Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
  • You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
  • Retevis is giving away Radios for the New Year and Every Member is Eligible. Click Here to see the details!

for lack of a better place to......

As promised, I'm responding publicly to the comments in this thread.

First, to answer some of the questions about what the site's policy is regarding staff reviews and donated equipment, please read this thread:

http://www.worldwidedx.com/announcements-open-forum/60703-site-staff-product-review-guidelines.html

Second, I ask everyone to please review the overall site rules here:
Worldwide DX Amateur Radio Forums - Ham - CB - HF - VHF - UHF - Announcements in Forum : Announcements & Open Forum

EVERYONE on this site is entitled to their own opinion and entitled to write reviews about products that is their OWN opinion. A staff member's opinion about a piece of equipment is no more important than another member's opinion. However, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to dispute facts and disagree with opinions.

Over the last several days, the staff has had very lengthy conversation about the nature of the posts in several of the Review threads. We have discussed that there has been some perception of impropriety or favoritism toward products that have been delivered for free in exchange for reviews. We have also had some discussion about the technical standards expected of staff reviews. The staff review guidelines that we have adopted is an attempt to help with these matters.

However, since a few individuals have called out the staff on this issue, I feel it is only fair that I also address some of the specifics where site rules have been violated.

1. Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion. Whether or not you agree with an opinion does not give you the right to berate another member.
2. Sometimes people get technical facts wrong. This hobby is a learning process so try to help others learn. People don't learn by flaming them.

davegrantsr:
I respect the balls it takes for you to voice your displeasure publicly, and I certainly value the input of members when there is a matter that needs to be addressed. However, that does not absolve you from your role in turning these review articles into a stinky, festering mess. You were called out by hookedon6 about your personal attacks and you responded like you didn't know what he was talking about. As a result of your public comments on this matter, it's only fair that I point out your attacks and site rules violations publicly.

From the 257 thread: http://www.worldwidedx.com/export-radios/56228-magnum-257-hp-review-3.html#post199999
when the big cheese's of TWO DIFFERENT forums make me wanna jab an icepick into my eye....it's about time to find another hobby.
Click to expand...
Is that really a constructive way to disagree? Is that respecting others' opinions and being friendly and positive? There is a constructive way to disagree and then there is just being an ass about it. You were the latter.

From http://www.worldwidedx.com/export-radios/56228-magnum-257-hp-review-4.html#post200597:
i think i am far better a judge to do a review then a one time user.
Click to expand...
Everyone is entitled to share their own opinion. A statement like this actually discourages people to share their opinion, and thus does not help promote this hobby. Even if you have diplomas to back that statement up, there are better ways of communicating your qualifications.

for the praise heaped upon magnum products by a moderator given the product, THAT is ABSOLUTELY a CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Click to expand...
Actually, Robb followed the exact guidelines mandated by the FTC by disclosing that the radio was given in an exchange for the review. By definition, that absolves him from any conflict of interest charges by law. You may not agree with his style or point of view, but you can't claim "conflict of interest" when the information was disclosed, as required by the FTC. The fact that you have been allowed to continue to post threads questioning the content of the reviews is further evidence that there is no foul play at work.

In the beginning of this thread, you said:
a person in his position SHOULD NEVER EVER berate, belittle or flat out tell those who QUITE OBVIOUSLY ARE FAR MORE KNOWLEDGABLE then he, that they are merely ignorant, closed minded fools
Click to expand...
I've gone back and read that thread about 5 times and I don't anything close to what you are describing. I did find some back and forth about technical specs and opinions (which was mostly fine) but also a bit of name calling which was not appropriate by several parties. However, you make it sound like WWIII just started. Are you trying to help anything here, or just trying to make this into a bigger issue than it really is?

My point is not to beat up on davegrantsr, but to show that everyone here has a role in helping to promote both the hobby and this site. I don't expect members to sit by their keyboards and feel afraid to point out when staff members get something wrong. I don't want moderators and admins to be overly heavy-handed with their moderation responsibilities, either. We all have things to learn in this hobby but we all have opinions that are valuable and should be shared.

