DrComputer
TeslaClubLA President
The old phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" comes to mind. Sometimes things should be "moderated" hence why we have moderators in these forums. Nuf said.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Sensationalistic titles with no content/censorship
- Thread starter ModelS1079
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Site Feedback
Some of our mods are likely shareholders, as am I. They may have a personal financial interest in hiding potential issues. With all due respect, I can't look past that possibility.
As I said, if nothing went into moderation, I could have simply seen that there was no substance and I wouldn't be worried.
And you know what? If I could see that, instead of this exchange that took place:
ModelS1079: "I posted a thread in the recharging forum about an explosion, a fire, and my Tesla"
FlasherZ: "Where is it?"
dsm363: "It's in moderation. We've asked for more information"
...none of this thread would be here.
Think about that, and the optics associated with that exchange.
Three mods have now said something as if I attacked them for volunteering their time. I've moderated forums, I've led guilds on MMORPG's, I've maintained several volunteer community resources, and I do know what you put in. I'm giving you feedback, and I'm not attacking you. Please read that again: I have every bit of respect for the time you put in on these forums. I hope you have respect for my contributions as well, as they are all volunteer too.
- - - Updated - - -
And leaving it alone would have let me worry about that. With all due respect, you caused me to worry about this instead.
- - - Updated - - -
Thank you. This is the first time that my concern has been acknowledged, rather than it being misinterpreted as some sort of an attack.
My home nearly burned 15 years ago due to an elecrical panel failure. It is why I have an almost OCD passion for understanding the NEC and listing requirements. It's also why, when I see a mention of an explosion, fire, and a Model S, that I became worried. I was even more worried when I was told posts were hidden with regard to it. It was only after dsm363 edited his post that I saw the explanation of sensationalism.
...but I could've drawn that conclusion myself and I have to wonder why mods need to make that decision for me?
FlasherZ, I understand your concern, but please be patient. We're trying to figure out what actually happened. The original posting was not only alarmist sounding but utterly contradictory and lacked any useful information. On the level of "My house exploded! My house is fine. Gotta run, tell you about it later."
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Eh, just going to wait for ModelS1079 to show up. Not going to argue when you've chosen not to believe anyone. As a moderator, I am entrusted with taking fair and appropriate action. So are the other mods and I believe that is what happened here. If I were to use my position as a mod to shore up a stock position, the other mods would rip me a new one.
After all this conversation, I would do the same thing as what was done, if the same position presented. Sorry you disagree.
After all this conversation, I would do the same thing as what was done, if the same position presented. Sorry you disagree.
He didn't say what happened which is the entire problem! You really had to create an entire new thread for this?
You make it seem like I went back and edited things to make it look better. I added to a post about the title being over the top.
You make it seem like I went back and edited things to make it look better. I added to a post about the title being over the top.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Because there is a history of overreactions on this forum. If you had read ModelS1079 more carefully, you'd have noticed that it says "little story", indicating that it wasn't very serious.
Also, you'd have noticed that it referred to "my explosion", indicating that ModelS1079 was subject to spontaneous combustion, which explains why he doesn't post anymore, those apparently being his last words.
(EDIT: I'm referring to the first post in this thread, which wasn't removed.)
Last edited:
NigelM
Recovering Member
Now you're questioning personal integrity. Sorry, that's out of order. I suggest you cool it for a second. You have been told several times now that Jim posted a thread with an inflammatory title and no information except to say that his family and car are fine.
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not funny, and questioning the integrity of those trying to avoid panic is equally inappropriate.
Oh wow.
I didn't create this thread... Mods did by splitting them from the software update thread.
I created the "censorship" thread in the board feedback forum before mods split these posts to a new thread here. Don't blame me -- I was trying to put the topic where it belonged and I wanted to have a discussion about moderation/censorship. I'm fine with combining these two as well.
I've heard you all loud and clear -- mods believe they should be censoring these types of posts, and will do so in the future. I have to accept that, or start my own board. I'll accept that but simply give you all feedback that -- had you left the original post and simply replied with "this is going to be a touchy topic until we get more information", perhaps changed the title to something less sensationalistic, my concerns wouldn't be there.
One other alternative that I've used in moderation before is that I've replied to the thread to "OP, contact me and I will unlock this thread. I'm locking it because the speculation will go wild, but we do need to hear more about what happened."
