HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Aug 08, 2004, 05:30 PM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,605 Posts
Dave

If you examine the rule it does not indicate that a single vendor's product is the issue it indicates that threads relating to other vendors' products are the issue. That's vendors in the plural.

In this particular case the thread was based upon a characteristic of LiPo battery preparation and sale that by it's very definition must have been wholly concerned with the products of other vendors, because the vendor starting the thread stated up front that he did not sell, and does not believe in the utility of, battery packs with those characteristics. The fact that a particular vendor was not specifically named is less relevant than the fact that the thread "dealt exclusively with other vendors' products or services".

Brian
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Aug 08, 2004, 09:19 PM
Registered User
Walled Lake, MI, USA
Joined Feb 2000
11,182 Posts
I'm trying very dilligently to grasp the fine nuances here. As I understood the original premise of the thread, it was one vendor explaining why he did not think it was value-added to offer a special feature on his product, with an invitation to others to step in and explain if they could cite any specifics about the value they might see where that feature was offered on other products. Thus, it was certainly not relating exclusively to anyone's products, but to all products with and without the special feature.

What I see here is the potential for mass confusion about what any vendor is allowed to say in what context. For instance, I could see a lot of messages now getting reported to moderators because a vendor made a comment in the message that someone thought might be in violation of the rule, inasmuch as the rule now appears to be open to wide interpretation.

Brian, I've said many times how much I appreciate the great job the moderators do on this forum. I rarely disagree with a moderator decision or interpretation. But this one really has me puzzled as it seems to be a new interpretation of an old rule being applied in a way that I don't recall previously seeing.

In addition to being worthy of Jim Bourke's consideration, I also hope that the moderators will discuss the full implications of this issue among themselves.
Dave Hederich is offline Find More Posts by Dave Hederich
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 03:57 AM
Registered User
los angeles
Joined Mar 2004
662 Posts
it seems to have started with vindicators thread who is not a vendor, then mike started a new thread who is a vendor and was looking for other vendors to comment on cell matching. if a third party independent started the thread maybe it would allow the vendors to comment but not about each others products or services.
skyhiflyhigh is offline Find More Posts by skyhiflyhigh
Last edited by skyhiflyhigh; Aug 09, 2004 at 04:07 AM. Reason: don't know how to post links
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 07:41 AM
Registered User
Walled Lake, MI, USA
Joined Feb 2000
11,182 Posts
Yes, vendor participation in a general discussion of the pros and cons of special cell matching techniques would be of interest to many people. The thread would need to be monitored closely to ensure that everyone stayed cool, as these discussions in the past have generated heated debate. This would be the equivalent of a brushless motor vendor starting a thread discussing outrunner vs. inrunner designs. Participation of vendors in this type of discussion should not only be allowed, but encouraged.

The weakness of this interpretation of the rule is evident by the fact that I could send a PM to Mike right now asking him to send me the exact wording of a message that he'd like to post to start a new thread discussing this subject. I could post that message under my name with the heading of "Various Li-poly Cell Matching Techniques." Thus the thread would not be about a specific brand of Li-poly, just as the original thread was not, as all Li-polys get some form of cell matching at the factory, and the thread would not have technically been started by a vendor.

In other words, all this type of thread editing accomplishes is to create more work for a vendor and a non-vendor "partner" to go through to get a perfectly legitimate thread past potential moderator misinterpretation of the vendor posting rule. This is not a value-added feature for RC Groups!
Dave Hederich is offline Find More Posts by Dave Hederich
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 07:51 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,605 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hederich
This would be the equivalent of a brushless motor vendor starting a thread discussing outrunner vs. inrunner designs.
Dave

A better analogy for this particular case, and a point that was considered when the thread was reviewed, would be that of a brushless motor vendor who only sells inrunners, starting a thread decrying what he perceived as the excessive hyping of outrunners, which he does not sell. By definition that thread would therefore be concerned with the products and services of other vendors and not permitted.

Brian
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 08:34 AM
Space Coast USA
hoppy's Avatar
Space Coast
Joined Oct 2000
21,009 Posts
removed by poster
hoppy is offline Find More Posts by hoppy
Last edited by hoppy; Aug 09, 2004 at 08:47 AM. Reason: Rethinking the issue
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 08:40 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,605 Posts
Hoppy

If it's a vendor commenting on a thread exclusively dealing with the products or services of other vendors it would be treated the same as this thread was.

Brian
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 10:03 AM
Space Coast USA
hoppy's Avatar
Space Coast
Joined Oct 2000
21,009 Posts
(Brian, you're tooooo fast, I'm editing and you're posting
Ok, let's continue with that thought....

The hitch (to us) comes because only another vendor would have enough information to know that "maybe" the claims being made are only hype. So if he can't question the claims, who can?

Let's say an outrunner dealer says his outrunners are made from "specially selected alloys". Modelers would have no idea if that is a real $ benefit or just some hype. A vendor with close factory ties would probably know if all outrunners are made from the same "specially selected alloys", but he can't post that fact. So we end up the losers.

