As there is directly related discussion above, I think it is more appropriate to post my reply from the current event thread here.
Contrarily, it's combination of petty intolerance and bad humour worthy of teenagers. And I know that the moderators of this forum are mature enough to know better. I now subscribe to the philosophy that, if you see an opinion that you think is dumb or wrong, sigh and move on, unless you actually have something solid to say in reply. You stay calmer and soon forget.
This place has taken a pronounced turn for the less tolerant over the past five years. And I would say that when the inevitable arguments over said word come up, most of the rancour and angst is caused by posters complaining about the usage of said word, not the people who originally used it. It has gradually changed this place from being very interesting to read during events to being more of a chore.
This is especially so when people want to redefine a word from its predominant usage, especially amongst the storm chasing community, to their own personal one. As a matter of fact, the filter change has wrecked a post I made last year which explained just that. It reflects badly on the moderators of this forum.
Thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughts here. I truly appreciate you bringing this discussion to a separate thread, rather than continuing it within the active event post. I want to be completely transparent: the change you're referring to was implemented by me, and me alone. Navigating the balance between fostering a welcoming environment for newcomers and maintaining a space for in-depth scientific discussion is a constant challenge.
It's wonderful when people join our forum seeking to understand the weather in their area. We all started somewhere, and those initial questions are often the spark that ignites a passion for meteorology. However, it can be frustrating when the line blurs between genuine curiosity and dismissive declarations, especially during active severe weather. It's particularly disheartening when someone declares an event a 'b-u-s-t' based solely on their local experience, ignoring the broader impacts and the valuable learning opportunities for others who are focusing on the atmospheric dynamics. Of course, when a forecast doesn't fully materialize, it's often a positive outcome for many.
While I understand your perspective on the filter change, I've decided to keep it in place for now. I believe the replacement phrases offer a more accurate and nuanced description of those situations and not such a trigger word. Just as the aerospace industry has adopted the term "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly" for launch failure, I feel these terms I've selected are in the same realm.
Ultimately, weather will always be a dynamic and interesting subject. I sincerely hope that those who are passionate about the science will continue to find value in our community.
I'm thrilled to share that this recent event brought a record number of users to our forum. We deeply value every visitor and strive to maintain a focused and informative environment. As we grow, we recognize the need to evolve and explore new concepts to ensure we continue to serve both seasoned enthusiasts and those just beginning their weather journey.
We want to preserve a space where those deeply invested in meteorological science can engage in meaningful discussions, while simultaneously welcoming and educating those who are simply seeking to learn more or stay informed during events.
I'm genuinely open to suggestions on how we can best achieve this balance. Your insights are invaluable, and I'd love to hear any ideas you have.
