I have edited where appropriate to take out irrelevant TB vs IMOC stuff and tried to keep it to the discussion between members / MODs / COMS about the Forums and moderation. I have also edited out the unnecessary banter. If someone feels it has been inappropriately edited, please contact me to discuss the same. I apologise for some of the disjointedness of this, but some of the original posts have been left on the original thread as far as I am aware. To be honest this has taken me the best part of two hours out of my Sunday night to check, copy, paste and compile so some understanding would be nice.EarlPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:15 pm
Post subject: ancient mariner wrote:sorry to see you are stepping down earl.your honest and balanced views will be missed,by me and i imagine a lot more of the genuine people on here.anyway enjoy the freedom and keep in touch.paul.
Many thanks Paul.
I'll be available on the T B Development$ forum if you want to chat mate.
EarL.
DucatichickPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:56 pm
Post subject: Sorry to see you go mate.
You were a fab mod, i'll see you on the dark side in my skybarge Lodgeman
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:38 am
Post subject: its all very well moving on but the core issue is never resolved so threads like this will keep coming back! all that means is more work for you and the other mods/commitee members.
surely if you sort that imoc will be a better place for all members? i and most people will not like censorship in any way! how can you ever make a unbiased choice if you are only allowed half of the information? and that half is decided by the commitee!. i have no axe to grind here or any particular affiliations to any group but i will say that this is ruining what could be an excellent club! Tiamat
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:02 am
Post subject: lodgeman wrote:its all very well moving on but the core issue is never resolved so threads like this will keep coming back! all that means is more work for you and the other mods/commitee members.
surely if you sort that imoc will be a better place for all members? i and most people will not like censorship in any way! how can you ever make a unbiased choice if you are only allowed half of the information? and that half is decided by the commitee!. i have no axe to grind here or any particular affiliations to any group but i will say that this is ruining what could be an excellent club!What choice is there to make?
I don't see that there is anything.
Earl has stated he is going and HIS reasons for going.
There is no choice in respect of this matter, the thread has gone off at a tangent with people contributing without knowing everything.
This makes it worse as its all based on rumours, personal opinions and half truths.
The reason we have a Committee is so that we do not have to turn to the members for every single little decision.
Anyone can go for Committee position, become a moderator and then move to Committee, there is no exclusivity.
I agree its ruining what IS an excellent club and I for one want it over.
But I also accept that things are not black and white and not always what it seems.
Michael
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:16 am
Post subject: Tiamat wrote:Earl has stated he is going and HIS reasons for going.
He's also stated the reasons he made the choice to go, that's why this current content is being posted.
Quote:There is no choice in respect of this matter, the thread has gone off at a tangent with people contributing without knowing everything.
Why don't the members know everything? Because those who know the
"facts" are only willing to present a vague, one-sided version of them to the members. Quote:This makes it worse as its all based on rumours, personal opinions and half truths.
How can it be based on anything other than this if those who hold the cards are unwilling to show their hand?
Quote:The reason we have a Committee is so that we do not have to turn to the members for every single little decision.
And that's what's holding IMOC back and turning it stagnant.
Quote:Anyone can go for Committee position, become a moderator and then move to Committee, there is no exclusivity.
No they can't
- certain self-appointed positions aren't open to everyone and over the years, despite numerous requests, there has been no members vote to show confidence in those who appointed themselves. Yes people can attempt to become a moderator based on the support of their mates and very little else but once there what happens? Most become frustrated and step down or simply go silent and do absolutely nothing to help IMOC until they have agenda of their own to attend to.
Quote:I agree its ruining what IS an excellent club and I for one want it over.
But I also accept that things are not black and white and not always what it seems. It WAS an excellent club, these days it's more of a business rather than collaborative project where everyone can get involved without the need to gain approval from people who seem intent on just demonstrating their perceived power on a daily basis by belittling the core membership.
Something
/ someone has to change and those who have taken control of IMOC need to be far more transparent. Tonigmr2
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:26 am
Post subject: Having been in and around IMOC since the late 90s I do find this all rather depressing.
It's so destructive, and it divides members who have become friends previously. At what point, do you think, when mr2oc.com, mr2oc.co.uk, gt4oc and IMOC have all had to deal with arguments and fallout caused by one individual time and time again, when all other traders get on except with that same person, what point do you think they should throw their hands in the air and say forget it?
It's always a no-win situation, Earl was in it, the committee is in it, and other moderators are in it, and not only at this club.
