xxxx and IMOC-UK

[Quigonjay]

see below

[mister3]

i have PM'd BenF in regards to this issue

would be nice if everyone could play nice together

[Speedy]

There is no politics on our behalf, we just enforce the rules which keep IMOC from descending into a general slanging match. Affiliates using the forums (either the boards or the PM system) to say bad things about each other puts us in an awkward position, so we have to issue formal warnings to stop it from happening.

We have to apply the rules to everybody equally, no matter who they are.

[Century Motorsport]

edited for arguments sake

[anna]

I would like to make it clear that Tim was banned because of his behaviour. Not just an isolated incident, but repeated abuse of IMOC over 4 separate instances. The most recent event would not have resulted in a ban if it were not for the previous formal warnings.

Attacks on other parties will not be tolerated. Tim was banned because of his conduct on IMOC, no one elses. If there are other instances of rule breaking by other parties, then that will be dealt with separately, although I remind you that we only have juristiction on the IMOC board, and cannot be responsible for policing what goes on in the real world - and to a certain extent, we don't care.

I personally think it's very sad that certain MR2 enthusiasts can't get on, just because they run a business and see it as acceptable to conduct themselves in certain ways. There is just no need. However, I hold no hope of the situation changing, and so those who don't get on must realise that they should not use IMOC as a tool to slander or 'get back' at each other.

Tim is the only person responsible for his ban. Just the same as anyone else who finds themselves in the same position.


Nathan - i'd stay out of this thread if I were you, and leave the moderators to do their job

[Quigonjay]

it appears i was misled, should never have got involved

[RichLee]

QUOTED POST REMOVED AS REQUESTED BY NATHAN

I suggest you dont even start slagging Tim off on the open forum. Quite easy for anyone to say "he sent me this email, i sent him this reply", we will never know the facts of what went on between you and him so why even post on here to dig your foot in even more?

I dont even understand why admin have left this post open for discussion tbh, all kind of stuff is coming out of the woodwork now and its not all about Tim.

[Speedy]

it appears i was misled, should never have got involved

glol, welcome to our world

[Speedy]

I dont even understand why admin have left this post open for discussion tbh, all kind of stuff is coming out of the woodwork now and its not all about Tim.

If we locked this initially, another post would have come up somewhere else, and another one etc etc, it's just the nature of things. We have to have a kind of release valve somewhere for people to talk about these things, and we want to be open about why these things happen.

But we are keeping an eye on this thread, and we will moderate it if needs be.

[RichLee]

I dont even understand why admin have left this post open for discussion tbh, all kind of stuff is coming out of the woodwork now and its not all about Tim.

If we locked this initially, another post would have come up somewhere else, and another one etc etc, it's just the nature of things. We have to have a kind of release valve somewhere for people to talk about these things, and we want to be open about why these things happen.

But we are keeping an eye on this thread, and we will moderate it if needs be.

Totally understand that but in cases where a particular fairly significant member is banned they should at least have the ability to defend themsleves and have their say.

Personally I'm sure you had very good reason to ban Tim but at the end of the day from what i have gathered he was banned for having a point of view, whether it be giving advice to a fellow member or a negative comment about an afiliate via PM or on the board. If someone doesnt agree with something why should they sit back and not say a word?

Its a sad week for IMOC banning someone who gave a lot back over the years, rules are rules but special exceptions should be made if not for the IMOC admin and mods but for the benifit of registered and paying members.

[Jaspa]

Its a sad week for IMOC banning someone who gave a lot back over the years, rules are rules but special exceptions should be made if not for the IMOC admin and mods but for the benifit of registered and paying members.

Thats just the point. What I never really understood before becoming a moderator is the amount of leniency given. I thought it was Black and White but EVERYTHING is considered before acting upon and Tim was given a lot longer rope than anyone else has/would. It's just a matter that we couldn't keep him under control so to speak and in the end the Committee decided that enough is enough. It has taken the committee hours of investigation and discussion to come to this decision, it wasn't decided lightly.

Stuart

[RichLee]

When you say everything was considered by the Committee does the person in question get any say in the matter or does the ban just happen without any defence?

[Lauren]

Totally understand that but in cases where a particular fairly significant member is banned they should at least have the ability to defend themsleves and have their say.

Personally I'm sure you had very good reason to ban Tim but at the end of the day from what i have gathered he was banned for having a point of view, whether it be giving advice to a fellow member or a negative comment about an afiliate via PM or on the board. If someone doesnt agree with something why should they sit back and not say a word?

Its a sad week for IMOC banning someone who gave a lot back over the years, rules are rules but special exceptions should be made if not for the IMOC admin and mods but for the benifit of registered and paying members.

Tim wasn't banned for having a point of view. He was banned for misconduct as a trader. There is a massive difference.

