Re: ADMIN: Re: Kit instructions or lack thereof

Mike Brock <brockm@...>

Kurt Laughlin writes:

"A fine point, I guess, but wouldn't criticizing a deliberate decision by a
manufacturer not to include instructions be tantamount to criticizing one of
their PRACTICES, and thus forbidden?"

If the manufacturer declared that their practice would be to not include adequate...or perhaps no...instructions, that would, indeed, be a business practice. Discussions about why a manufacturer might so choose would be out of scope. However, the effectiveness of such instructions would be part of the product and entirely subject to criticism from that view. Note, that the criticism would merely note the lack of quality of the instructions, not the reasons for such lack. Slater's point was that SS chooses, in his opinion, to scrimp on documentation compared to Westerfield so that SS can produce more kits than Westerfield. This view is, IMO, part of a business plan and, regardless of the accuracy, is out of scope. I might also note that any member certainly has the right to complain about poor documentation about a product and the comment:

"Quit complaining and go build those kits that are piling up."

is very much out of scope. OTOH, I consider the comment not to be a serious criticism of the members and written in jest [ I assume ].

"Likewise, wouldn't discussions of the
PRACTICE of releasing models in inaccurate paint & lettering schemes, or the
PRACTICE of not updating molds to add details also be prohibited?"

Not that I can see. Again, discussions about why a manufacturer might release such models would be out of scope. The fact that they did it would not be. Of course, one might claim that anything associated with the production of a product could be part of a manufacturer's business practice. The rule was put in place to eliminate criticism's of a manufacturer's operations, not criticism of the product itself. That product includes the instructions. Even the best written rules sometimes require interpretation and that's the function of the Head Judge [ me ] and his assistant [ Jeff Aley ].

I might also note that comments about rulings on the STMFC itself are also out of scope.

admin, security, or "policing" functions will be conducted only by myself or
my representatives."

At the same time, I welcome any and all views regarding the operation of the group.

Mike Brock

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.