Solutions don't please everyone unfortunately, but have them we must. Hopefully something will get worked out and everyone goes their own way with as little bad blood as possible and deal with who they want to deal with. T
edit for Michael
- unfortunately a lot of info is witheld from us not at the committee's will as I understand it, I agree get it out. TiamatPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:46 am
Post subject: michael wrote:Tiamat wrote:
Earl has stated he is going and HIS reasons for going.
He's also stated the reasons he made the choice to go, that's why this current content is being posted.
Granted, but it has progressed rapidly into something else, a new thread should have been started to raise concerns.
michael wrote:
Quote:There is no choice in respect of this matter, the thread has gone off at a tangent with people contributing without knowing everything.
Why don't the members know everything? Because those who know the
"facts" are only willing to present a vague, one-sided version of them to the members.Members don't know everything yet because no final decision has been made as I understand it.
As has been told to me, the issue is still under discussion. Also some of the discussion in the past have involved the Committee in the ir personal capcities and therefore they are entitled to some privacy. In respect of this matter, no final decision has been made as far as I am aware. michael wrote:
Quote:This makes it worse as its all based on rumours, personal opinions and half truths.
How can it be based on anything other than this if those who hold the cards are unwilling to show their hand?
See my answer above, if it involves the Committee as individuals then they are entitled to some privacy.
Also conversations, communications etc can at times be covered by legal priviledge, dependin gon their nature, and there can only be released with the permission of ALL parties. michael wrote:
Quote:The reason we have a Committee is so that we do not have to turn to the members for every single little decision.
And that's what's holding IMOC back and turning it stagnant.
Disagree, if we had to get a vote on every decision the club would be unworkable.
Also, under certain circumstances cummincations may not be published (see above answer) so it would be impossible to get a decision. michael wrote:
Quote:Anyone can go for Committee position, become a moderator and then move to Committee, there is no exclusivity.
No they can't
- certain self-appointed positions aren't open to everyone and over the years, despite numerous requests, there has been no members vote to show confidence in those who appointed themselves. Yes people can attempt to become a moderator based on the support of their mates and very little else but once there what happens? Most become frustrated and step down or simply go silent and do absolutely nothing to help IMOC until they have agenda of their own to attend to.The Committee work on a majority basis.
Whether you are Chairman or if you are in charge of Affiliates, one vote per person. Majority rule. Certain positions may not be open, certain reasons make sense: the programmers of the Forum etc. As to replacement of members, Toni and Anna have stepped down. In the last twelve months (excluding my stint - I left due to work commitments) we have had Pete, Chris, Stuart and Scott join the Committee. The only "vanguard" of the old order are Alex, Es and Ben (the site prgrammers), Enis as head moderator and Lauren. Hardly a closed group. michael wrote:
Quote:I agree its ruining what IS an excellent club and I for one want it over.
But I also accept that things are not black and white and not always what it seems. It WAS an excellent club, these days it's more of a business rather than collaborative project where everyone can get involved without the need to gain approval from people who seem intent on just demonstrating their perceived power on a daily basis by belittling the core membership.
Something
/ someone has to change and those who have taken control of IMOC need to be far more transparent.It has to be run as a business, IMOC outgrew its capacity on its servers etc.
People want more ad more from the Forum and that means technical upgrades, money to buy stickers up front for people, money to get in stocks of the clothing. It has to be run as a business to generate the income to give people what they want. If its not done this way then we may as well go back to an e-mail list and not have the features we currently have. How can they be more transparent? Suggestions please.
Its all well and good saying this has to be done and that has to be done, by why not propose a solution instead of just critising?
DavidMPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:46 am
Post subject: This TB/Tim debate is never going to end, it's just going to continue to create division within the Club.
It's time to lock/delete this thread and any other similiar threads that appear. The current animosity towards the Admin of this Club is IMO not acceptable and cannot be justified.
It would appear that the REAL full facts of this whole matter are never going to be published, so nobody will be ever be able to vote one way or the other, resulting in both camps becoming more entrenched.
If so many people on here are so dis-illusioned with the way the Club is run and by whom, then I cannot understand why they continue visiting and postiing.
Over the years it would seem that ALL MR2 Clubs fall victim to this kind of bash the Admin.
... the MR2DC, now IMOC and MR2OC. I draw from this, that we are not the happy bunch of MR2 owners that we all like to think we are.
