Are you mods serious?

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
tcmtech,

What would your code of ethics or code of conduct be for a forum such as AAC?
I reject your premise that any such codes are required for a public internet forum.

The owner/operators of the forum may impose whatever code they like, but the choice is entirely at their whim, and there's no reason (except their own) to follow some higher source. For instance they could choose to reject all posts without nude photos attached. Some would cheer, some would boo, some would stay and some would leave. Nobody would much care.

All we members want is a clear statement of the rules. It's annoying to invest time and effort into a thread or project only to have the rug pulled out from under it in the name of some foggy, self-imposed rule.

Members understand there will be unavoidably grey areas, and that Mods will have to make the calls, and like referees they will not always make perfect calls. But the rule itself should be clear.
 

kubeek

Joined Sep 20, 2005
5,794
It's like you aren't listening - the laws and definitions of one nation are not applicable in an international context. You just keep quoting laws from a single country and using that as the of basis for why it should be allowed.
I´m having a feeling that it is you who isn´t listening.
The point is that if we are to avoid discussing anything that could be unlawful in some country, then we basically couldn´t discuss anything whatsoever. No RF, no mains wiring, no LEDs, no nothing, and precisely because there could be laws somwhere that ban this or that.
Also I am pretty sure there exist some places where discusion is forbidden altogether, should we stop doing that as well, because you know, we might be violating the laws of some godforsaken place?
 

Thread Starter

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
Yep. My thoughts as well. ;)

As far as I know if any other country does not like the present internet rules and or unspecified laws in general of other countries they can either ignore them, go without or shove their concerns up their ethernet ports and spin on them while using a transformerless power supply to keep them rotating . :p
 

tshuck

Joined Oct 18, 2012
3,534
I´m having a feeling that it is you who isn´t listening.
The point is that if we are to avoid discussing anything that could be unlawful in some country, then we basically couldn´t discuss anything whatsoever. No RF, no mains wiring, no LEDs, no nothing, and precisely because there could be laws somwhere that ban this or that.
Also I am pretty sure there exist some places where discusion is forbidden altogether, should we stop doing that as well, because you know, we might be violating the laws of some godforsaken place?
According to your logic, if someone wanted to discuss remote detonation of explosives, we should.

As I have said, you will run into problems when you try to rigidly apply a rule that is intended to be interpreted on a case by case basis (like this one).

However, the risk to the public involved with vehicles is inherently larger than many electrical projects we see here. Therefore, to mitigate the risk (again, to the public, that is, people not involved with the operation of the vehicle), the owner/moderators may have created that blanket ban.

I have been offering reasoning as to why the admin might have banned it. I've tried to apply reasoning as to how the mods have interpreted that ban. Take what I've said in context.
 

kubeek

Joined Sep 20, 2005
5,794
Of course I am not advocating to allow any discussion regardless of topic. Both approaches are really bad, which is why sites usually stay with the law that applies in the country where the site is being run.

As for the automotive ban, when it was that modifications on stock cars were forbidden and mods decided individually where the line was I was okay with that. But when it changes to "whatever moves under its own power" or something along those ways, which now presumably covers RC models, lawnmowers, student race cars, go karts, electric bikes and mobility scooters, is where it becomes crazy and unnecessary.
 

Thread Starter

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
I am all for the open but rational interpretation of the rules on the case by case basis.

If one or more active members raise questions about the validity of a threads intent then by all means it's worthy of a more scrutinized moderator review and should be shut down if it's found plausible that the OP does not have clean and honest intent in mind with the information they are asking for or needing assistance with.

On that topic thats what my whole point is behind this thread in particular. I as most everyone else here generally has very little problems with threads relating to obvious rule violations being shut down. What I and many others do not agree with is when threads get immediately locked down under false justifications when the thread starters questions and intent are clearly benign in intent and action.
 

tshuck

Joined Oct 18, 2012
3,534
... And every thread starter with a locked thread has the opportunity to ask that their thread be reviewed to be unlocked.

Humans make mistakes on both sides.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
None of this matters anyway, because if you read the '47, US Code, 230, etc' law, it doesn't offer any protection to AAC anyway.
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
From what I can find AAC is from the USA, according to their listed address, so by my understanding the US rules and laws of internet commerce are what stand first.

AAC US Office:
404 S. 8th St. Ste. 203 Boise ID, 83702
I think that may be the new EETech folks. The website is Canadian:
Registrant Name: ROB P
Registrant Organization: ALLABOUTCIRCUITS
Registrant Street: 82 MARKHAM ST
Registrant City: TORONTO
Registrant State/Province: ON
Registrant Postal Code: M6J2G5
Registrant Country: CA
Registrant Phone: [snipped by wayneh]
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: WEBMASTER@ALLABOUTCIRCUITS.COM
Registry Admin ID:
 

Thread Starter

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
None of this matters anyway, because if you read the '47, US Code, 230, etc' law, it doesn't offer any protection to AAC anyway.
Actually as I am finding the general consensus of anyone trying to hold a forum liable for their own stupidity in a lawsuit is similar to someone trying to sue a bar, restaurant, grocery store or any other public place for getting themselves injured or worse because they acted on advice they overheard in some random conversation.

We forum members are not paid consultants or paid professionals and this website is not a pay for service site thus all members here have as much liability for what we say as any random person on the street has for some idiot overhearing their conversations with someone else and acting on them.

For example. If you were to be talking to someone in some public place about some event or action that you survived like say arsenic poisoning and commented about the level you had been exposed to was enough to kill most people and I decided that if that level didn't kill you then it's okay for me to try taking that much on purpose are you liable for my stupidity and actions and what became of me afterwards? Is the public place we were at when I overheard you talking any more liable for my actions because I heard you there?

