Comment on moderator action in LiPo Matching Thread - Page 3 - RC Groups
Shop our Airplanes Products Drone Products Sales
Thread Tools
Aug 10, 2004, 01:39 PM
Registered User
Don, I'm not missing that point. I was active in the first Li-poly threads that degenerated, and didn't enjoy that element one bit. But "no vendor comment in any thread about another vendor's product" does not fit what happened in this thread. A vendor initiated this thread questioning the value of various forms of Li-poly cell matching used in the industry. A moderator interpreted that as being in violation of rule 7. Many people, including myself, believe that was a very loose and creative interpretation of the following:

7. Vendors will refrain from commenting in threads relating exclusively to other vendors' products or services.

I support rule 7. But this thread was never related exclusively to other vendors' products or services. It was a discussion of whether special cell matching techniques had demonstrable value over standard cell matching techniques used at typical Li-poly production facilities. In fact, this thread addressed every single brand of cell on the market, not just one or two.

I think the point being missed here by the moderators is that rule 7 was originally formulated to stop the situation where Vendor A would start a thread to inform people about his product, and Vendor B would jump in to promote his product over Vendor A's product, inevitably leading to hot words being exchanged. Rule 7 was created to force Vendor B to start his own thread if he had something to say rather than starting a hot argument that inevitably led to Vendor A's informative thread being locked down.

The new interpretation appears to be that no vendor can start a thread discussing an issue related to most or all products in a specific category regardless of brand. If that's the case, then RC Groups will have diminished its value to consumers.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Aug 10, 2004, 10:26 PM
Registered User
I'd like to make a suggestion that the original message that started this thread, and which has been removed from the boards, be returned to this forum as a single message and immediately locked so that no additional messages can be added to it. I think it would benefit everyone participating in this thread to be able to see the original message that started this discussion. Human memory being faulty, I doubt that any of us recall the exact wording and tone of that message. Therefore, our current discussion is only based on our best recollections.
Aug 12, 2004, 08:27 AM
Registered User
Looks as if this is a dead issue with forum management. Maybe I'm just slow and am the only one here who hasn't "gotten it." But the explanation given so far creates more questions for me than it answers. If I was a vendor, I'd really be wondering about how various interpretations of Rule #7 might affect my future participation on this forum. But since I agree with 99 percent of the decisions made in this forum, I'm not going to spend any more time worrying about one where I clearly do not comprehend the rationale behind the decision, and where further explanation is apparently not forthcoming.
Aug 13, 2004, 06:50 AM
Registered User
To Mrs. AM Cross:

Awhile back, in a similar circumstance where a moderator's response was legitimately questionable, Jim Bourke was accused by me of isolating himself - of being deliberately unreachable. He assured us, in this forum, that that was not true, that he was (is) very busy and announced that Mrs. AM Cross was to review such issues and bring appropriate ones to his attention.

Dave Hederich's interpretation of the rule under discussion here is consistent with past practice and is the most reasonable way to keep the type of info. deleted by the moderator in the forums, IMO.

I respectfully request Mrs. Cross to take this issue to Jim, for his consideration.

- RD
Aug 13, 2004, 10:30 AM
Pack Rat
KLH's Avatar
I'll second that!!!

Aug 13, 2004, 04:14 PM
Too Little Too Late
I am a close third!

Aug 13, 2004, 06:58 PM
Sloping off....
leccyflyer's Avatar
I've just returned from being away for a few days. My explanations clearly aren't likely to carry sufficient authority for those who have a problem with the way the rule is implemented and to be quite frank I'm just getting tired of being requested to provide detailed explanations and debate the ins and outs of situations in an increasing number of instances where moderator action has been required.

When it gets to the stage of moderators being compared to stormtroopers, when the very flexible moderation which is applied to this site, for the benefit of all members, results in moderators being directly compared to Nazis or Communists, with the additional insulting allegations being made that "foreign" moderators have no concept of what constitutes "free speech" and when that is compounded with the instances of foul abuse and even threats of violence that we occasionally receive behind the scenes then this particular mod has just about had enough.

