A post by Operator48 on Chevy Alternator Problems?was closed by the Administrator:

" I am closing this thread as it violates AAC policy and/or safety issues.

Quote:
6. Restricted topics.

The following topics are regularly raised however are considered “off-topic” at all times and will results in Your thread being closed without question:

• Any kind of over-unity devices and systems
• Automotive modifications
• Devices designed to electrocute or shock another person
• LEDs to mains
• Phone jammers
• Rail guns and high-energy projectile devices
• Transformer-less power supplies "

What modification?
What safety issues?


The post was " ... Is it normal for the voltage to drop down that much. I always felt that the internal voltage regulator would keep the voltage above 14 volts when the engine is running. What I'm trying to figure out is what is making his battery drain down. Any suggestions or comments?. . "


It was just a plain question.


Ramesh

 

Hello,

Reading the post, the car already has been modified.
If he is having problems he should go to the garage where the modifications are made.

Bertus

 

A post by Operator48 on Chevy Alternator Problems?was closed by the Administrator:

" I am closing this thread as it violates AAC policy and/or safety issues.

Quote:
6. Restricted topics.

The following topics are regularly raised however are considered “off-topic” at all times and will results in Your thread being closed without question:

• Any kind of over-unity devices and systems
• Automotive modifications
• Devices designed to electrocute or shock another person
• LEDs to mains
• Phone jammers
• Rail guns and high-energy projectile devices
• Transformer-less power supplies "

What modification?
What safety issues?


The post was " ... Is it normal for the voltage to drop down that much. I always felt that the internal voltage regulator would keep the voltage above 14 volts when the engine is running. What I'm trying to figure out is what is making his battery drain down. Any suggestions or comments?. . "


It was just a plain question.


Ramesh

The answer to the plain question exposes the poster and AAC to potential legal liability if someone gets hurt or is injured as a result. AAC is not a university or a democracy. The rules are the rules and the moderators enforce them. There are plenty of places to ask these questions and have them answered. I will be curious to see what happens at ETO after their corporate legal eagles have a look at things.

 

The answer to the plain question exposes the poster and AAC to potential legal liability if someone gets hurt or is injured as a result.

That would be true of any question then.

 

That would be true of any question then.

It is true of anything posted online. It is hard to imagine a LED blinker killing or injuring someone. Based on the risks of particular questions and answers we have our set of rules.

 

Easy to imagine a 3-phase 480V generator or a Tesla Coil injuring someone though.

 

Easy to imagine a 3-phase 480V generator or a Tesla Coil injuring someone though.

You'll get no argument from me on that. There are a whole host of things that appeal to "makers" that are off the table including EMP, railguns, and so forth.

 

But the things I've mentioned are not off the table. I find it odd that a thread about someone wanting to troubleshoot his 12v dome light gets closed while questions about high voltage and such are discussed. I have no problem with how the site is managed, just find the whole safety policy a little skewed.

 

I would have thought that if the owners were worried about legal liability, then every post should conform to the recognized 'safe' or non-lethal voltage levels, 25RMS or 60VDC in dry conditions or 35vdc in others.
This would tend to make the forum very restrictive and most likely resulting a large drop in membership.
Just about every day I see a posts where someone could possibly get electrocuted as a result of missuse of the equipment discussed?
Isolation does not necessarily save you!
Just my 2¢.
Max.

 

Hello,

There are more criterias for safety.
You have the voltage, current and energy.
Have a look at the attached PDF what the safety handbook tells you.

Bertus

 

The answer to the plain question exposes the poster and AAC to potential legal liability...

Do you have any evidence of that? I've never heard of anyone successfully suing for following bad advice they got on the internet. It would be like reading graffiti and suing because you tried and failed to F yourself. Preposterous, in my view.

 

I see no reason for not trusting the judgement of our hardworking moderators.

Bertus, in particular, has a much cooler head than I do.

I remember when such matters were at their discretion, and their decisions lead to this being one of the most popular sites of its type.

I know that some good members have now left because they find its regulation currently over-formalised.

And yes I agree that we have now reached this situation.

Brownout

just find the whole safety policy a little skewed.
Today 04:09 PM

 

Do you have any evidence of that? I've never heard of anyone successfully suing for following bad advice they got on the internet. It would be like reading graffiti and suing because you tried and failed to F yourself. Preposterous, in my view.

Tort law is quite preposterous in many respects. So what's your point?

You need to define success. Just filing the suit may be successful in extracting a monetary settlement.
My evidence is that AAC has decided that the risk of exposure to such suits weather meritorious or frivolous is such that certain topics of discussion are banned. Perhaps those who are aware of such things can cite a particular case.

 

I think the point being made here is that the current policy restrictions seem rather meaningless when the same or similar liable hazardous conditions can apply to many other instances here in posts that are freely allowed.
Having the appearance of a double standard?
Max.

 

I agree, but that is hardly our problem.

 

So far, nobody's said it is a problem at all.

 

Do you have any evidence of that? I've never heard of anyone successfully suing for following bad advice they got on the internet. It would be like reading graffiti and suing because you tried and failed to F yourself. Preposterous, in my view.

I could just see that might play out in court...
Yes, Your Honor, After a long search I managed to track down the owner of the abandon building where the aforementioned graffiti was displayed.

Yes, Your Honor, I viewed the message as an imperative that must be obeyed. It was written with such authority.

Well, Your Honor, I would rather not focus so much as to HOW I managed to perform the act and, instead, focus on the injuries, humiliation and detrimental results to my personal and professional life.

Umm, I am not exactly understanding your question about "which socket I used" when I preformed the act described by he graffiti. Nonetheless, I have a strained lower back, a dislocated hip and a fractured "member". Oh, and an abrasion and contusion on my forehead.

Your Honor, why are you asking the Bailiff about my forehead?

Your Honor, I think it is perfectly obvious why Mr Smith is at fault. He is the one who posted instructions about how to put an LED dome light in my 1978 Cordoba.

 

With all of this discussion, it appears that the basis of this forum has been lost. We are guests on this forum, of an owner who has chosen not to allow discussion of certain subjects. Chosen, as is his/her right as owner. The restrictions are clearly outlined in the Terms of Service. I for one do not find them overly restrictive. Nor am I personally disturbed by any appearance of a double standard. As is often said, it is what it is. Some members apparently have exercised their choice to continue discussions elsewhere. That is good that we have such choice. But let's not let it ruin the resource we have here.

 

I am not opposed to the terms of service, but I can make fun of the underpinnings used to justify the 'need' for them until I get a temporary or permanent ban. Just like I would if the owner changes the TOS to ban discussions of tulips because it would cause butterflies to emerge from his butt.

 

With all of this discussion, it appears that the basis of this forum has been lost. We are guests on this forum, of an owner who has chosen not to allow discussion of certain subjects.

I don't agree, we are not 'guests' but individuals that chose to participate in a forum to the benefit of not only others but the site owner, who it is supposed, has set out to attract a certain audience.
If the site is not made attractive to the intended audience, then no one participates, and the benefit of the site is moot.
I agree that originators of a site are entitled to set stipulations as they wish.
The points made so far, I feel, are not necessarily to dictate, or necessarily change how the owners wish to operate, but I believe that it is in their interest to get feedback on where apparent conflicts or apparent injustice of such thing as forum policy lie.