Tim Bill and IMOC-UK

[BenF]

Tim, I've kept out of this thread and let the others do the talking - but I'm not happy you're telling the entire story here.

the committee broke its own rules, and it took a legal standpoint to highlight that. Thats basically it!

Isn't it about time this was locked!

Tim

No, that's not quite right is it? You chose to threaten the club with legal action. If that's not the case and you're happy to indemnify the Club then I can provide the legal paperwork for you

We spent four weeks and time discussing this with you - via email and PM as you preferred not to talk directly about this.

The situations which resulted in previous warnings I'm afraid were of your own creation - the last one especially so as we had a variety of people come forwards to corroborate what was passed to us initally.

I felt disappointed that we ended up in that situation, especially as we had worked so hard to assist you but we didn't have any alternative open to us.

Directly as a result of your actions we do have to make changes to the club which will result in the overheads at IMOC increasing in order to protect the club in future.

A number of committee members have left, basically as the 'fun' in running an enthusiasts club was being sucked out of it by this - who wants the threat of legal action hanging over them?

Personally, I feel we've spent time resolving this which (IMO) would have been better directed to other things for the benefit of club members - like planning events, updating the website, planning and agreeing trackdays.

You chose to subject the Rules at that time to legal scrutiny and yes there was a loophole that would allow you to return as a private individual, which is what we have agreed to with yourself.

So - where we are now is that you're back as a private member and we have chosen not to reveal the details of our previous discussions unless you specifically agree to this.

[Speedy]

Ok - rebuttal to the following points from the previous pages

Everything he’s said that factual on here has been removed or edited. What makes you think the committee are going to play by the rules this time and publish everything without adding a bias edge to it.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you on that point. Where we edit, we make it clear to the poster that we have edited them, and why we have edited them. We don't moderate unless somebody finds something really offensive and reports the post and we agree, or unless the rules are being broken. I think you'll find that we could be a huge amount less fair and just do what we want to do when we want to do it.

There is also a lot of people starting to question the administration of this club and how its run. After the attitudes of a few committee members I think there should be a few more stepping down.

1) I haven't had any contact with these people. If there are people who question the way things are run, feel free to start another thread or PM me. In fact, I've had people PMing me asking me when we are going to be running the elections for replacement moderators, so even if there are some people who are questioning the way things are run, there are also people who activley want to get involved (and good on them).

Through all this the only person who remained mature was BEN F and I think that says a lot about his character and personality. I personally feel we should dump the whole committee and start again, because there far from fair and professional.

2) I'm certainly not going to disagree that Ben is a great guy, and has done a lot for the club. I assume that you are including yourself and Tim in the above statement though? I'd also add that of course, everybody who gives time to IMOC does so of their own free will, and recieves absolutley no compensation in any way (either financial, or in kind) for the help they give others in keeping the site running. I'm not sure I agree with your initial premise, but even if I did, I wouldn't be surprised that people giving up their own time are not as professional as they may be while they are at work.
Might also be worthwhile mentioning that those people who are IMOC affiliates should conduct themselves in a professional manner which is above reproach. Accumulating enough formal warnings for a ban I guess would support your comment about people acting in a professional manner.
Since I've been reminded, either you or Tim still owe Anna an apology for comments made before as well. Anna has been good enough to apologise for her comments, I hope you will return the gesture.

And yes like it or not this has turned into a huge conspiracy with a lot of the members now knowing everything that’s gone on and any excuse to remove Tim as a member.

1) The reason for keeping the thread open is to show people that there is no conspiracy, otherwise we'd lock it and throw it away and ban anybody who ever mentioned it again. TBH, that sounds like an *awful* lot of work, and we are short of people pulling the levers you know..
2) If there are a lot of the members who now know the truth, then I'm sure Tim wouldn't mind if we posted up the full correspondence which led to this situation? Shouldn't really matter?
3) We have no reason to remove anybody as a member unless they give us a very good reason, thats the honest truth. I'm sure you can understand that if anybody was to be banned, that I'm sure it would cause the same problems again, and we certainly don't want to go *there* again. If you break the rules, then you will be moderated. If you consistently break the rules, then expect to be issued with a formal warning, yadda, yadda, yadda.

[EdMR2]

Ben i notice you and the committee always start off the "it happened like this story" with Tim issued the club a legal threat.

