RC Groups

RC Groups
    Site Chat
        Comment on moderator action in LiPo Matching Thread

#1 kit Aug 07, 2004 06:54 PM

If you don't compare your cells to any other vendor's cells and if you don't say anything about the claims of other vendors, maybe the gustapo will let you repost that information you received from the manufacturer of your lipos pertaining to the testing, sorting, grading that goes on during the manufacture of lipo cells. It was interesting info from a manufacturer of lipos that most of us can't access and it should not have been deleted.

#2 stumax Aug 07, 2004 09:33 PM

Well, unfortunately this thread is going to go nowhere. I was reminded that forum rules prevent me from saying anything about another lipo manufacturer's product (actually any manufacturer's product, just because I sell a few kits), even though I don't even sell lipos. That means unfortunately that the knowledge gained from a couple of years of lab testing of hundreds of cells can't be shared here. Perhaps I should start selling lipos so I can at least talk about them!


#3 Dave Hederich Aug 07, 2004 10:51 PM

Stu, I don't think it's true that a vendor of one product cannot say things about a totally different type of product. The forum rule was made for good reasons. It can get out of control pretty fast when vendors start trashing their direct competitors. (The Jerry Springer Show is still on TV for those who delight in witnessing human carnage.) If you aren't directly competing against someone, you wouldn't have a vested interest, and should be able to comment as freely as any non-vendor.

But we should all be reminded that there's no license for anyone to be trashing anyone else on this forum. If we all try to stick with the facts, there will be no need to try to trash anyone who strays from the facts. The truth will be obvious to all who see it.

#4 stumax Aug 07, 2004 11:04 PM

Dave, that's exactly what I would have though, however I was told by the powers that be that as a "vendor" I cannot pass comment on another vendor's product, any product. I'd like to know if that means the only vendor who can comment about Sanyo cells is Sanyo themselves. If not, then if I started selling all brands of lipos then by the rules I could comment in any thread containing the ones I sell. Where does the line get drawn? I certainly don't trash products unless their vendor has done something unjust towards me and is unwilling to put it right. I will, however go out of my way to stop vendors telling "untruths" about their products in order to make people think they are better than the next. I do have a lot of useful experience with cell testing that can confirm/dispell some of the marketing hype that gets thrown around and does a good job of confusing consumers. I think it's a bit sad that someone who sells a few kits to fund his hobby is silenced like this. I hope they notice I've changed my avatar and comment to comply with the rules, as I'm not a sponsor I can't have my Stumax logo, or company name shown (no complaints, that's fair enough, I guess the rule changed after I set up my preferences). This silencing makes me wonder if I would ever want to be a sponsor should my business turn into something worth paying to advertise.


#5 SharksTooth Aug 08, 2004 01:48 AM

Censorship Is What Should Be 'Moderated'!
When you start getting into 'legaleze", instead of common sense, what ends up happening is what is called censorship. No matter how diplomatic one wants to make it sound, when you dictate what somebody is supposed to think or say, that is censorship.

This usually comes from people who forget that this country has what is called freedom of speech...it's in that thing called the...uhhhhh...the uhhh...OH YEAH! The Constitution! Gosh darnit that thing just seems to keep getting in the way don't it? :rolleyes: Sometimes they are not even from this country at all, so they don't even know what that means.

Fortunately, I've only seen this a couple times on here. This board is pretty good about that. I left another board where there were mass deletions going on basically because it wasn't 'good buisness'. That does not go on here, but I really hope I don't see this censorship stuff going on anymore, because I really like this board. It has great info, but if censorship takes over that info won't mean a thing, because it won't be trustworthy...it might as well come out the 'censors' mouth, and that's only one viewpoint. One view out of 50,000 users. Not a pretty picture is it?