I don't agree that because someone is banned they should be able to have their say. Why?

In all honesty Tim had more than enough of his say and therein lies the problem. The trouble is you don't know how many days i spent looking at this in the minutest detail, i have never before had to investigate a case to such a depth of this one. There is no doubt whatsoever (and Tim admits this) that what he did was wrong and not acceptable. I have looked at Tim's allegations and found no evidence. It was black and white at teh end of it, no question.

I really don't believe that 'special exceptions' should be made, everyone is treated the same, we treat people with equality. The Mods and the Committee have to adhere to much stricter rules than the members or indeed traders do. There is inequality there, but there has to be.

Tim was given plenty of chances. He didn't have his previous warnings without reason. We practically bent over backwards to help Tim keep himself on the straight and narrow. This took up a serious amount of the Committee and the Mods time. In fact i'd go as far to say that every Committee member has had their turn. We really hoped that there would not be further issues with Tim, god knows we tried to help him. But eventually Tim over-stepped the mark and we simply could not ignore it.

[Jaspa]

When you say everything was considered by the Committee does the person in question get any say in the matter or does the ban just happen without any defence?

They have been in Email communication through the whole process.

[Lauren]

When you say everything was considered by the Committee does the person in question get any say in the matter or does the ban just happen without any defence?

Put it this way i've had numerous contact with Tim over the last 5 days. He had his say completely.

Tim had plenty of opportunities to defend himself. The evidence was overwhelming and Tim admitted to what he had done. In fact we found far more evidence than we needed to make a decision in all honesty.

[Tiamat]

Totally understand that but in cases where a particular fairly significant member is banned they should at least have the ability to defend themsleves and have their say.

Personally I'm sure you had very good reason to ban Tim but at the end of the day from what i have gathered he was banned for having a point of view, whether it be giving advice to a fellow member or a negative comment about an afiliate via PM or on the board. If someone doesnt agree with something why should they sit back and not say a word?

Its a sad week for IMOC banning someone who gave a lot back over the years, rules are rules but special exceptions should be made if not for the IMOC admin and mods but for the benifit of registered and paying members.

I can only reiterate what has already been said, it was not a light decision and was reviewed very very carefully before decisions were made. The whole of the Admin team were canvassed for opinions, this was not the result of one Admin person going out on a limb, this decisions has taken time.

I agree it is sad that this course of action had to be taken and I appreciate your comment about special exceptions. Where does that end though? What qualifies someone for a special exception? There are too many variables on what could qualify that we look at each matter individually.

Now this is not a reflection on what has happened but merely an example:
If a trader has been on IMOC for 3 years, is popular, helped 100s of members but is now doing shoddy work and ripping of members. Do we give them a special exception because of their history with the club? We wouldn't as we would protect future members.

Each matter as always will be dealt with on an individual basis.

I would like to make it clear that Tim was banned because of his behaviour. Not just an isolated incident, but repeated abuse of IMOC over 4 separate instances. The most recent event would not have resulted in a ban if it were not for the previous formal warnings.

We do not issues warnings that lead to a ban lightly and this matter has history that people will not be aware of and will not be released into the public domain.

[Speedy]

Its a sad week for IMOC banning someone who gave a lot back over the years, rules are rules but special exceptions should be made if not for the IMOC admin and mods but for the benifit of registered and paying members.

Hey, some of us are paying members as well you know

I hear what you're saying, but you can't have one set of rules for one lot and one set of rules for another, it's just not practical, and it's bound to cause more arguments.

IMHO (and this really is just IMHO, not IMOC), I think that Affiliates and traders should be given considerably less leeway than normal members, considering the potential to cause trouble and put us into a sticky legal situation which we don't want to (and won't) get involved with.

[splashnatz]

If Tim broke the rules, then he broke the rules, BUT,

if this is just the result of some inter-affiliate rivallry, then i think there's a major problem here.

i do think that people should be able to express the views and opinions in private messages (as long as they're not plotting something illegal) without fear of censorship or punishment.

[RichLee]

I don't agree that because someone is banned they should be able to have their say. Why?

Even in a court of law the accused get a chance to have their say, why should a public forum be different?

All i can say is thanks for answering my questions, good to know Tim did have some sort of say in your decision and I'm sure other members will appreciate knowing that fact. Just a shame the outcome could not have been different in some way, a ban for a time period or something...i do not know.

[Speedy]

i do think that people should be able to express the views and opinions in private messages (as long as they're not plotting something illegal) without fear of censorship or punishment.

I agree that's true - but there is a problem where affiliates are questioning other affiliates, since they could have a vested interest in taking work from those other affiliates. We won't get involved in any squabbles between affiliates, except where it's using the IMOC website (forums/pm's) and where rules have been broken.