Rules for Indoor Construction Group

From: Yuan Kang Lee <ykleetx_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:06:08 -0000

I believe it's a mistake to moderate this group too tightly. I think what Mark has done so far is good.

I believe discussions about how and how not to promote Indoor Free Flight are important. I believe that these discussions can get inappropriate -- so what should be done? I think the best solution is to simply let the "flame" die out. That is, simply ignore those discussions.

Why can't we individually filter out those posts that we don't want to follow? Look at the topic. Look at who is posting. Read a few posts to get the gist of the topic. Decide for yourself if you want to follow the topic. It is very easy to simply not read posts that you don't want to read.

I post a lot on this group, and I'm sure a few people are tired of my posts. If they don't like my posts, I hope they simply stop reading them and don't suggest that I change my posts.

Respectfully,

-Kang

--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, William Gowen <wdgowen@...> wrote:
>
> My recollection is that thus group was renamed a number of years ago
> because of fights breaking out over rules. I believe the renaming of the
> group was intended to focus discussions on the actual building and flying
> of indoor models. (Mark correct me if I'm wrong about this).
>
> I would personally like to see an adherence to this (extreme?) idea. I
> really don't care to try to post anything here when it's likely that
> another off topic fight is about to break out.
>
> I also think it's asinine to try to convince outdoor flyers to fly indoor
> freeflight. Every outdoor flyer I know is fully aware of indoor . If they
> want to fly indoor competitively or just for fun then there's nothing
> stopping them from doing it.
>
> On Jun 30, 2012 9:54 AM, "Mark F1diddler" <f1diddler_at_...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Don DeLoach <ddeloach@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Murph's point is that calling yourselves indoorists is simply
> unwise from the standpoint of appealing to a wider audience.
> > >
> > > Furthermore I'd bet there are a bunch more *FFers who fly indoor* than
> "indoorists". Does that fact worry the indoorists? Not sure, but it should.
> > >
> > > Don DeLoach
> >
> > Don D,
> > <<simply unwise>>
> > I presume you are also speaking for yourself, and also for "Murph." In no
> way is it unwise to reject a perfectly elegant and descriptive word due to
> your belief that such a word is not attractive enough and does not
> adequately tap dance for newcomers. If I were to run across a group calling
> themselves "The Mulvihists", I would note, "Wow, here's who I need to talk
> to if and when I want to try Mulvihill." Some people today crave genuine
> description and truth instead of marketing PR hype (your profession?) IF
> you want to package indoor differently, that's fine, do so, but when you
> continue to insist that everyone else needs to package it the way you and
> MMM wisdom dictates, then we will continue to fight you with words, since
> you are relentless also. One problem is, too much of such pulls down the
> overall interest of Indoor_Construction among those who check here. And a
> few people who do offer indoor content, such as Don S, get mad and leave
> (for the third time, now.) It's interesting to see how much power and
> influence each side ascribes to each other, when really that much power
> doesn't exist, and none of this in-fighting has much effect except on our
> nerves.
> >
> > In my little world, the antidote for bad ideas or analysis is to counter
> them with good ideas and better analysis. However, I throw this problem to
> the wisdom of this group (EXCLUDING the 2 Dons,) since in last bad thread 3
> members decided they were the moderator anyhow. What should be done about
> these existential arguements? Does it come down to the personalities
> involved? Should anyone be banned? If you propose new rule, how would you
> enforce it? Private mails are safer, perhaps. But whatever....
> > Thanks,
> > Mark B
> >
> >
>
Received on Sat Jun 30 2012 - 11:15:22 CEST