|
These rules definitely seem fair and balanced, as does the IK. We cant even post articles from certain sites now because they don’t align with the position of the IK? The same IK who tried to deflect Tesla quality issues with a “but what about Subaru?” post that’s apparently now against the rules? And then we have people “disseminating information in bad faith” online. What exactly is the bar for this? Is it anything that the IK/mod doesn’t agree with? It seems weird that the mod post in the last thread was “hey there are a lot of reports” and barely any posters engaged with it or cited concerns, and then we come around to a new thread with threats of threadbans if you don’t toe the line.
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 11:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
You say consider your sources but the OP straight up blacklists several of them. It doesn’t appear that rule or any others were developed with the community involved, and it comes across as very biased. The same holds true on the Twitter piece and reads that you can’t post someone’s tweet unless there is “solid evidence”, but that seems to set a very high bar, and possibly intentionally created that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 13:51
|
|
|
Westy543 posted:If we save anything from the last thread, it should be this post: That’s not what the rule is though. It’s you can’t post anything without “solid and sourced” evidence and these sites in particular are not allowed. What makes a site not allowed? There isn’t any criteria listed. Is it just the IKs discretion? Itzena posted:If it's a genuine news item then it will be reported on outside of those particular sites, surely? If it breaks on those sites first, the rules as written exclude it from being posted since they are the primary source. My point here is that these rules appear to be created in a vacuum without any community involvement, despite the mod post in the last thread trying to engage the community. Why bother engaging if you’re going to do whatever you want anyway and make up thread specific rules without input from the people who post in that thread?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Speaking for just me, I genuinely don't give a poo poo what anybody posts on twitter. And since empty quoting twitter posts seems to be exclusively used as proof that "see? I told u they was poo poo!" arguments, I'd say the mods are right to try to clamp down on it. Given that most of the rot of the previous threads was essentially "Twitter/clickbait article empty quote-see, xxx is poo poo-no it ain't-yeah-nah-yeah-nah" repeated until someone hits report, do we really need more of that? I definitely want to see what actual consumers of EVs are saying. Like it or not, that’s probably going to come from Twitter because the average joe doesn’t own an EV news site to post content related to their car. Clamping down on certain sites the power that be feel are biased in conjunction with banning individual’s posts feels like an intentional process to create an echo chamber.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
My concern stems from the fact that people seemingly want to enforce rules for communities without engaging with them. Banning certain sites and post types because you don't personally like them without discussing it first is objectively bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:What is gained from making and having those arguments though, over and over? Would it be normal and ok to go into the 4x4 thread and post tweets of everyone with a broken jeep or whatever, as a way to what, dissuade people from buying a jeep? Prompting posts of jeep owners who replying that well my keep never broke! (maybe that's not a thing anyone has ever said, just run with me on this.). It's just pointless threadshitting. I've never said I want to see posts about broken EVs. I said I want to see posts from actual consumers. That may be good, it may be bad, but as EVs are a fast moving and evolving space, it's nice to see whats actually happening in the real world.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:That's not what people use those posts for in the previous threads though. So enforce sanctions on offenders who aren't posting in good faith, don't ban entire platforms of posts via a blanket statement. This isn't hard.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
RZA Encryption posted:Great news! That's expressly encouraged in the rules! CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:
I don't have PMs and I don't intend to give Lowtax money. Also, telling people to take it to PMs is hiding conversations in the shadows and that is not conducive to creating community engagement. That has been a major problem on this site for years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
RZA Encryption posted:Fair, in that case you can have that open discussion in QCS: https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=188 I think everything could be solved by creating rules sourced from posters (assuming good faith) who post in this thread, not allowing one person to dictate what they feel is appropriate. Collaboration always leads to a better outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