If one is gonna start up censorship why not just delete every post on the entire message board? Somewhere, there is somebody who could put a 'spin' on every post and find a reason to delete it. They may even find a reason to delete this post, who knows, but if that happens that will make a definite statement won't it? :)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's mind over matter...in cases like this they don't mind, and we don't matter. :(

#6 gpeden Aug 08, 2004 02:28 AM


Originally Posted by SharksTooth
This usually comes from people who forget that this country has what is called freedom of speech...it's in that thing called the...uhhhhh...the uhhh...OH YEAH! The Constitution! Gosh darnit that thing just seems to keep getting in the way don't it? :rolleyes:

And none of that applies to a private forum...


Sometimes they are not even from this country at all, so they don't even know what that means.
And it sounds like your country has you pretty well indoctrinated if you believe that ;)



#7 SharksTooth Aug 08, 2004 02:41 AM

Wow, I guess I should feel priveleged! :rolleyes: I've just managed to stumble accross a "private" forum. Well shoot, here I thought anybody could join and post.

As far as believing it...

You betcha! Ever heard of Tienemen <sp?> Square? Or how about the former Soviet Union? Any of those places ring a bell? How about Iraq...not too long ago if you spoke your mind there it would get you shot, bloody, or thrown in a torture camp if a Gov't official heard it.

#8 leccyflyer Aug 08, 2004 04:35 AM

These posts have been split from the thread discussing LiPO matching in the Batteries and Chargers forum.

They have been split because the moderator had instructed members to keep the heavily edited thread on-topic and not sidetrack it with reference to discussion of the moderator action, hence the relocation of those posts to this forum.

Just a reminder though- this IS a privately owned bulletin board and you have no "Constitutional right to free speech" on the forums. The moderators are entrusted to take whatever action is deemed necessary to maintain the atmosphere of the forums as a place for civil discourse. Past experience has shown that threads where vendors comment on each other's products in the manner that thread was progressing cause problems, hence the creation of Rule #7 some time ago. The posts that were removed were in contravention of Rule #7 and they were removed for that reason.

Don't worry though, nobody is going to be thrown into a torture camp, shot or run over by a tank for posting on RC Groups.


#9 stumax Aug 08, 2004 05:14 AM

Where do you guys draw the line on "vendors commenting on each other's product"? I sell kits, yet I'm not allowed to comment on anything made by someone else. I take that to mean that I can no longer post info saying which motor or cells to use with one of my kits, as that is commenting on another vendor's product. Why am I considered a vendor when I only sell a handful of kits per year? What defines a vendor? Is it someone who has ever sold something they produced for R/C use? I'd say that gobbles up about half of the members. I really think you should have a good think about this one, as it's gonna be hard to enforce every vendor commentinag about anything made by someone else. The posts I made in the original thread were valid points made from years of cell testing experience. I have no allegance to any lipo supplier, unlike all the "chearleaders" who rant as if their lives depended on people using their favourite cells. I tell things like they are, I don't hold back from an argument(find me an Aussie who does!) and I don't let personal preferences dictate the information that I spread. I probably know more about lipo cells than most of the vendors (how many of them have designed and prototyped their own cells? How many of them repost the cell manufacturer's, or worse, a customer's test info in the abscence of their own test data?), yet I can't share the information with people to help them make educated decisions before they part with their money. If I develop and market a new fan unit, I'll be unable to post test results, as I would be using a motor and cells from another vendor. When I launch a new kit I'll be unable to say which motor and cell combination will work, as that will be commenting on another vendor's product. Strange way to encourage vendors to sponsor the forum, guys. Control is an essential thing in a private forum, but overcontrol is going to make the member wonder about what's real and what's censored to death.


#10 leccyflyer Aug 08, 2004 05:45 AM

No member need ever wonder about what is real and what is "censored" on these forums. If any post is edited that is always done with an explanation of where the edit was made, and why the edit was made. That is our policy.

In this particular case the decision was made to remove all vendor input to the thread in order to allow the thread to remain in the forum. The alternative would have been to remove the thread in it's entirety, thereby losing the comments and contributions to the subject of the membership at large.