What you don't even include is what happened to force the words "legal" to appear in any of the emails that were sent back and forth.

Also was a formal legal letter ever issued to the club or its committee?

If that is a no then how can you possibly say that there was a legal threat? Idly talking about it doesn't warrant a serious response!

When Tim returned he publicly apologised for everything to everyone for his actions and it came to that just to get back to help people of this club. (Albeit in the case of anna where speedy says an apology is enough) It all died and everyone was starting to get back to normal until someone brings it back out the woodwork and explode it again. I should have been stopped there as everything was said and done.

This thread contains many infringements of the rules and therefore should have been laid to rest a long time ago, instead of bringing this up and looking at it from every angle to make Tim look worse than it was and to totally exaggerate the situation to do one thing. Discredit him which i personally feel is an attack on a mans livelihood.

Ed.

[Speedy]

Ben i notice you and the committee always start off the "it happened like this story" with Tim issued the club a legal threat.

Sorry Ed, don't agree with that one. Pushing this is only going to get more people to ask for the full story on what happened. As Tim has said, it's a strongly worded email, and probably won't do him any favours TBH.

When Tim returned he publicly apologised for everything to everyone for his actions and it came to that just to get back to help people of this club. (Albeit in the case of anna where speedy says an apology is enough) It all died and everyone was starting to get back to normal until someone brings it back out the woodwork and explode it again. I should have been stopped there as everything was said and done.

glol, nice attempt at taking things out of context there. As I said, apologising is a *good* thing of course. What isn't a good thing is apologising and then just doing the same thing again.
If it's all said and done, why keep replying?

This thread contains many infringements of the rules and therefore should have been laid to rest a long time ago, instead of bringing this up and looking at it from every angle to make Tim look worse than it was and to totally exaggerate the situation to do one thing. Discredit him which i personally feel is an attack on a mans livelihood.

Again, please report any posts which you feel are against the forum rules, otherwise don't speculate about things which may or may not be true. We didn't bump it, and I'm not the one saying things which cause us to reply. We have no reason to bump it, we've said everything (probably more than once). If you want it to die, please leave it alone.

[EdMR2]

1. People can ask the full story and i'm sure Tim will tell them, or atleast i certainly will how he was ignored and told to "stop wasting time by a fellow committee member (now left, not anna) The words on the email weren't offical they outlined the details of the imoc contract breech and also outlined the "what can happen in this situation" to you. These were also not Tim's words but i'm sure he will be judged on them.

2. Yes appologises are good, accepting them and forgiveness is even better. can you show me an incident since Tim's return as a new member has reflected any actions that he did Pre-Ban? If not then surely isn't that a change in his ways and him sticking to his word that he wouldn't cause any problems and help this forum? Because all i can see is a few posts on here where he's had casual conversations with members and talked a few people through problems.........

3. I'll play your rules and report any posts that are a breech in your rules. As you commented to me on PM that you will get a few warnings before a "formal warning" is issued. You've repled to an estermate of 4-5 reports that have been filed against anna and fellow committee memebers, How many friendly warnings do you get before a "formal" one is issued?

Looking back at Tim's record of pre-ban i see none. So is it a committee rules that admin members can give 4-5 times more abuse before an "formal" action is taken?

Ed.

[Speedy]

1. I think this is 2 things really.. so
1a. We may have not moderated because we didn't feel it was needed.
1b. Does it really matter if it was Tims words or not? I mean, it was something he had obviously gone away and got advice about and then sent to us. That would show to us some degree of pre-meditation and understanding about what he was doing. I don't think you can just say 'it wasn't exactly his words' as if that somehow absolves him of his actions? He went and solicited that information, and then he sent it to us.

2. If we have had to warn Tim about his conduct since he came back, then it didn't initially result in a formal warning. Thats more than fair. As for if he's changed his ways or not - I guess it's up to you to make your own judgement.

3. As I actually said on PM - it depends on the severity of the breach of the rules. We ban spammers without any formal warning. As I've said before, we don't like having to issue formal warnings, but we do find ourselves with no other recourse of action. The alternative to not being able to issue formal warnings would be to ban people straight off.

4. I think thats unfair. I'd also ask if admin people or moderators should have to take 4-5 times the abuse before a formal action is taken?

[Speedy]

Right, again, I'd like to ask people (in the morning, since it's late now, and I guess i"ll be fast asleep when you are reading this), to please not go back over old ground or things which have already been replied to, or points which have already been made.

