Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

After some of the stupid little shitfights in SDU, and even the big serious fights/disagreements/bloody whatever, im going to set up a list of people who will act as mediators, either online or in person. This will be to sort out anything that needs sorting out. It will happen so we might as well have provisions to deal with it. Probably wont be needed for some little thing between 2 people in a thread though (i hope!)

anyone want to put their hand up? we obviously wont need many.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/618-mediators/
Share on other sites

i think it's up to the moderators and admin to take care of stuff like that. if we acknowledge mediators too we might have too many chiefs and not enough indians. there might be toes stepped on and so forth.

why don't you guys give us good reasons vs bad ones on why we should/shouldn't have mediators and we'll implement it if it's viable.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/618-mediators/#findComment-14484
Share on other sites

A mediator is like a middle man, say two people get into a stupid fight, they bring someone in (a mediator) to let the two sort things out and keeping things resonable and civil. Not a bad idea, hopefully things won't get to the point where we need any, but i personally don't think officially recognising anyone as a mediator is neccessary. If things happen, there are enough senior members around to hopefully step in and settle things down anyway. To me a moderator is to keep things on the board running smooth, now even though this board is a big part of the club, i think there's a lot more too it and mods aren't always gunna be able or suitable to mediate between people, either in person or online.

I think we just have to take things as they come, and hope everyone is mature enough to sort things out. I havn't seen any real arguements on here yet that have gotten out of hand and think we keep this trend going.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/618-mediators/#findComment-14617
Share on other sites

boxcar racer.. even though the idea of ppl fighting on these forums sounds stupid it happens alot and will happen as more and more ppl join up..

i dont agree on the idea of mediator's, as onarun said u cant have 101 and chiefs and no indians.. just have each section moderated by the assigned person as was in the previous forums..

if 2 or more ppl wanna bitch they can do it over email/icq or whatever..

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/618-mediators/#findComment-14976
Share on other sites

just wanted to put something in place to sort out what will inevitably happen, especially between a moderator and user.

didnt think there were any cons. just trying to ensure the club doesnt go downhill as SDU did. Each state can just sort out what they want to do anyway.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/618-mediators/#findComment-17812
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...