What I am saying is unless you have an extremely well documented case of outright negligence based on actual physical interaction with the websites actual owners and and extremely good lawyer plus some medical professional that will vouch for you having near zero common sense the chances of winning a lawsuit in your favor against a website is near impossible and if it's not impossible the likelihood of it all ending up being so outrageously expensive at your cost to win it would make the efforts to try an irrational waste of money for anyone to persue.

What I am seeing is that on the average the vast majority of forums like this one are ran by average ordinary anyones form anywhere and have near zero financial assets or anything else worth sueing for so even if you were to win the odds are there was absolutely nothing of value to gain for your time efforts and expenses. The site ownership shuts the site down and at worst files bankruptcy leaving you stuck with a hollow win of nothing but the publicity of becoming the next biggest sue happy idiot on the internet that tried to sue someone else for his own stupidity and becomes the new talk of countless forums everywhere! :p

So yea you could sue but it will likely cost you far more than anything positive you will gain meaning in the end you likely will be poorer for it but will become well known for being another internet dumbass who earned himself an epic fail award for thinking that other people are who should be responsible for your actions and safety. :eek:
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
I've asked here before for an example of anyone, anywhere, successfully suing a website for providing "bad" information. No examples were offered. So I still think any claim of avoiding "liability" is a red herring.

That said, the site ownership has the right to establish any rule they want, no matter how goofy or ill-advised. But they owe us the courtesy of a clear rule, consistently and fairly applied. They don't have to provide any such thing, but many of us will lose interest in participating here if they don't. The Mods, our referees, are human and will make mistakes but the rules of the game should be clear.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Actually as I am finding the general consensus of anyone trying to hold a forum liable for their own stupidity in a lawsuit is similar to someone trying to sue a bar, restaurant, grocery store or any other public place for getting themselves injured or worse because they acted on advice they overheard in some random conversation.
No, but one can sue the bar if they "over serve" a patron and that patron kills someone.

You don't know the Knowledge, Skills, or Abilities of whoever is typing in these threads. Your advice, while may be excellent, does not mean the application of said advice was done in a manner you expected it to be used. There are plenty of examples in the Darwin awards.

I could care less if someone contacted another and gave them advice on overunity, HHO, HV, or any other topic. That is between the two of them. Truth of the matter is, it don't matter to me what is discussed. You could tell them how to fool the ECM for all I care. There is a world of difference between you working on something and some newbie, as you are aware of your KSAs.

The forum would be a party to the lawsuit. Just like those members offering their best advice to the Darwin Award nominee.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
The owner/operators of the forum may impose whatever code they like, but the choice is entirely at their whim, and there's no reason (except their own) to follow some higher source.
Your correct. They don't need to follow some higher code. They don't have to have any rules either. With the new management. they can decide or you as a user can recommend a change. The management will do whatever it feels that will keep the membership growing.

We can leave it to the membership to follow whatever code suits them, whether it's a professional code like IEEE or the Code of Hammurabi.
 

Thread Starter

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
I've asked here before for an example of anyone, anywhere, successfully suing a website for providing "bad" information. No examples were offered. So I still think any claim of avoiding "liability" is a red herring.

Same thoughts here. "What if's" and "just maybe's" are not examples I can work with or base reasonable rational decisions on. As with you real documented examples of actual events or actions and their statistical probabilities of occurring are and as of this point of this thread zero valid confirmable examples to back up the "what if's" and "just maybes" has been given.

No, but one can sue the bar if they "over serve" a patron and that patron kills someone.
That's an easy one to define based on testable and measurable blood alcohol levels or other such tests. As far as I know it's impossible to over serve anyone text and be liable for them over reading on your information. :confused:

If anything from what I have seen of forum life and simply by the many examples certain people have given just in this thread over reading is never a problem but under reading and reading between the lines to find things that are not actually being said let alone implied in order to blow things out of proportion or take out of overall thread context is! :p
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
I've asked here before for an example of anyone, anywhere, successfully suing a website for providing "bad" information. No examples were offered. So I still think any claim of avoiding "liability" is a red herring.
Flawed logic. Because nobody has bothered to research your question, you assume a non-answer is an answer. Not a good assumption.

In Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, 23 Media L. Rep. 1794 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995), the court held that because Prodigy was exercising editorial control over the messages that appeared on its bulletin boards through its content guidelines and software screening program, Prodigy was more like a "publisher" than a "distributor" and therefore fully liable for all of the content on its site.
 
Last edited:

Hypatia's Protege

Joined Mar 1, 2015
3,228
A simple, reasonable person can ascertain that a person with two wires does not pose as much of a threat that as a person whose car won't stop accelerating does to the general public.
I have to disagree, based upon the following (IMO self-evident) assumptions:

1) The majority of the world's population resides in urban centers.
2) Most urban dwellers reside in multiple-family 'blocks'.
3) Inter-structure spacing is at a bare minimum in urban settings.
4) The principle electrical hazard to bystanders is fire.

Thus it is that a blase owed to misapplication of those 'two wires' may reasonably be expected to endanger many tens of lives (at least)

That said, It is not my aim to change the policy, howbeit I'm bound to say cooperation, and, hence, compliance is greatly enhanced via understanding as opposed to rote apprehension of fiat and 'heel clicking' compliance --- double so when said 'fiats' are ill defined!

Although I do not perceive a dictatorial manner in the behavior of the Mod/Admin staff there are certain members who appear hell-bent to cast them so... Why?:confused:

Respectfully
HP
 
Top