If you have new questions which you feel are important enough to ask (either of us, or somebody else), then please ask them by all means.

[EdMR2]

1. Tim was contacted by many members of this forum after he ban saying he would be missed for his open and free giving information that contributed to this club. It was also a fellow member that pointed out the loop hole in the terms and conditions contract, and a family member passing by that adviced him what to do. So its not a case of he went out of his way to find this information or to bring imoc down. He returned because he felt this is what members wanted going on conversations mentioned above, and send a casual letter to the committee outlined what rules had been broken to be heard.

No formal letter was ever issued so i can't see how this can be taken seriously until that letter was recieved.

2. No lets not get back into people making there own judgement and lets stick to facts, as i feel its what the committee has and hasn't said thats shown tim in such a poor light.

Facts only, since his return have you or haven't you had to edit or issue warnings for underhanded or negative comments only. Not interested in advertsing grey areas that we've talked about on PM. He was banned for allegid underhanded comments, have you witnessed anything like that since his return? If the answer is no then surely you have no proof to say he hasn't changed?

3. Personally i feel that because the committee and admin who uphold these rules they hold so dear that they should be given even less leeway to break these rules. Thats obviously not felt with you as a "friendly warning" was the result on many of the reported posts and "they've edited it themselves" is often a reply with "an appology is enough" attitude is taken, ok on first time but there isn't one reply like this about the same person. I believe a few posts Tim posted pre-ban were edited by himself after a post was made in the heat of the moment but a formal warning was still issed there.

Ed

[Speedy]

1. Sorry, we can't magically divine intent from an Email. We had an email which we took seriously enough. I still don't believe that somebody would get banned, get some emails which say it's a shame, and then use whatever methods they can to force their way back onto the forums and expect people not to be asking questions about whats going on.

2. Tim isn't here, and Tim hasn't been asked if he wants it to be known about his current disciplinary record since he's come back. We don't discuss if there are formal warnings against a member unless it's public knowledge - it's not fair on them if they want to change their ways.

3. Again, 2 things
3a. Again, depends on the severity of the rule breaking, see above.
3b. As I've said, the final thing which resulted in the ban could really have banned him many times over, so in a way prior formal warnings don't really matter. On the other hand, we had already waited for one formal warning to expire before we issued him with his fourth so he could escape a ban previously. Again, I think that is way more than fair.

[EdMR2]

1. Believe it because it happened. Tim's got over 1000 MSN contacts of Mr2 owners, and there has been countless support for him.

2. Its a simple yes or no answer, has time been moderated for posting underhanded or negative posts?

3. No as i said that was more than fair, but lets not start getting into the reasons behind certain formal warnings as it might bring a few imoc members into the light who have themselfs been underhanded or a certain imoc affiliate who pretends to be all inocent but if far from the truth.

Ed

[Speedy]

ok if thats the stand point, lets just drop it all, hopefully i won't be seeing this thread in the morning with about 50 new posts.

most things have been said lets just lock the thread now!

Ed

Sorry, I'm not going to deny the people who pay for the club their right to reply. I also notice that you've edited your post above, interesting. I hope everybody reading this will give us no reason to lock it either. Don't go back over old ground, or say things which have already been said.

1. Tims welcome to do whatever he wants to do. What he does on IMOC though must be within the rules. If it's not then he's got to accept the consquences.
2. Please see my post above. I wouldn't push me on this.
3. If you have things to say about people, i'm sure you'd be happy to post them with proof and not just allege something.

[EdMR2]

1. He accepted the consquences, 3 formal warnings = removal of affiliate status as stated in your affilates contract, which is paid for making a legally binding contact.

2. What is there to push, you issued a formal warning out of the blue for a very very grey area of so called advertising, you've even admitted that on PM's (copy and paste ready if you disaprove) So now thats in the open yes or no has Tim recieved a warning for being underhanded or negative in posts since his return on this forum?

3. Just to clear things up is this fact fact proof or the same grey proof imoc uses as proof when they make punishment descissions?

Ed.

[Speedy]

1. He accepted the consquences, 3 formal warnings = removal of affiliate status as stated in your affilates contract, which is paid for making a legally binding contact.