Michael
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:58 am
Post subject: Tiamat wrote:<SNIP PREDICTED BLAH BLAH CORPORATE REPLY> Its all well and good saying this has to be done and that has to be done, by why not propose a solution instead of just critising?
Because I'll be ignored and the usual excuses will be made.
Solutions have been proposed many times, ideas continue to be posted by members, time and time these are shot down by narrow-minded people with their own agenda for IMOC.
Sadly the humble member can do nothing about this because they are no longer part of a truly democratic members club. TiamatPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:10 am
Post subject: michael wrote:Tiamat wrote:
<SNIP PREDICTED BLAH BLAH CORPORATE REPLY> Its all well and good saying this has to be done and that has to be done, by why not propose a solution instead of just critising?
Because I'll be ignored and the usual excuses will be made.
Solutions have been proposed many times, ideas continue to be posted by members, time and time these are shot down by narrow-minded people with their own agenda for IMOC.
Sadly the humble member can do nothing about this because they are no longer part of a truly democratic members club.Nice mature response there Michael.
I take time out of my day to provide you with a full and considered response from my view point and you resort to childish antics. And you wonder why you get ignored?
Also hardly the way to get someone onside to help you.
If you have any suggestions then put them to me and I will try and raise them.
I have never seen any proposals from you so cannot comment on what you have raised in the past.
Contrary to the childish comment you have posted above I am not a corporate whore for IMOC, I have given up my time to help IMOC in the past and been thoroughly abused over it.
If you ask around the Forum you will find that I am one of the most independent people on here.
I find you questioning my independence to be very insulting Michael, clearly you have your dislike for the Committee
/ certain members but to tarnish everyone with the same brush is probably why people are not listening to you. Not that I expect an apology from you, its clearly been demonstrated in the past that you don't care who you insult on here.
Despite that, raise the suggestions with me and I will put them forward.
TiamatPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:52 am
Post subject: Steve Horrocks wrote:I thought from the beginning, instead of an instant ban on Tim, try a month ban, then if wrong is done again, another month, 3 months then out if ya like.
Would've saved the need for all this agro & "legal" worrying. Its in the rules
- break them three time in one year you get banned permenantly. Same for EVERY member, regardless of length of time on IMOC and their "status" on there. Its fair to everyone and to the Moderators / Committee and their "policing" of the site. One month bans, then three etc actually creates more work for the Moderators and Committee. Also every member could then get three warnings, behave for a month and then go back to their early misbehaving ways knowing they got three chances again.
The current system is very workable and it is unusual for a formal warning to be issued, most things are dealt with via an informal warning, unless it is serious. Earl
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:57 am
Post subject: CosmosblueMR2 wrote:Sorry to see you stepping down Earl
- but i understand your reasoning and for what it's worth i agree. Earl you mentioned you would be over on Tim's Forum
- are you just stepping down as a Moderator or moving completely from IMOC ? can you please clarify old chap.
total respect to you for standing up for your principles
- straight down the line Earl as usual. Top Banana Thanks Frank, your support is much appreciated mate, as ever.
I chose to stand down as a moderator for the reason given.
Nothing more. I will still frequent this forum as I have made many good friends (members and admin alike) on here, so leaving all together would benefit nobody. As for Casio's statement:
Quote:The only reason Earl has stepped down is becuase his loyalty has become questionable.
You cant be a moderator on the Tim B forum and continue in your current role here. That is the real reason you are stepping down, not because of some censorship issue. If you took the time to get to know me as a person, I think you'd think differently.
EarL.
Luthor1
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:03 pm
Post subject: Tiamat
- although I think I understand what you are saying regarding "...more work for mods committee..." (paraphrasing somewhat) I think a re-write might be in order, since I first read it thinking to myself "if you can't be bothered with the work step down". I firmly believe that the right way is usually the hardest way, and to mention workload as a reason for doing this or that, doesn't inspire that much confidence.
If it's the right way and a lot of work, let someone who has the time/is willing to do it have a go. I'm not trying to create arguments or be facetious, it's honestly how it made me feel.
Tonigmr2Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:05 pm
Post subject: Luthor think you should run to be a moderator, then you might realise more what Malcolm is saying.
It's not easy as it is. Also curious why we should change a whole system that's worked since the beginning to accommodate one person? T
Ducatichick
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:07 pm
Post subject: tonigmr2 wrote:Luthor think you should run to be a moderator, then you might realise more what Malcolm is saying.
It's not easy as it is. Also curious why we should change a whole system that's worked since the beginning to accommodate one person? T
I would second that Toni
Luthor1Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:12 pm
Post subject: I would have run, but I didn't think I'd get in.