Always remember, every post you make on this site either promotes or degrades the radio hobbies. Hopefully we have more promoters.
 
I think you should have removed Robb's moderator status, and kept the review policy unchanged.

Obviously, you are unable to see or comprehend his very negative impact on the forum and members. He must be a close friend of yours, or have something he is holding over you. You are bending over backwards to keep him as a mod, even though he has time and again shown he is not mature enough for the responsibility.

You also have a very strange idea of what a personal attack is. :bored:
 
moleculo, with regards to YOUR comment,


'davegrantsr:
I respect the balls it takes for you to voice your displeasure publicly, and I certainly value the input of members when there is a matter that needs to be addressed'


there had been comments regarding robb's posts almost since he became a moderator here. his knowledge and technological abilities or lack thereof, as well as his totally false and/or misleading statements with regard to electronic theory AND his absolute degrading-TALKING DOWN TO THOSE WHO OBVIOUSLY KNOW MORE THEN HIM-of those who comment on his posts is what has driven me to this. i stand by all of that, and looking back, even his pre-moderator posts showed a lack of electronic knowledge based on the questions he asked and the statements he made. BUT he SHOULD be asking questions, THAT is what these forums are for. NOT dishing out 'ABSOLUTELY-NO-DRIFT-as-ABSOLUTE-FACT-on-a- $179-cb-radio' incorrect info as YOU know it is. at least as a person in a place of authority he shouldn't be making false statements....again, sounds like that other place. he should have, as i and others did, at least qualify his comment with either PROOF or comparison to other radios. that may have led to at least some credence and less flamethrowing.

his moderator privilege SHOULD NOT neccessarily be based on his electronics skills and knowledge, but his ability to 'run' the forum-i HATE having to refer to c****r all the time, but i am NOT the only one here who sees the similarities-if nothing else, robb seems too intent on padding his post quantity by spouting incorrect information and then bashing those who start out by informing him of his lack of knowledge, rather then diffusing situations started by others. c*****r works in EXACTLY the same manner, except the moderators are stymied by king moderator. LET US ALL HOPE that never is the case here.



as for-

'I've gone back and read that thread about 5 times and I don't anything close to what you are describing. I did find some back and forth about technical specs and opinions (which was mostly fine) but also a bit of name calling which was not appropriate by several parties'



maybe he didn't exactly say 'close minded fools' but that is OBVIOUSLY what is implied. i saw it, SEVERAL other members posted comments to it-maybe not as strong and as obviously as i did-along with the reps recd, PM's & emails i've gotten from members commenting on this fiasco. in fact, they are LITERALLY 54 me right, 2 me wrong & 3 not sure where they were going with it.....so, i think i have some supporters, unfortunately, more then a handful need to be vocal.



my personal attacks? MY personal attacks?? MY PERSONAL ATTACKS?????? highlander got it. i EMPHATICALLY STATED THAT A MODERATOR NEEDS TO BE WITHIN HIS BOUNDARIES. that i why i started THIS THREAD. members can and always will go 'too far' with each other. that is what the moderator is responsible for fixing, NOT making these comments-

'Originally Posted by Robb
Now I can clearly see that those that hate these radios do so out of blind ignorance. Must be something wrong with their diet; need more fiber!'

and-

'Originally Posted by Robb
You should have read what I wrote before I toned it down a few notches!
HA! I really don't give half a horses hump for getting 'free radios'. But I do care about making a call it as I see it. These experts just bore me to tears - especially needing a boot in the right spot from time to time.'

are you kidding me????? those comments from members would've pricked up the ears of the moderators, when a moderator made those comments, the members stood up & took notice. he needed the wet noodle lashing before we got here and HIS BOSSES blew it.



last, we KNOW how QRZers see this & most all 'cb forums'-and i KNOW CB is NOT the main focus here, the RADIO HOBBY is the focus. did YOU see robb's posts on the 257 on qrz????? i am ABSOLUTELY happy my call & my user name here cannot be connected. i was EMBARRESSED by his posts. i have disagreed with the kings-of-qrz with regard to their thoughts and feelings about CB radio AND export radios (amongst other things including no code) too many times to count. but i know WHEN to shut up, when to tone it down and when i am in over my head & need NOT to comment. he needs to do the same. and he needs to start in HIS OWN HOUSE.