LloydDobler posted:Everything could be solved by you shutting the gently caress up. Just post about cars, Jesus Christ. I would encourage you to read rule #1 in this thread. Be humble in your nature, don’t try to silence others with opinions different than your own.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Elmnt80 posted:I asked the previous thread for input and helped CI make the rules based off that. Your contribution to this discussion was to try to correct my spelling of ya'll and to say that actually the thread is fine and nothing is wrong. I disagree and yes quite frankly at the end of the day I'm the one that has to make the decision. Something awful is not a posting democracy and if you disagree with that, then you need to take it up in QCS. I want to see the EV thread actually having discussions about the positive and negative aspects of EVs without the poo poo slinging and useless trolling in either direction. I'll take the actions I feel help push it in that direction and picked an IK I trust to share that direction without favoring either side of the argument. Do you think that perhaps the lack of responses you received told you something about how posters felt about the thread? At any rate, deciding to blacklist certain sites willy nilly and create ambiguous rules in a vacuum is a very strange decision, especially in the post-Lowtax world where there should be more insight into how the mods and admins interact with the posters in their forums, not less. You can punt me off to QCS, but I was hoping to have some dialog and not just “because I said so” E: LloydDobler posted:Everything could be solved by you shutting the gently caress up. Just post about cars, Jesus Christ. Are these the posts that are allowed now? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I respected the hell out of a guy who grey marketed a Brabus roadster. I have never experienced such a bad transmission as the forTwo. I cannot believe they brought that thing to market, or that people bought it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
I wonder if Nissan will cascade the liquid cooled battery down to the Leaf, or simply replace the Leaf with a new model. Nothing terribly surprising about the Ariya, but they are way behind the competition now, which have all moved past the Leaf. Not selling this until late 2021 will mean it’s dropping into a more crowded market with brands that offer more cachet than Nissan. It will be interesting if they can make the jump from the current “we’ll finance just about anyone” model to their new vision of actually being profitable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2020 11:49
|
|
|
McPhearson posted:It's not even tied to the car, really. If you buy FSD and sell the car the FSD will be removed and the new buyer will have to purchase it again. But it looks like they are going to start offering FSD as a subscription service at some point. The people who fall all over themselves in the Jalopnik comment section to explain that Tesla isn’t the bad guy and that this is an acceptable business practice are displaying some impressive mental gymnastics.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Elmnt80 posted:So explain your position on why its a bad business practice. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. You bought a car with advertised features, and Tesla decides after the fact that you don’t get to keep them, despite it being in direct conflict with what they’ve told people. In one instance a poster says Tesla took off the underlining which signifies Ludicrous mode. This is contrary to how the car market has operated for its entirety and not in a good way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:It's not made clear it doesn't stay with the car, people have purchased cars that have FSD on the window sticker and then it's taken away (which would have factored into the purchase price), and it's the only thing you can pay thousands more for which now won't help you on resale. Those are the obvious factors, then you can add in that people have paid for it, owned the car for four years, never had a chance to use it (because it will never exist), and now don't even get the benefits when they sell the car. I can’t understand how Tesla can continue to sell vaporware for a car that it will never deliver on. Well, I can, but I don’t understand how it’s allowed by regulatory agencies. If you paid up for FSD and the car is totaled in a fire, you’re not getting any extra money on your total loss settlement and Tesla won’t refund you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
gwrtheyrn posted:I don't keep up with tesla news too much because it's like 70% An insurance claim only reimburses you for actual losses suffered. You don’t actually own a car with FSD at the time of the loss, because it doesn’t exist, so how do you prove the value? There’s an even bigger wrinkle if you buy it later, because that could be considered custom parts and equipment and US auto insurance typically only covers $1k of that without purchasing additional insurance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 20:19
|
|
but didn't they back down from the whole 'remove FSD from sold cars' although only after it was plastered all over social media? Also, wouldn't you get FSD on your insurance claim if it was totaled as long as you ordered the car with it and it was put on the window sticker? I'd guess anything you pay for afterwards through the tesla app or w/e you'd probably just get hosed on, but I would hope the as-delivered configuration would be covered since it has a documented cost.
