called quote when you hold your mouse pointer over it. You don't have to type in the members name if you don't want to, but it will mean you are just quoting the text you want to talk about instead of an entire post.

BTW this is in the rules too.

In future I will edit posts and give warnings... but the warnings wont continue for ever...

The forum code of conduct rules should prescribe instant 4 week vacations for arguing with moderators. Some basic rules
are necessary to control trolling prats. Arguments between members who are not mods require a different set of rules, which
are already prescribed.

I know someone will claim that this will make this forum like the defunct militaryphotos. But children should learn how to behave.

kvs wrote:The forum code of conduct rules should prescribe instant 4 week vacations for arguing with moderators.    Some basic rules
are necessary to control trolling prats.    Arguments between members who are not mods require a different set of rules, which
are already prescribed.  

I know someone will claim that this will make this forum like the defunct militaryphotos.   But children should learn how to behave.

4 weeks is a bit steep but I agree 2 weeks sounds fair.

I think we need to clarify that arguing with a mod means refusing a mod request to conform to the rules of this forum... it does not mean a ban for not agreeing with a mod.

BTW welcome back RP... it has been a while...

This is just plain stupid.

We have the 5 following threads about Russian Naval Aviation :

- Russian Carrier air wing

- Russian Naval Aviation: News

- ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy

- Ka-52K for Russian Navy

- ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy

And I have not even mentioned the Kuznetsov thread and the Future Russian Aircraft Carriers thread,

Quite often, a number of the above threads are active at the same time.
This is fu**ing insane.

Can we please combine all these threads into one. It will make everybody's life easier.

Having all naval aviation discussions in just one thread is silly... just one navy thread and just put everything in there so you don't forget where some post of interest is...

That would mean having to read all about topics you might not be interested in just so you don't miss a post you might be interested in.

Naval and carrier aviation are not the same thing as the Russian Navy has plenty of shore and ship based aviation that does not operate from their single carrier.

If there are actually two threads on ASW aircraft for the Russian Navy then they certainly should be combined, but as far as I can see each thread covers different areas... the fact that several threads are active at the same time is a good thing because it means people are putting comments in threads where their posts are relevant rather than dumping them all in the same thread.

For a person interested in one area like carriers, it means they don't have to read through a whole lot of stuff they are not interested in to read about their topic of interest.

Like I say, we can combine everything into one big thread but that will mean having to read through all sorts of stuff you might not be interested in to get to stuff you are... the risk being missing something interesting...

We of course are open to specific threads being merged if their is too much overlap of their topic content, but I think a better idea would be to split off specific thread content from a general content thread and change the titles of each... for instance:

instead of: - Russian Carrier air wing
and
- Russian Naval Aviation: News

then change to "Russian carrier aviation" and "Russian naval non carrier aviation".

It is all of course open for discussion but I will move these posts to the appropriate thread... the forum non-technical issues thread in the announcements section.

GarryB wrote:

Having all naval aviation discussions in just one thread is silly... just one navy thread and just put everything in there so you don't forget where some post of interest is...

That would mean having to read all about topics you might not be interested in just so you don't miss a post you might be interested in.

.

So someone might be interested in opening the carrier air wing thread and not be interested in the Naval Aviation News thread.
Yeah right

Anybody interested in Naval aviation will open everyone of the threads I posted.

Like I say, we can combine everything into one big thread but that will mean having to read through all sorts of stuff you might not be interested in to get to stuff you are... the risk being missing something interesting... wrote:

The reason the Russia thread on mp.net was so popular and successful is because it combined everything. People loved it. It is easy to skip posts you might not be interested in. But in our case here we have to open every single thread to make sure we are not missing anything important/interesting. It is very time consuming. You and the other moderator have to do it anyway, I understand. It will be so much quicker for others to open one thread and skip the non interesting stuff.

I am not suggesting to combine everything into one giant naval thread, but hey, we have a million threads on this forum... Much bigger/popular forums have a smaller number of threads.

For a moment, stop seeing with the eyes of a moderator and look at things from the humble poster's perspective.

George1 wrote:ι made Russian Carrier air wing thread because there were general discussions about possible future russian carrier based aircrafts (of all kinds not only fighter, AWCS for example). It is excatly related to what you said "russian carrier naval aviation" actually.

Future russian aircraft carrier thread is related to designs of future RAC, their role, the number needed etc

Ad.Kuznetsov thread is a specified one for news of the only aircraft carrier of RuNavy (deployment in Syria, excersize, future upgrade)

Russian naval aviation thread covers general news about various helicopters and old aircrafts (su-33) of Russian Navy

ASW aircrafts covers a specific area of naval warfare, for example there is discussion for future ASW aircraft also

Perhaps we could merge Ka-52K to Russian Naval Aviation Thread

I agree with Garry, that we need specialized threads so as someone not to be lost in a general thread if he wants to look for info for some particular area of interest

i am open to other suggestions

I agree that sometimes a new specialized thread has to be opened regarding a hot topic that a distinct group of posters will be extremely interested in while others would not care.
At the same time, I accuse you (no offense) of opening new specialized threads when there is no need to do so. You get a few posts and the thread goes into dormant mode for months/years only to be resuscitated again for just one post.

i am open to other suggestions wrote:

You moderators have at your disposal a very good tool called "LOCK THREAD".
Please use it more often.

So someone might be interested in opening the carrier air wing thread and not be interested in the Naval Aviation News thread.
Yeah right

No, what I mean is that someone might be interested in the Admiral Kuznetsov specifically, and just want to read about that without reading about this new boat being built or future carriers to be built.

Others might want to talk about potential new aircraft for a new carrier.

The point is that a person can read the title and know what the thread is about... if they want to read about that subject and contribute they can open it... if not then they don't need to read through all those posts in that thread.

Over time if a thread dies or becomes more general then it could be locked or merged but if you have a thread about something that is not discussed for a year do you really think a brand new thread is a good idea or to reuse the old thread with previous discussions still in it.

Obviously raising the dead is a bad thing normally, but keeping lots of dead topics is not that great either.

Anybody interested in Naval aviation will open everyone of the threads I posted.

What if someone is not interested in Russian naval aviation in general... they just want to know what sort of state the Admiral K is in or when it can next be deployed. Or what the future of its air wing is, or what is going to be operating with it in 20 years time. Or they remember a comment about its overhaul schedule but can't remember which thread it might be in... looking through 20 Russian Aviation threads parts 1-20 would take rather more time than looking in the Admiral K thread.

I am not suggesting to combine everything into one giant naval thread, but hey, we have a million threads on this forum... Much bigger/popular forums have a smaller number of threads.

Thank you for giving us your opinion, it is appreciated and noted.

Are other members of the same mind or do you have a different view... please post here your view as that will dictate future actions of the mods.

If everyone agrees we can merge more threads and prescribe broader thread topics so each thread can cover a wider range of subjects within them.

We of course will keep the talking bollocks thread and anti putin rant thread and shift relevant posts into those sections as needed.

Have your say.

For a moment, stop seeing with the eyes of a moderator and look at things from the humble poster's perspective.

Happy to adapt to the members wishes, but I need to be sure it is what everyone thinks is the way they want this forum.

Personally, I am a forum user too and I prefer having more separate topics as it makes it easier for me to find useful old comments and information, but I admit if we broaden the topics then it makes my job easier because if the topics are broader then rants often become less off topic so would more likely remain where they were.

Again... up to you guys... we don't own this forum we just help enforce the rules.