THIS IS AMERICA, opinions were fought for in 1776. my opinion IS, as some others have publicly stated as well, is that robb needs to tone it down & be restrained. that is what started all of this. and as highlander says-

'I think you should have removed Robb's moderator status, and kept the review policy unchanged.

Obviously, you are unable to see or comprehend his very negative impact on the forum and members. He must be a close friend of yours, or have something he is holding over you. You are bending over backwards to keep him as a mod, even though he has time and again shown he is not mature enough for the responsibility.
you also have a very strange idea of what a personal attack is'

i said it, & i'll sign it. where's the notary public to make it official?
 
I'm a notary public in Riverside County, don't know how much that will help your case...:laugh:

As for this entire discussion...yes I am a newbie, even I can see that Robb's review was entirely based on his opinion. I read through the entire thing and I would find it useful if I were looking at that particular radio.

Moleculo: Can you just make Dave a moderator as well so he can sit high and mighty as he claims Robb is doing?

I'm sorry if that pisses you off Dave but IMHO I feel this is a personal attack on Robb because for one reason or another you don't like him. Maybe because he's a "one-time user" or maybe because you have more experience and you're NOT a moderator. I don't know what it is, but I saw the negativity from Post #1 from you in response to his review.

Alright here comes the beating...
 
Dave & Highlander, you seem to think that the ability to Moderate has some type of RF technical standard. It does not. What you haven't seen is the amount of spam and other things that have been taken care of, which is the main duties of the moderators. You guys are allowed to disagree with a moderator publicly. You are allowed to state your opinion. However, if the conversation breaks down into bickering, mud-slinging, and flaming, it will be moderated and the mud-slinging will be removed. Highlander, I haven't had issue with most of your comments and disagreements, but there have been a few statements that you've made that are starting to cross the line of having respect for other members.

It's not my job to moderate what is posted on other forums... I have enough trouble keeping up with posts here.

Dave, enough with the hyperbole about America and 1776 and all that.

I never said Robb was perfect in the way he performed the moderation. Nobody is perfect, which is something you guys seem to forget too easily. You guys have the right to disagree with his content, but sometimes you do it in a way that baits people into a responding poorly. And then because he's a moderater, you play the "moderator should know better" card. What you are doing is called trolling. Disagree, but don't troll. Oh yeah, and BootyMonster is walking a thin line on the trolling, also.

you also have a very strange idea of what a personal attack is'
Click to expand...

My response to that is that you better figure out what my idea of personal attacks are if you intend to stick around.

Obviously, you are unable to see or comprehend his very negative impact on the forum and members.
Click to expand...

Really? Robb's participation in the CB sections has stirred up more activity in those sections than this forum has seen in years. The traffic numbers tell a different story than the one you would like to paint. I never said that I agreed with his point of view on everything, or that he never made technical mistakes. But the fact that people are discussing radios and operating practices is a good thing. What we need to do is remember to keep the conversation civil.
 
moleculo said:
Dave & Highlander, you seem to think that the ability to Moderate has some type of RF technical standard. It does not. What you haven't seen is the amount of spam and other things that have been taken care of, which is the main duties of the moderators. You guys are allowed to disagree with a moderator publicly. You are allowed to state your opinion. However, if the conversation breaks down into bickering, mud-slinging, and flaming, it will be moderated and the mud-slinging will be removed. Highlander, I haven't had issue with most of your comments and disagreements, but there have been a few statements that you've made that are starting to cross the line of having respect for other members.

