Motorcycle Forums banner

CARB nicks Dynojet for a Million Bucks !!!

11122 Views 57 Replies 12 Participants Last post by  pplassm
The latest AMA press release sez CARB fined Dynojet for selling Power Commanders that allow motorcycles to go out of EPA emissions compliance.... Dynojet has agreed to sell a PowerCommander that will meet EPA and CARB requirments for sale in California.

I'm not sure how that's going to work as recalibrating EFI for more power is usually done by richening the mixture and slowing the advance curve coupled with a modified free'r flowing exhaust and less restrictive intake, all of which are illegle under current EPA laws. Just tweaking the fuel injection isn't going to make much difference I wouldn't think.

Over on the HD Forums they're still arguing whether they should run loud pipes or not...Clueless as usual, the Gov'ment is three steps ahead of them all ready. Hope they all saved their stock parts LOL....
1 - 4 of 58 Posts
"Political correctness" is always trotted out when someone is challenged on a post that is offensive and demeaning. But there it is -- the language was offensive and demeaning, and I deleted it as a result. It is regrettable that you think you have a right to post such language, or that you should feel I am picking on you because you do. I would have deleted that language no matter who posts it. I have deleted other offensive posts or language as well. It's not about you, Airhawk, and if you don't like having me mod your posts I suggest you take some care in your choice of language in the future.
Airhawk, this site may help.
Okay, but you can't deny that "offensive and demeaning" are highly subjective terms. Not having had the opportunity to see the original message I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with your assessment but I would hope that if you're going to take the time to censor a user you'd give them a less flippant explanation.
Yes, they are subjective terms. I try always to consider what this site is like and what generally goes. There is a lot of pretty hard banter here, and that's fine. But there are a couple of areas where I feel I should step in. This was one of those areas. By the way, the words used were not offensive just to gays -- they were offensive to women as well.

As far as "censorship" goes, what I did was not "censorship." I am not telling Airhawk not to express his opinion about Senator Clinton - just to do it with acceptable words. There's a difference between moderating the words used and barring statements on a topic.

I don't understand why you feel my comment about "political correctness" to be flippant. It was not. "Political correctness" is, as I said, the argument people tend to use when they have been told not to use offensive language. From my point of view, I'm simply asking people to understand that the language is offensive. Let's take some examples of language that people now know are offensive and so are no longer used in any sort of discourse:

The N word

. . . and so on. People understand that these words are offensive. They don't use them. If someone said these words in this forum I'd likely mod 'em out. Could anyone realistically complain that by modding those words it would be "political correctness"? Yet it is exactly the same as me modding out the offensive language in Airhawk's post. (And by the way, his explanation sanitized the comment he made.)

There are a LOT of words that people continue to use to demean women and gay people. A LOT. I've modded out other homophobic stuff without complaint. The folks here at this site push those lines sometimes, but this time Airhawk's language went over that line, IMO.
See less See more
My point made in three letters.
I'm not sure what help your point is. Many of the decisions a mod has to make depend on our opinion and judgment. There are a couple of things that are obvious -- deleting a double post and fixing busted links, for examples. But even something that is patently barred by the terms of the site -- spam is a good example -- requires us to judge whether a post is or is not spam. It's not always obvious, and the mods even have had threads at times to discuss whether something is or is not spam. We have to exercise our judgment whether to can the post.

Now, one might think that we'd be better off if there were more specificity in the terms of the site, on the theory that with more specificity we wouldn't have to exercise our judgment and thus people would know what was permitted and what was not permitted. That can be a good idea to a certain extent, but humans being what they are, even the most specific rules or laws can't cover everything that we can dream up to get around those rules. For example, let's say this site expressly bans that list of words that I posted above. Someone could try to get around it by using "*****" or "****", or some other misspelling. In short, no matter what terms this site imposes on its users, the mods will ALWAYS need to have the discretion to decide whether some post violates those terms.
See less See more
1 - 4 of 58 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.