In another thread Bill mentioned

Discussons are currently underway about our ruleset, so if you can check back in a week or so things may have changed. As is, it was a good call.

Bill,

Since you are involved with the discussions, I would think that using the existing "access point" that looks like the old cigarette lighter receptacle would be acceptable as a power source. At least we know it's fused.

The same could be said for "tapping" into the rear lights where one can place a trailer connection. My only problem with that would be to ensure the current "safety" standards are not compromised. I don't mean the U.S. standards, but the local jurisdiction standards ... I'm sure there are generically common issues worldwide ... like

- Turn signal flash rate with all bulbs working
- Turn signal flash rate with a defective bulb
- Lumens or power of the break lamps
- Lumens or power of the tail lamp

Obviously modifications to the sensors/ECU would be prohibited.

The problem remains with automotive as it does with all projects, the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities of the Thread Starters with respect to their projects and the safety of their project with respect to the Thread Starter.

I would recommend you view the rules at other electronic related forums. This is not to be "like" them, but to ensure you have a working knowledge of what they are doing. There maybe something germane in their rules.

 

At this point we can only speculate on the factors which are driving the review of the rules. At or near the top of the list are probably the marketing requirements of gathering new users (eyeballs) and driving mouseclicks on paid content. The other shoe has yet to drop on the use of email addresses., and other information that may be used to target us such as the 50+ page "Who are you?" thread.

 

I don't see what you are saying happening Papa. I could be wrong, but that are lots of ways to make money besides selling email addresses.

The discussions are in their infancy, but at least we are talking about it. Anything I say at this point is pure speculation.

I went through all the links in the new format on the home page on the bottom of the screen, it was very informative. I suggest everyone one do the same, things like our ToS (which has a really nice help file added) and information about the company.

I trust Jrap, he has done right by us for many years. I plan on giving him the full benefit of the doubt in the long term. Time may convince the hard core believers, as well as the future actions of the staff here.

 

I would recommend you view the rules at other electronic related forums. This is not to be "like" them, but to ensure you have a working knowledge of what they are doing. There maybe something germane in their rules.

I have been a member of another site that is Electrical/Electronic/Mechanical and is one of the largest sites of its kind in N.A. together with its sister forum in Europe.
In the 12yrs I have been a member I have seen no restriction on subject, in spite of the fact that probably the vast majority of its members are DIY'ers, they don't seem to have any concern as to safety being a legal issue, so I am not sure if they have ever had to worry about it.
One of the prime reasons for post closure there is the disclosure of proprietary information.
Max.

 

I trust Jrap, he has done right by us for many years. I plan on giving him the full benefit of the doubt in the long term.

That's my stance at this point also, his continued 'member accessibility' speaks well of him...

 

One of the prime reasons for post closure there is the disclosure of proprietary information.

Jeeze! That could get to be a 'sticky wicket' considering nearly all product literature is copyrighted!

 

Jeeze! That could get to be a 'sticky wicket' considering nearly all product literature is copyrighted!

As a rule it pertains to cracked S/W and on occasion if the author of the source of copyrighted literature reports it, it gets removed.
Max.

 

In another thread Bill mentioned
"Discussons are currently underway about our ruleset, so if you can check back in a week or so things may have changed. As is, it was a good call."

If the "vehicular topics" prohibition is indeed 'overturned' I, for one, hope such discussions will be confined to their own, dedicated, forum/fora -- lest the 'General Electronics Chat' forum becomes another "Auto Shop Q&A" or "AOPA Corner" --- I've seen this happen on other sites and it ain't pretty!

Tremulously
HP

 

If it isn't about circuits it would likely be moved to off topic.

 

If it isn't about circuits it would likely be moved to off topic.

My concern is that, in the absence of the present policy, the necessarily burgeoning number of "Auto electronics"/Avionics related threads -- which, although qualifying as electronics, and, hence, 'circuit related', will lower the tone of these fora to that of a 'motorhead' site --- Should 'the powers that be' choose to relax the restriction, provision of dedicated fora for such topics would seem a simple and judicious approach --- Just my $.02

Hopefully
HP

 

BTW: Please don't confuse me with an elitist! - It is, rather, a matter of enthusiasm vs tuition -- I, for instance, could fairly be termed a 'coiler' (i.e. a Tesla Coil enthusiast) and, as a matter of fact, am deeply involved in General Aviation -- However I do not advocate, and, in fact, strongly oppose mainstreaming of said topics here...

Sheltering in my house of glass
HP

 

You concerns have been noted. The automotive bans have been lifted, with some provisos.

 

You concerns have bee noted. The automotive bans have been lifted, with some provisos.

Details please?

 

You concerns have bee noted. The automotive bans have been lifted, with some provisos.

Will there be some official announcement? When will the TOS be modified?

 

Yes, the ToS will be changed to reflect that change. We will also announce that officially, in order to expand on the details.

 

Until it is published...the the old rules remain ... Even if the mods fail to enforce them. The membership deserves consistency with the published rules and not based on some insider info.

It makes people think the mods don't care to enforce the rules.

 

Hooray! You won't regret this decision. I think this is just what the forum needed.

 

Hooray! You won't regret this decision. I think this is just what the forum needed.

I sincerely hope you're correct --- When (not if) the tone and content of the 'General' and 'Projects' fora degenerates to 'Vo-Tech 101', however, I can but hope the management will see fit to create separate, dedicated fora for such discussion...

With marked ambivalence
HP

 

stranton,

I'll reserve my comments till after I read the "new rules". I also think there should be a new sub forum for the Automotive topics.

By what metric will the "success" be measured? I hope it is successful.

 

Speaking just for myself (for the most part), I expect a new subforum to be opened for automotive-related threads. How things go will largely depend on how the participants behave in terms of confining automotive discussions to the automotive forum (though there will inevitably be some amount of cross-pollination as there is now with the present forum breakouts). The moderation will likely focus on threads that are deemed too unsafe (judgement call, as always) or illegal or that violate the ToS in other ways (discussions about how adding magnets around the fuel lines in order to run your car forever off the patented water you add to your radiator will likely be short lived).

One measure (and only one measure) of success will be if the new rules are manageable from a moderation standpoint. If they result in a significant increase in moderation effort, then they will need to be revised.

As for a point made earlier in the thread about some kind of linkage between the new organization of the site and relaxing the rules being a means only to attract more e-mail addresses to sell, I can assure you that the rule reorganization and the site reorganization are independent except to the degree that the site reorganization has made the owners more active and accessible to the admin/mod staff so and that we are trying to capitalize on that accessibility so as to clear up what the owner intent and boundaries are regarding the restrictions. But those discussions are being driven by the staff (the owners are, reasonably, focused on the bigger site issues), who as a group are focused on the forum's health and well-being and neither know nor really care about all of the other stuff except, largely, to the degree that it impacts the forums.