|
gwrtheyrn posted:Is this a thing that has actually happened or is this wild speculation? The 2nd part is dependent on your policy contract. I suggest you read it, most people don’t and it can set you up for some surprises. The 1st part is just industry standard. Unless you have a replacement cost policy (if you’re not sure, you don’t have one) every US policy is actual cash value. While heated seats or a sunroof are tangible items that add some value and move with the car, how do you put a price on a software flag that doesn’t stay with the car?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Wibla posted:https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot That’s the thing though. Tesla says that once an upgrade is purchased on the car, it stays on the car. However, they seem to do something different in practice where they strip our software from cars they get possession of to hopefully sell again. quote:The manufacturer has yet to issue an official response as to why this practice exists, though the brand’s customer support hotline told both us and Jalopnik that any features purchased when the car was new (that weren’t subscription based) would carry over to all subsequent owners. This would be a huge relief if we didn’t already know Tesla was acting contrary to the claim. Instead, it feels as though the automaker is testing the waters to see what it can get away with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Shamino posted:You're leaving our the important detail that the car went through Tesla first to stir up controversy. A normal person to person transaction wouldn't result in that. And was sold by Tesla with those features listed at auction, so why does it matter? - Car returned as lemon - car listed at auction advertising x,y,z features - dealership buys car at auction with those features listed as being present on the car - Tesla removes features after the sale is concluded - dealership sells car to private party, dealer is aware that the features are changed but consider it a bug since it was advertised with those features - Tesla tells new owner to piss off, and only after they get dragged on social media do they cave
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
Reinforcing very positive stereotypes. Good job.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
Yeah man I definitely want to read chat logs from some Discord, great stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Here4DaGangBang posted:So we’re ignoring the fact that your foot can be “on the gas pedal” in a Tesla and the car can be slowing significantly at the same time? 🤔 I can’t imagine the regen decelerating would be in any way faster than depressing the brake pedal if your foot was already on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2020 12:36
|
|
|
Ola posted:If we're measuring fossil vs EV safety on brake performance in various edge cases, let's include overheating brakes from long downhills vs regen. And the various hill hold, creep modes etc which in EVs can be dependent on software checking for open doors and fastened safety belts, vs an idling fossil autobox which can be put in drive by a toddler or a dog. In an ICE car on a long downhill you just put it in a lower gear though, not ride the brakes. This has been the case for as long as cars have been around.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2020 12:45
|
|
|
Here4DaGangBang posted:You should probably go and drive a Model 3 so you don’t have to imagine anything. Is this the latest “you can tell who has been to the track and who hasn’t” throwaway comment? I’ve driven one. I would much rather have my foot on the brake.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2020 13:56
|
|
|
Bum the Sad posted:Don't tell me how to use my car. They didn’t. They told you not to post about it. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:gently caress off Agreed, op
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
Ola posted:Are there regulations on how big an AC unit you can install in the US? Aren't huge central units pretty ubiquitous? Big ones must be multi-kW for sure. And in the peak hours of the late afternoon, people arrive home, open doors, let in hot air, the AC whirrs away no problem, the grid doesn't explode. The grid definitely does. Rolling blackouts are a thing. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-u-s-cities-face-more-blackouts-under-climate-change/ https://www.keranews.org/post/roundup-rolling-blackouts-threatened-texas https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article227123479.html
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2020 14:15
|
|
|
sanchez posted:Perhaps this is a Texas problem? Here in the northeast there is huge over capacity, I'd assumed this is why my utility has no real interest in pushing TOU car charging. They have some plans, and are rolling out initiatives that allow them to pull charging data (including directly from Tesla which is cool), but the cost savings don't make any of it worthwhile. It’s a concern anywhere there is extreme heat. Climate change isn’t helping.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2020 14:29
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:Texas is the only State in the US that doesn't have interties to other States, this is done to dodge Federal regulations on utilities, it's kinda nuts https://www.texastribune.org/2011/0...%20few%20times. If you don’t die from toxic chemical exposure, don’t worry, PG&E will burn your house down, or maybe blow you up in a natural gas explosion!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2020 15:25
|
|
|
Bum the Sad posted:Yeah I’m pretty happy with the Texas tint laws, I was a little bummed about the windshield needing to be clear until I found out “clear” is a 70% light allowed tint. I’m pretty sure you’re interpreting that wrong. quote:Sunscreening devices can be applied to the windshield if all of the conditions below are met. https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/vi/consumerinfo/windowtint.htm So while you can have up to 25%, it still has to be above the AS-1 line (or 5” from the top). A truly clearly film can be applied anywhere on the windshield.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