It's not my job to moderate what is posted on other forums... I have enough trouble keeping up with posts here.

Dave, enough with the hyperbole about America and 1776 and all that.

I never said Robb was perfect in the way he performed the moderation. Nobody is perfect, which is something you guys seem to forget too easily. You guys have the right to disagree with his content, but sometimes you do it in a way that baits people into a responding poorly. And then because he's a moderater, you play the "moderator should know better" card. What you are doing is called trolling. Disagree, but don't troll. Oh yeah, and BootyMonster is walking a thin line on the trolling, also.



My response to that is that you better figure out what my idea of personal attacks are if you intend to stick around.



Really? Robb's participation in the CB sections has stirred up more activity in those sections than this forum has seen in years. The traffic numbers tell a different story than the one you would like to paint. I never said that I agreed with his point of view on everything, or that he never made technical mistakes. But the fact that people are discussing radios and operating practices is a good thing. What we need to do is remember to keep the conversation civil.
Click to expand...

:thumbup::thumbup1::thumbup:

Thank you Moleculo. Robb helped me with my initial base station setup giving me input that I could not have received anywhere else. I really appreciate his contributions.
 
moleculo said:
I never said Robb was perfect in the way he performed the moderation. Nobody is perfect, which is something you guys seem to forget too easily. You guys have the right to disagree with his content, but sometimes you do it in a way that baits people into a responding poorly. And then because he's a moderater, you play the "moderator should know better" card. What you are doing is called trolling. Disagree, but don't troll. Oh yeah, and BootyMonster is walking a thin line on the trolling, also.

My response to that is that you better figure out what my idea of personal attacks are if you intend to stick around.

Really? Robb's participation in the CB sections has stirred up more activity in those sections than this forum has seen in years. The traffic numbers tell a different story than the one you would like to paint. I never said that I agreed with his point of view on everything, or that he never made technical mistakes. But the fact that people are discussing radios and operating practices is a good thing. What we need to do is remember to keep the conversation civil.
Click to expand...



Blah blah blah, circle the wagons, everything's fine folks, move along - nothing new to see here
 
Oh boy, more forum traffic.

Doesn't amount to much when 90 percent of the increased activity is nothing more than Sam Lewis' marketing techno-babble being regurgitated ad nauseum.

GAH!!!!
 
I have absolutely no problem calling someone/anyone out when I see something I consider wrong taking place but this isn't one of those times. moleculo saw the uproar and took action, at this point it's just about going after someone not making the forum a better place

I assure you that if this forum was anything like those you are trying to compare it to, a lot of us would have been banned a long time ago.
 
Highlander_821 said:
Oh boy, more forum traffic.

Doesn't amount to much when 90 percent of the increased activity is nothing more than Sam Lewis' marketing techno-babble being regurgitated ad nauseum.

GAH!!!!
Click to expand...

did you read the post outlining the rules for staff reviews?
 
i have purposely waited to weigh in on this thread.

i said pretty much everything i have to say on the subject im my first post in this thread:http://www.worldwidedx.com/announcements-open-forum/44253-new-copper-forum.html

i still stand by what i said there, and the only things i have to add are a few questions whose answers might provide some transparency here and put a few rumors to rest.

1. what exactly are the qualifications to become a moderator here?
is it based upon the owner's personal opinion of the proposed mod?
is there a certain amount of time or a certain number of posts that qualify someone?
does one just have to ask?

2. is there any sort of public notice given as to when the forum might be looking for another moderator?

3. did Robb's status as a moderator here have anything to do with his ability to obtain free equipment for review?
the timing of the two might seem to some to be more than just a coincidence.


4. Moleculo, why do you not do more reviews of equipment?
is it because it might conflict with the perceived objectiveness that goes along with moderator status?
(these are serious questions, not veiled sarcasm)


i believe that if the answers to these questions were made public; it might allow this subject to be put to bed once and for all.
LC
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.


      Top Bottom