Vendor contributions to discussion are very welcome in the forums, as indicated in my explanatory post appended to that thread, but the rule is that vendors may not comment in threads exclusively concerned with the products and services of another vendor. In this case the whole premise for starting the thread meant that, by definition, it was intitiated by one vendor creating a thread that dealt exclusively with the products and services of another vendor.

There are many threads which do not deal exclusively with the products of another vendor and which all vendors would be free to contribute to.

I would consider a vendor in these forums to be one who is currently active in the commercial sale of RC-related goods and/or services. That would certainy be a lot less than half of the members.


#11 Dave Hederich Aug 08, 2004 09:01 AM

Freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere in the world. Many countries have freedom of speech that matches or even exceeds that in the U.S. in certain areas. But speech is always subject to local rules and regulations. The obvious common example is that no one in any country has the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, potentially starting a stampede that could injure or kill people. In addition to public rules on freedom of speech, private establishments have the right to post their own additional rules applying to their private areas. Those who do not follow the rules are subject to being excluded. Anyone on this forum, for instance, can be locked out for not adhering to the forum rules.

Brian, I participated in many of the threads that resulted in the forum rule being established that vendors could not comment in threads started by another vendor exclusively about that vendor's product. The reason was mostly related to Li-poly vendors posting critical comments in threads started by another Li-poly vendor to answer user questions about the specific vendor's product. This led to many acrimonious messages, so the forum rule was generally well accepted as a good way to keep things more civil.

In my opinion, the way you are now describing the rule represents either a new definition of that original rule, or your interpretation of it. I would like to see this thread completely clear up the interpretation of that rule for both users and moderators. This will probably require Jim Bourke's input, so this is a good forum to discuss the issue.

Now that the original messages that started this thread have been removed from both threads, we'll have to reconstruct from memory. Essentially, one Li-poly vendor posed a general question about the value of special cell matching techniques over and above the standard cell matching techniques used at all Li-poly production facilities. Note that this was not one vendor commenting about another specific vendor, but about different forms of cell matching touted by several different vendors. So the original thread was never about a single vendor, and thus does not appear to violate the rule as originally conceived or as described here by the moderator.

The concept of vendors not being able to post in a thread started by another vendor of a totally different product is a separate issue. Personally, I don't see where this line of thought originated, or that it accomplishes anything positive at all. It does deprive vendors of their freedom to comment on products in which they have no vested interest, and deprives all users of some intelligent input from knowledgeable members who also happen to be vendors.

#12 leccyflyer Aug 08, 2004 09:15 AM


The rule simply states


7. Vendors will refrain from commenting in threads relating exclusively to other vendors' products or services.
There is no distinction in the rule as to what type of vendor is not permitted to comment- it doesn't mean that only battery vendors may not comment in threads exclusively concerned with another vendor's batteries.

There are ample opportunities for vendors to comment in threads which are not exclusively concerned with other vendors' products and services.


#13 gpeden Aug 08, 2004 04:48 PM


Originally Posted by SharksTooth
As far as believing it...

You betcha! Ever heard of Tienemen <sp?> Square? Or how about the former Soviet Union? Any of those places ring a bell? How about Iraq...not too long ago if you spoke your mind there it would get you shot, bloody, or thrown in a torture camp if a Gov't official heard it.

Yes, but it is a far cry from pointing out a few of the worst places in the world to be to your implying that the US is the only place with free speech :)



#14 Dave Hederich Aug 08, 2004 04:56 PM

The rule makes sense when enforced as "Competing vendors will refrain ..... " etc. There is no logic at all in preventing a non-competing vendor from commenting in a thread started by another vendor. On behalf of all of the members and vendors here who object to the "all vendors" interpretation of the rule, which does not align with the rule's original intent, I am asking that this rule be reviewed and interpreted by Jim Bourke.

Also, my contention still stands that this thread was never concerned with a single vendor's product, and thereby did not violate either the spirit or the letter of the rule as written.

#15 stumax Aug 08, 2004 05:27 PM

I couldn't agree with you more, Dave!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 PM.