First, I apologize for not initially reading the Terms of Service (ToS) and posting about a fairly benign car stereo related project of mine. I think it's fair to say that most people don't read the terms on anything these days because it's mostly legal jargon... but obviously that's no excuse.

I understand that this forum has banned automotive modifications in all forms under the excuse that there are liability and safety concerns, potential of legal ramifications and the possible circumvention of vehicle regulations at the state and federal level, or too many dumb questions. But can't someone cause damage or injury just as well with electronics in general? Are there not equally dumb questions regarding electronics in general? Also, doesn't the disclaimer in the ToS mention not being liable for any wrong doing? Is there a legal precedent for this restriction or is it just paranoia/frustration?

Perhaps the ban on "automotive modifications" is too broad and more restrictive than it should be for an electronics forum that was created for the open sharing of knowledge and ideas. There are electronics in automobiles too and many interesting, and safe, things can be done with them or added to them. It's not like building a nuclear reactor. If you must ban something, why not differentiate between simple mods to vehicle lighting, sound, or lesser electrical systems, and the more risky (and mostly out of scope) mods to the engine, drive-train, structure, or major electrical systems?

I'm baffled.

 

There is no commitee to examine the depths of each proposal wether there is a tangent on the vital innards of the automotive vehicle or law aspects are concerned.

 

It's OK to be baffled. The simple fact is this forum is not run like a democracy, and the policies are not open for discussion. There are other forums with different policies and one of those may be a suitable place for the discussion of things that interest you.

This one for example
http://www.electro-tech-online.com/

 

This site is paid for by a person. He could decide to host a forum on water piping, but not flammable gas piping...knitting but not crocheting...nuclear submarines but not nuclear electric power utilities. There are forums for what you want, but it's not this one. He who pays the piper calls the tunes.

 

Echoing what #12 just said, it really comes down to the Golden Rule -- he who has the gold makes the rules. The owner of this site is paying for everything -- notice how there aren't any click ads and that the site doesn't try to load dozens of third-party cookies onto your machine? They therefore get to say what they will and won't allow and it is entirely up to them to decide, for themselves, what they are comfortable with and what they aren't. You may not agree with their decisions or their reasons for them. Heck, even as a moderator I'm free to disagree with those things. But you, as a user, have no choice but to abide by them (or get banned if you don't) and I, as a moderator, have little choice but to enforce them whether I agree with them or not -- that's the mantle I agreed to take on; and note that I'm pointedly not indicating my level of agreement one way or the other, since that's irrelevant.

 

As a side benefit there are a number of other topics that we no longer have to waste our time with. The are numerous sites where you can waste incredible amounts of time and energy discussing all manner of things with less than zero relevance or importance.

 

I see I've come to the wrong place. I don't appreciate the tone I'm receiving and not one person has offered an answer to my questions. I'm basically being told to, "shut-up and color or go somewhere else." How about at least answering the question: Doesn't the disclaimer in the ToS cover not being liable for any wrong doing? Just be honest and tell me that auto mods are restricted because you are too lazy or frustrated dealing with dumb questions, and those of us with intelligent/valuable ideas have to suffer for it. Don't use the cop-out that it is for safety and liability reasons.

 

You are free to read the Terms of Service yourself. Whatever they might say is the law on this site. It isn't about being dishonest or frustrated, it is merely the Terms we all agreed to when we signed up. You don't have to suffer, you can go to a dozen other sites and (hopefully) find intelligent discourse on your subject matter. What you are doing in this thread is as useless as trying to argue with a, "No Parking" sign.

I don't actually know who pays for this site, but I think he lives in northern Europe. Would you like to punch him on his nose for not creating the site you want him to create?

Quit having a tantrum and go to electro-tech where many of us can meet with you and automotive conversations are allowed.

 

There are electronics in automobiles too and many interesting, and safe, things can be done with them or added to them.

True. However, vehicles (in the UK at least) have to be manufactured so as to comply with various Regulations. Insurers rely on such compliance when assessing risk, and take the view (justifiably or not) that any unapproved modification of the vehicle's systems by the user affects that risk. They therefore tend to invalidate an insurance policy if the vehicle is modified. This has public interest consequences, in that a victim of an accident involving an uninsured vehicle is unlikely to get compensation. So, not unreasonably, it seems AAC takes a public-interest stance and bans vehicle mods under the Terms of Service.

 

The question OP asked was not dumb. We answered more dumber questions.
It just tht we have to abide by the forum rules.