2. What is there to push, you issued a formal warning out of the blue for a very very grey area of so called advertising, you've even admitted that on PM's (copy and paste ready if you disaprove) So now thats in the open yes or no has Tim recieved a warning for being underhanded or negative in posts since his return on this forum?

3. Just to clear things up is this fact fact proof or the same grey proof imoc uses as proof when they make punishment descissions?

Ed.

1. Er, what contract. It's not legally binding? Can you point me to the contract and the signatures etc.
2. If Tim had got a formal warning, then it certainly wasn't out of the blue, he would have been warned about it (possibly multiple times).
3. That is proof, and we vote to make these decisions.

I'd like to add - I'm not holding a gun to your head in order to make you keep replying. Presumably, you understand that if you don't like the way things are run, you can go somewhere else?

[Leon.]

God you don't half go on Eddy boy

What's it got to do with you anyway, you had no prior interest in IMOC before this incident nor in MR2s as far as I can see?!!

[EdMR2]

the same could be asked of you leeroy, this thread was dead until you had to stick your nose into cause trouble.

You say your sicken by whats happened here, well i say you make me sick. Its people like you that won't let things lie.

Ed.

[Speedy]

the same could be asked of you leeroy, this thread was dead until you had to stick your nose into cause trouble.

You say your sicken by whats happened here, well i say you make me sick. Its people like you that won't let things lie.

Ed.

Says the guy whos PMed me a huge number of times this evening, and keeps on replying in here..

Note to the general readership, please don't give us a reason to have to lock this.

(added)
I'd like to add - I'm not holding a gun to your head in order to make you keep replying. Presumably, you understand that if you don't like the way things are run, you can go somewhere else?

[EdMR2]

1. Every affiliate and member has to agree to a contract of rules when regestering to this forum. Because no paper work is issues it an electronic signature. Because money has changed hands for a service or produce in the case allowing a company or business to sell its products on this forum. I also believe that taking money in exchange for a service or product makes this forum a profit making organisation, regardless how you books ballance out, hope the tax mans informed

2. ok 1 formal warning since his return, and the reason someone inturptation of a comment that could or maybe seen as advertising, when the fact was he was talking about his personal car and sharing ideas................well done good moderation.

3. I'm standing up against people on there high horses who feel they have to tread on the littleman. There has been countless times this committee has been brought into disrepute and its about time those peoples side were heard, in this case i'm standing up for tim's regardless of his wishes for me to let this thread die. I'm the unsilenced minority

[anna]

You say your sicken by whats happened here, well i say you make me sick. Its people like you that won't let things lie.

Ed.

much much earlier:

We didn't bump it, and I'm not the one saying things which cause us to reply. We have no reason to bump it, we've said everything (probably more than once). If you want it to die, please leave it alone.

PMSL Ed - you are classic

[EdMR2]

i'm not the one who dragged this from the past to continue the argument.


Please Please Please leeroy start gobbing off because if theres enough trouble its the only way they'll lock this thread...............Go on give them a reason because i'm sure you won't let it lie, just like before!

Ed.

[Speedy]

1. Every affiliate and member has to agree to a contract of rules when regestering to this forum. Because no paper work is issues it an electronic signature. Because money has changed hands for a service or produce in the case allowing a company or business to sell its products on this forum. I also believe that taking money in exchange for a service or product makes this forum a profit making organisation, regardless how you books ballance out, hope the tax mans informed

2. ok 1 formal warning since his return, and the reason someone inturptation of a comment that could or maybe seen as advertising, when the fact was he was talking about his personal car and sharing ideas................well done good moderation.

3. I'm standing up against people on there high horses who feel they have to tread on the littleman. There has been countless times this committee has been brought into disrepute and its about time those peoples side were heard, in this case i'm standing up for tim's regardless of his wishes for me to let this thread die. I'm the unsilenced minority

1. IMOC is a club. Please read above for more information. You are covering old ground. You can also look up the rules on VAT registration if you'd like.

2. Thankyou for your comments on somebodies elses moderation. I refer you (again) to the comments made above about it.

3. We are not out there to tread on the little man, otherwise we'd just be sponsored by a single company or something. We are not, we are independent. The very fact that you are unsilenced is proof that we are not on our high horse and we do not tread on the little man.

I'd like to add - I'm not holding a gun to your head in order to make you keep replying. Presumably, you understand that if you don't like the way things are run, you can go somewhere else?