Again, why are you taking this as an attack, Bonnie? Why are you taking this as an attack, Dave? A moderator said that he hid a post related to life safety issues -- and now I'm hearing that said post really didn't exist. It wasn't until I brought up censorship concerns that I was finally told that there was no substance.
I'll refrain from posting any more on this topic but I think you both need to take a step back and consider this not from the moderator's viewpoint, but from a board reader's standpoint like mine. It was the moderators' actions that stirred this up, not mine.
I have to agree with NigelM. Why do you think someone might be interpreting this as an attack? Because you questioned their integrity. IMHO that is crossing a line.
No I didn't. I suggest you re-read. I am, unfortunately, in a position where the reality of the world includes both perception and reality of conflicts of interest. And, the best way to avoid conflicts of interest is 100% transparency, which is what I've been asking for. I didn't say I believe it happened here, but I am saying that I do indeed believe that it is possible. So don't give the press and other contributors to this community any possible reason to wonder why a post about a fire, explosion and Tesla would be hidden.
I'm obviously in the minority here, so I'll simply wait for the story to emerge -- but transparency would have eliminated this thread-split and concern.
Well when you question our character saying it is possible we are hiding bad news just to protect the stock yes, we have an issue with that. I'm sorry but I'm not stupid enough to sink enough money in one tech stock that will make or break my future. Tesla could triple their share price tomorrow or go to $2 and I won't be able to retire on that or would it harm my ability to buy food.
Editing titles as you said was ok to do that is censorship too, right? We simply thought it was better to hide the post and ask the author to provide detail. He posted a light reference to it which got you going. I'm sorry if you think we are lacking or trying to hide a serious safety issue from you. That's not even remotely close to the truth.
Editing titles as you said was ok to do that is censorship too, right? We simply thought it was better to hide the post and ask the author to provide detail. He posted a light reference to it which got you going. I'm sorry if you think we are lacking or trying to hide a serious safety issue from you. That's not even remotely close to the truth.
No, they chose to take a generic statement I made about potential conflicts of interest and reflected it upon themselves. Show me precisely where I said that "<name> hid the post to support {his,her} stock". One of my responsibilities involves dealing with conflicts of interest -- both perception and reality of them -- and to simply pretend it couldn't happen is rather disingenuous.
I merged a couple threads here. Instead of going off the deep end, how about we just wait for actual info.
Please don't argue with moderators. We all do our best here to bring order to the chaos.
Please don't argue with moderators. We all do our best here to bring order to the chaos.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
You understand there is a very small number of moderators on this forum, yes? So when you say 'moderators', you're pretty much talking about a small group of people. If you want to be pedantic, you did not say a specific name. But you chose to question integrity of some moderators when I directly asked you if you thought we'd hide some safety information.
Let's not play games with words. Oh, and for the record, where did I say I thought I was being attacked? Right. I didn't say that.
Editing titles doesn't suppress content. It changes the title -- I wouldn't be angry if you changed the title of this thread, but I would be angry if you started hiding or changing my posts. You suppressed content (no matter how empty) related to an explosion, fire, the poster's home, and his Tesla. That's different than managing threads and titles.
I'm fine with waiting -- with all of you -- to hear about the explosion and fire from ModelS1079 to know how concerned I should be.
I appreciate another user telling me what I was missing.
I'm providing you with feedback that hiding content is not the best policy.
You do realize the traffic you've caused, accusations of censorship on behalf of Tesla and the mention of fire multiple times now has given way more material to someone than if we had simply waited for models1079 to flesh out his post in moderation.
NigelM
Recovering Member
You say you didn't question personal integrity and then say that you do indeed believe it quite possible that we might all be lying because of some of us might also have personal shareholdings in Tesla.
I really suggest you stop there.
I'm sorry, you identified a specific and small group, i.e. "the moderators". You then implied that they have motivation to hide the truth. You simply smeared all of us. That's innuendo.
Just be patient for a bit until we can get the OP to post his story. Probably an electrical panel overloaded or some such.
Norbert
TSLA will win
That makes as little sense as coming up with the theory that the republicans on this forum might have an interest to put the company Tesla (aside from the engineering) in a continuous yet inappropriately critical light, due to Elon's step of using government-backed financing. Mentioning that in this context wouldn't make any sense except to question motives of those present.