You are most welcome to ask what is allowed by the rules and we are always happy to help.

 

What you are doing in this thread is as useless as trying to argue with a, "No Parking" sign.

Love it.

 

I don't understand the bit about tone. I laid out the facts and gave an alternative. I don't know how I could have been more gracious or more helpful.

 

I don't understand the bit about tone. I laid out the facts and gave an alternative. I don't know how I could have been more gracious or more helpful.

Some people come with that property already installed. Some wisdom from my dating years: A woman that believes she is destined to be victimized will be victimized by whichever man she is with, even if he doesn't know about it.

 

I must have missed that, either by design or good fortune.

 

I must have missed that, either by design or good fortune.

I would guess: Good fortune.
That's because I called it bad fortune that I was single at 38 years old. I found that women that were available between 30 and 45 were available for good reasons.
Alcoholics, drug addicts, bi-polar, paranoid schizophrenics, on a first name basis with the guards at the local mental hospital, thinks a first date is when you list all the lawsuits you have filed against your ex-husband...
Then I did 3 years as a councilor. Boy did I learn about "normal" people!

I'm not saying my whole life has been spent in defense of my mental health. For instance, I also learned that most physicians (and other well educated people) have serious, permanent faults. You just have to decide which ones you are willing to live with in exchange for the benefits of a long term relationship...even with your family.
I don't know if you're only lucky, or you spent your years in academia, or what, but I call it lucky that you didn't learn what I learned. I could probably do as well on a marriage counseling site as I did here.
I occasionally wax philosophical on this site. It seems to be well received.

 

If you add 'em all up I've been married for 35 years. I've had my ups 'n downs, but at least no victims were involved.

 

Now I'm sure it was luck!

Seriously, you might have picked well, but I still think luck was involved. People change over the years and you can't predict how a woman's mind will develop 20 or thirty years from now.

Hoping your luck persists.

 

I see I've come to the wrong place. I don't appreciate the tone I'm receiving and not one person has offered an answer to my questions. I'm basically being told to, "shut-up and color or go somewhere else." How about at least answering the question: Doesn't the disclaimer in the ToS cover not being liable for any wrong doing? Just be honest and tell me that auto mods are restricted because you are too lazy or frustrated dealing with dumb questions, and those of us with intelligent/valuable ideas have to suffer for it. Don't use the cop-out that it is for safety and liability reasons.

We HAVE answered your question and we have done so very honestly. You asked why discussions about automobile modifications are not allowed on AAC. The answer is simple and has been stated -- the owner of AAC has exercised their prerogative AS the owner of AAC to not allow discussions about certain things. That is their prerogative. Their reasons for what they choose to allow or not allow are irrelevant and they do NOT have to justify their choices to you, me, or anyone else.

You and I can speculate all day long on why the owner has made that choice. We might be right and we might be wrong, but it is irrelevant and it doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter whether the disclaimer would cover any liability, but for the record that disclaimer and others like it provides only the slightest protection and is easily pierced in almost any court proceeding in almost any country.

At this point you are coming off like a petulant child that feels that you entitled to have everything your way and that the rest of the world has to justify their decisions and actions to you because you entitled. Well, welcome to the real world where you aren't going to always get your way and where you will often just have to live with the fact that the rest of the world doesn't really care how you feel about it.

 

You are so liberal, entertaining this thread so much.

It speaks for the quality of this site, that in fact you arent immediately banned and screamed at, when a slight disagreement or problem occurs.

Forums in general dont employ argumentation, and where it is permitted, you usually encounter a mumbo jumbo of political boulevard, lies, free energy, and personal insults.

Its useless to question policies particular- TS could have saved himself from creating this thread.

I think my first reply said it all and its quite reasonable. It wouldnt make a difference in some cases, for instance the car Stereo could be used at home, not inside a car. But as said, there is no committe to research where's the borderline on case-by-case basis, and its clearly written: No automotive topics.

"automotive" modification employs quite a scene of people, not all they do is seen as legal.

You arent alone on the motorway, you have to pay toll, taxes, and accept the rules and signs.
Now you could say, its idiotic I have to pay the toll, just live in front the barrier and the shops are on the other side, so I decide, the toll doesnt have to be paid.

This concept unfortunately isnt working out in real world- it could be said "Problem with authority".

You just dont make your own law as you see it fit, even if in some cases, the policy is inappropiate or out of this world.

 

Hola Ser,

What tone is that? I arrived just 2 hours ago.

Maybe this?