Thats because FL’s entire insurance structure is basically litigation and pre-litigation demands and it costs a fortune as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:hello, i am from michigan, let me tell you about no-fault insurance!! You can opt out of unlimited PIP now!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:Speaking of which, I tested out a random electrify america charger and you do actually get that 150 kw all the way up till 65% charge at which point it drops to 100kw. Went from 20% to 70% in 15 minutes. This actually makes it kinda feasible for someone without level 2 home charging since it only costs about $10 to charge 100 miles or 10 cents a mile, roughly the same as a 30 mpg car at $3/gallon California gas prices. Scenario 2: rolled over debt is very often excluded from GAP payments, so you should be careful with this assumption and providing advice. Otherwise you’d see people just rollover a big underwater loan then drive into a lake on “accident”. Sources: https://ratesforinsurance.com/types/gap-insurance/coverage/ quote:What Gap Insurance Doesn’t Cover https://www.carinsurance.com/gap-insurance.aspx quote:What isn't covered by gap auto insurance?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:Depends on the gap insurer. Some deny it while many do pay out. I wouldn’t say “many”, but my point is that your statement implies that everyone always pays rolled over loan amounts, which is not accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 13:14
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:I would say most actually. Gap is often advertised as covering negative equity from trade-ins(to a reasonable percent of msrp). Stories of gap covering this is fairly common while the vice versa is harder to find. Here are some actual policy endorsements which stipulate what coverage actually entails. https://ecommerce.commerceinsurance..._CA20711001.pdf Excludes carryover balances - section “e”. https://www.uuinsurance.com/ShowPDF.php?number=F.34545A+%2804-17%29 Excludes carryover balances - section “e”. https://www.nationwideprivateclient.com/libraries/sites/1/assets/import/Pdf/NWPC_CA_NewCarReplacement_GapCoverage_PP1406%2011-15.pdf Excludes carryover balances - section “c”. https://www.plymouthrock.com/public/Plymouthrock/StaticFiles/PDF/assurancepackages/assurancepremier.pdf Excludes carryover balances - section “c”, subsection “f”.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 13:46
|
|
|
TheWevel posted:You may want to re-read the language on those. A carry-over balance is an unpaid balance on a different loan. If the money is financed as part of a new loan that has gap, the gap insurance covers the new balance. Where this comes up is during the time that your previous balance hasn't been paid off yet and you technically still have two separate loans. A carryover balance is the remaining balance that is left after your trade-in value and is being absorbed into the new loan. You owe $10k on the car. Your trade-in value is $7.5k. You are carrying over $2.5k into the new loan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 14:16
|
|
|
Goober Peas posted:I disagree with your interpretation. In any event, the GAP in my current lease, and in my past leases state it covers up to 125% of MSRP. Ok, so what is carryover balance then? The biggest thing is to read your policy, which you did. Most people don’t do that and then can get financially hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 15:33
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:These are all auto insurance gap coverage, which are generally worse and less comprehensive than auto lender gap coverage. Every reference in your original post was to insurance. Notice the Audi plan does not describe itself using the word insurance. That’s because it is not an insurance product. I was speaking specifically about insurance because well, that’s what you brought up. I would also love to see a sales breakdown sheet where they inflate the purchase price of the car by your negative equity. I’ve never seen this, because it would raise the taxable value.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Goober Peas posted:C'mon dude, are you really going to be this pedantic? Gap is an insurance product, regardless of the venue where it's sold. It’s not being pedantic, it’s trying to ensure that people aren’t spreading incorrect information. Gamesguy posted:Dude this is like peak pedantry. Everyone calls it gap insurance and it's the same insurance product whether you get it from a lender or auto insurance company. The only difference is the former is almost always more comprehensive. It’s clear that the products are actually different though considering I’ve posted actual policy language from auto insurance policies, where they specifically outline this. And you wrote insurance multiple times in your post. I’m not invested in being against an idea, I just want to ensure there isn’t misinformation being spread around. The Allstate policy actually spells it out a bit more -they will not cover the remaining balance (negative equity) rolled over. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
Gamesguy posted:They are not, both are gap insurance products. Calling one not insurance is like saying a toyota isn't a car because it doesn't come in v8. Yes, I am aware that leasing companies may cover it. Regular auto insurance clearly does not as I’ve illustrated. Your original point does not distinguish between auto insurance or any other type of products. Putting a blanket statement that insurance covers any rolled over negative equity is incorrect. If your statement was that certain products may cover rolled over negative equity, that would be fine, but the issue is that you simply lumped all products together and said they’ll cover the entire balance in the event of a total loss. This is not accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2020 10:26
|
|