I've enjoyed helping people out and trying to help to keep RC Groups a friendly place and a site for civil discourse, but now I think that I'm going to spend that time previously spent on attempting to explain and justify my actions in the forums on a more worthwhile pursuit - maybe model aeroplanes might be an idea.

To those who gave it, many thanks for the support.

Aug 13, 2004, 07:39 PM
Registered User
Brian, I hate what's happening to you, as you express it in the second paragraph of post #37.

I have expressed my contempt for the habitual ad hominum commentary of one of the miscreants, one "kit", in a thread in Batteries and Chargers yesterday. Others in that thread also took him to task.

Limiting ourselves to the merits of the issue here, I see no need for further explanation - each side has adequately developed its position, it seems to me.

Now we need Jim to decide the issue.

- RD
Aug 13, 2004, 08:21 PM
jbourke's Avatar
Ok. I'm tuned into the thread now.

Can someone link me to the original posts that started this discussion?

Aug 14, 2004, 12:16 AM
registered user
DNA's Avatar
Hello Jim,

I haven't been around for a while. Just wanted to say that Ezone is still one of my favorite sites. Sorry you're having some troubles again. Hope you get it cleared up ok. Keep up the good work.
Last edited by DNA; Aug 14, 2004 at 12:20 AM.
Aug 14, 2004, 12:59 AM
Registered User
Jim, thank you for taking the time to consider this. Following is a link to what's left of the original thread, but with the vendor's original messages removed. Hopefully, those messages will still be available somewhere for you to read and evaluate.

Brian, I certainly hope you can appreciate the difference between honest differences of opinion and clear violations of Rule # 2: ..... Users shall treat each other with respect at all times. There shall be no name-calling. Users shall not provoke one another. .....

I personally respect you and the other moderators for taking on the responsibility of making all the tough calls. You moderators do a great job of dealing with disrespectful remarks against forum members from other members. When forum members do not treat moderators with respect, they should be treated the same as if they had treated another forum member with disrespect. There's no reason why any member or any moderator should take any disrespectful remarks personally. These remarks represent a personal problem for those who post them, not for those who are the object of the remarks.

Just understand that many of those who have expressed disagreement with your decision on this one issue fully support the great job you have done as a moderator, and would like very much to see you continue in that role.
Aug 14, 2004, 04:25 AM
Registered User
Aug 14, 2004, 04:29 AM
Registered User
Yo, DNA,

Hope you unpack your contradiction detection antenna again ...

Best regards,

- RD
Aug 14, 2004, 08:52 AM
Registered User
Andy W's Avatar
There will be no further moderator response in this thread. Brian has tried to explain the actions, several of you have refused to accept his explanations.

The moderators attempt to do what is best for the site as a whole based on a set of loosely defined rules. They are open to interpretation, but the mdoerators are the ones who interpret how best to apply them, and the logic behind these particular actions has been clearly stated. You will be reminded that although we encourage open and free expression of opinions (within posted guidelines), we will not debate policy with the members. If you are unhappy with a particular action, you are free to take it to the more senior staff, or, as in this case, the site owner.

I'll leave it for him to respond.
Aug 14, 2004, 11:30 AM
Registered User
Ben Diss's Avatar
Wow. And here I thought the name of this forum "Site Suggestions/Complaints" invited comments on policy and might even be open to debate. Too bad.


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 07:46 AM
Any Action in Ventura County, CA? twentysomething Electric Plane Talk 4 Dec 05, 2001 11:01 PM
Cogging action in motor dshly Parkflyers 1 Oct 30, 2001 11:59 AM
Aveox 1005/2Y on 6 cells in Adrenalin?? Erik Johansson High Performance 4 May 15, 2001 08:10 AM