Of course the danger in making such a post is that the other Vendors who claim they use "specially selected alloys" may come back with hard data to show how much better their product is and send the first Vendor running for cover. On the other hand, if it is hype, the other vendors will never be heard from.

So maybe some vendor/vendor posting should be allowed??
hoppy is offline Find More Posts by hoppy
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 10:11 AM
veni,vidi, roto volubilis
Happy|Harry's Avatar
Aberdeen, Scotland
Joined Jul 2003
6,956 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Cullen
Hoppy

If it's a vendor commenting on a thread exclusively dealing with the products or services of other vendors it would be treated the same as this thread was.

Brian
enforcement of this rule is inconsistant!, and the understanding of it is ambigious at best. i have participated in several threads relating to one type of li-po or another only to have a specific vendor/manufacturer or employee of said company intervene and push/comment on their cells, and even when i pointed this out they have still continued and with no moderator interfearence

one example

and my favourite quote from that thread after i pointed out he was breaking rule 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by LVRCFlyer
I did not violate rule 7 - if indeed I had, the post would have been deleted. Its been said time and time again and moderators have agreed - if your product is compared, even in another vendor's thread, you have every right to defend it in that thread.
phil
Happy|Harry is offline Find More Posts by Happy|Harry
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 12:47 PM
Space Coast USA
hoppy's Avatar
Space Coast
Joined Oct 2000
21,009 Posts
*********** deleted by hoppy
hoppy is offline Find More Posts by hoppy
Last edited by hoppy; Aug 09, 2004 at 07:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 01:01 PM
Registered User
Walled Lake, MI, USA
Joined Feb 2000
11,182 Posts
Two elements to consider on this issue are why certain threads attract moderator attention, and how slightly different wording can affect whether or not a thread is judged to violate a rule.

First, the moderators have said many times that they do not have time to read all of the messages on their forums, so they do not catch all questionable messages. They say they rely on members reporting questionable messages by clicking on the little red triangular icon in the lower left corner of each message. It's fair to assume that someone probably reported the thread to a moderator, and it could well have been someone with a vested interest in killing the thread.

Second, the same thought can be expressed in many different ways, and will have different meanings to others depending on the choice of words. The way Mike's original message was worded could have resulted in the interpretation that the moderator made, especially if someone reported the message to the moderator with that interpretation. Had Mike's original message been worded slightly differently, perhaps the moderator would have interpreted it differently.
Dave Hederich is offline Find More Posts by Dave Hederich
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 05:24 PM
one game away...
PerfectStranger's Avatar
Willoughby, Ohio
Joined Apr 2004
3,891 Posts
dave,

after typing a thoughtful reply, i decided to just go ahead and remove it. that's what would have happened anyways. the stormtroopers are ever present, waiting to create issues where there are none.

matt
PerfectStranger is offline Find More Posts by PerfectStranger
Last edited by mattalbr; Aug 09, 2004 at 05:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 09, 2004, 05:42 PM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,605 Posts
Matt

Who exactly are you referring to with your offensive "stormtroopers are ever present" comment?

Brian
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2004, 04:02 AM
Aerobatic Extremist
SharksTooth's Avatar
United States of America For Which We Stand!
Joined Jan 2004
1,346 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Cullen
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.

Brian

It sure is a waste of time to post useful information only to have it deleted for the sake of blindly following a rule. Looks like there is alot of deleted posts in this thread too...by the users. It must've hit them how futile it is sometimes to get the point accross that fairness should come into play and rules can be 'bent'. After all this IS *supposed* be a hobby isn't it? Oh well, what can we do? I know what I'm going to do...going out to get some work done on a plane for an upcoming meet. Then I've got to get that 4 letter word done... w o r k.
SharksTooth is offline Find More Posts by SharksTooth
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2004, 05:33 AM
Registered User
Don Sims's Avatar
Outside of Dyer, Tn. USA
Joined May 2000
7,135 Posts
The point being missed here is the tragedy of actually having to have the rule in the first place.

It's unfortunate that a small number of vendors would trash over another vendors products because of a few dollars in sales. Because it does happen, we need something to be able to respond, rule 7 is it.

If you have a better, simpler, easier for a mod to use rule, why not post your idea here. Your idea needs to be something that everyone on the site can use and understand and it needs to be easy to enforce. Your idea also needs to address the root cause of the problem and that is: vendors making negative comments about other vendors products. This happens in their normal persona and under assumed user ID's.

IMHO the simpleist solution is that no vendor comment in any thread about another vendors product. But that is not a realistic solution and almost impossible to enforce.
Don Sims is offline Find More Posts by Don Sims
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Build in lipo alarm on honey bee cp2? Bundy_90 Micro Helis 6 Apr 14, 2007 06:46 AM
Any Action in Ventura County, CA? Philip Aberer Electric Plane Talk 4 Dec 05, 2001 10:01 PM
Cogging action in motor dshly Parkflyers 1 Oct 30, 2001 10:59 AM
Aveox 1005/2Y on 6 cells in Adrenalin?? Erik Johansson High Performance 4 May 15, 2001 07:10 AM