Need help making the distinction

[stockstandard]

This is regarding this announcement: http://www.fordforums.com.au/announc...ouncementid=14

Could someone please make the distinction between a legitimate questions and puerile speculation/questioning integrity.

Not wanting to restart the futile argument again, but I would have though with the supporting evidence in the threads that brought this on, and response from the sponsor, that it is not unreasonable to question the results that were posted.

I know this puts the admin team in a difficult place (between sponsors and members), but it seems that many were very quick to attack anyone who questioned a sponsor, even though there was a legitimate reason to question what was being posted.

I’m not sure if this is the right place for the issue to be brought up, but considering the number of people involved (many who I suspect are as frustrated as I am), an open discussion seems the best way to clear things up.

Mark.

[stockstandard]

Bt the way, these are the types of comments I am referring to when i mention that admins and sponsors were quick to attack -

“those that have a chip on their shoulder and something to try and prove”

“typical of the minority ruining another thread with their cheap shots and gang like mentality”

“Go back to your book and have another read”

“armchair experts need to pull their heads out of their collective asses”

I have re-read the threads involved and still cant see where these comments came from (and yes I know posts have been removed), so we clearly have different opinions on where the line is between legitimate questions and questioning integrity.

[russellw]

It is a vexed question and a fine line.
The threads in question, in our opinion, were on the wrong side of the line which is why they ended up closed and some of the comments you quoted were made.

It is very much a judgement call but it wasn't too difficult in both those threads when some of the individuals concerned posted remarks that questioned the authenticity of the results and the integrity of those presenting them. That sort of action is simply not on and will not be tolerated.

Given that you have already questioned my edit of your own posts privately and now posted this publicly (being unhappy with my response) let me add that a 2nd or 3rd questioning, particularly when accompanied by a smart remark, is going to be deemed inflammatory under those circumstances.

Likewise when a number of individuals start ganging up to labour the same point without allowing adequate time for a reply then the fine edge is being approached.

We will continue to moderate on this forum according to our basic tenet which is to allow everyone to post without fear of ridicule and abuse. Once that line is crossed we will intervene.

Perhaps, in future, those wishing to question the legitimate technical input into this forum from a site supporter should state their qualifications for doing so or be less antagonistic in their approach to doing so because both of those threads read like an attack by a pack of rabid dogs. Put yourself in the position of Glenn & Matt and see how you would like having your researched opinions questioned by a group of people who aren't prepared to open their own expertise to the same level of scrutiny - which is, in effect, what was going on in those threads.

Russ

[stockstandard]

I dont understand what qualifications has to do with the matter. I am not a professional mechanic, but that doesnt mean that the measurements I made and posted are not valid. In every case I can see in those threads, questions were reasoned with logic or results obtained from dyno's or otherwise. You are right that there were many posts between the sponsors replies, but this was largely due to responses from other members supporting the product (both technically and emotionally) as well as by those implying that we were just causing trouble.

Put yourself in the position of Glenn & Matt and see how you would like having your researched opinions questioned by a group of people who aren't prepared to open their own expertise to the same level of scrutiny - which is, in effect, what was going on in those threads.

Did you read the posts I made? Everything I and others posted was backed up by research (manifold pressure levels, temperature readings, dyno results) and it was made perfectly clear that what I was saying WAS open to debate. I never once said the product didnt work, only that what the results were implying things that flew in the face of what myself and others have found, and I wanted to know why.

I guess when you refer to your members who ask such questions as a pack of rabid dogs it shows what the administration really thinks. Ive had enough insults from "untouchable" sponsors, the admins, and those who seem hell bent on making sure we don’t have any more trouble from members who are interested in tech stuff instead of writing checks.

[Laminge]

Originally Posted by stockstandard

.........Ive had enough insults from "untouchable" sponsors, the admins, and those who seem hell bent on making sure we don’t have any more trouble from members who are interested in tech stuff instead of writing checks.

and there is the distinction of civilised discussion and, if I may use the latest catch phrase being bantered around, elitist paranoia.

I would hate to see truth get in the way of a good story! Oh well another day.

Let me add, we are not stopping you making recommendations for sponsorship, after all we, and they are paying for the operations of the forums.

[stockstandard]

I do not concern myself with the financial situation of the forum. Everyone who is putting $ in is getting something in return, as does everyone who spends time here. If not, they wouldn’t do it. In my opinion, a forum is only as good as its technical content, which is where I contribute (not saying I know everything or am always right). Without it, you may have a lot of sponsors, a lot of product advertising with associated less then unbiased opinions, and a very boring forum.

I wont bother posting here any more as I can see this thread is not going to resolve my issues with the mods. Im sure I wont hear any complaints.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by stockstandard

I dont understand what qualifications has to do with the matter. I am not a professional mechanic, but that doesnt mean that the measurements I made and posted are not valid.

It is valid if you (or anyone else) is going to question the validity of comments from those who are speaking in their area of expertise. It isn't about opinions, it's about those that actually give the impression (whether intended or not) of being inflammatroy.

I guess when you refer to your members who ask such questions as a pack of rabid dogs it shows what the administration really thinks. Ive had enough insults from "untouchable" sponsors, the admins, and those who seem hell bent on making sure we don’t have any more trouble from members who are interested in tech stuff instead of writing checks.

Nothing like a good old paraphrase to slant the truth. What I said was that the attacks from some (and if you feel the need to include yourself that is your call) were like a pack of rabid dogs attacking a prey. Thus the reason for so many edits and removed posts from the threads.

As for anyone being untouchable that is plainly not the case. We have, in the past, allowed posts questioning the activity of sponsors by a customer to stand with a natural right of replyand we shall continue to do in the future. These two threads were different in as much as the actual paying customer was happy with the service he received and those sitting behind their keyboards wanted to attack the validity of the data supplied.

The remainder of your comments are for PM discussion.

Russ