I'm aware I can be pretty contentious, but I'd happily do it. Infact, next round, I will go for it. I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is. As for your defense of the system, most systems work until they are found to be flawed.
That's the point. There should be movement enough, and a dynamic enough approach to improve when most people think an improvement is necessary. I know my post almost certianly warrants a defensive response, but if you re-read it, you'll notice the tone is fairly gentle and understanding.
I know it's hard work, I maintain that keeping a system because another system is harder work is the wrong reason. If the harder-work sytstem is 'better' then THAT should be what is done, and since thepositions are voluntary, if people can't commit, then step down. TiamatPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:13 pm
Post subject: luthor1 wrote:Tiamat
- although I think I understand what you are saying regarding "...more work for mods committee..." (paraphrasing somewhat) I think a re-write might be in order, since I first read it thinking to myself "if you can't be bothered with the work step down". I firmly believe that the right way is usually the hardest way, and to mention workload as a reason for doing this or that, doesn't inspire that much confidence.
If it's the right way and a lot of work, let someone who has the time/is willing to do it have a go. I'm not trying to create arguments or be facetious, it's honestly how it made me feel.
I have put a lot of effort into the club over the last 4.5 years, but people forget this club is run by volunteers.
We get daily abuse and we get nothing back. The current system works, it is fair as it applies to all members. How is anyone going to feel if they get ripped off by a member on here, if we ban that member for one month then allow them back on they are going to be laughing. To get a formal warning it is voted on by the Committee on a majority rule basis.
They are not handed out individually by Moderators or Committee members so there is always discussion. The more complex the system, the easier it is to abuse and the harder it is to enforce. Its not that I can't be bothered with the work, I have tried to help lots of members on here, but at the end of the day we all have our own lives to lead.
A simple 3 bans in 12 months and your banned for life is fair. All warnings expire after 12 months of issue so its not like people don't get back their "lifelines". Tiamat
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: luthor1 wrote:As for your defense of the system, most systems work until they are found to be flawed.
That's the point. There should be movement enough, and a dynamic enough approach to improve when most people think an improvement is necessary. How is the system flawed?
You make three serious transgressions of the rules, your banned from the site for life.
Its simple to understand and it works.
If it can be improved then by all means make a suggestion on how to do so.
I have said this before in this thread and on others, if you don't like it, do somethig gabout not just critisise.
This means providing suggestions, the Committee and Moderators can't think of everything and implement everything ahead of all problems and keep everyone happy.
Not having a go Luthor1, but too often people come on here and say
"this is wrong" "this is unfair" etc, but then don't suggest how to solve it. Again putting the ball back to the Committee and Moderators to give up more time to solve a problem they do not see in the ifrst place.
The Committee and Moderators want to come onto the site and enjoy it too.
Luthor1
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:33 pm
Post subject: Again, with the greatest respect
- SteveHorrocks came to this thread with a suggestion, you then pointed out workload as a reason to not do it, then 2 other mods came on and had a go at me followed by a very defensive post from you again. Can you see how it looks from this side? I think this very small and isolated set of exchanges clearly demonstrates the feelings from both sides.
All I have done is to say that more work doesn't equal dont-do-it and I've had the responses I've had for it. I've not even made any suggestions, just pointed out how the mods/committee come across without necessarily meaning to, and I've had 3 mods come for me (albeit fairly gently). EDIT: I never said the system WAS flawed
- I said that if *A* system is flawed that's the point to change it. Limeymk1Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:46 pm
Post subject: Andy I think the current system is pretty reasonable, with most people one or two warnings are usually enough for them to get the hint.
There are no 'instant bans' on IMOC and if it was attempted I'd fight it. The system suggested by Steve is equally workable though and a month ban may well get the message home a bit harder than a simple warning.
Considering how many warnings are given out I don't think it'd result in a significantly higher work load. TiamatPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:47 pm
Post subject: luthor1 wrote:
Again, with the greatest respect
- SteveHorrocks came to this thread with a suggestion, you then pointed out workload as a reason to not do it, then 2 other mods came on and had a go at me followed by a very defensive post from you again. Can you see how it looks from this side? I think this very small and isolated set of exchanges clearly demonstrates the feelings from both sides.
All I have done is to say that more work doesn't equal dont-do-it and I've had the responses I've had for it. I've not even made any suggestions, just pointed out how the mods/committee come across without necessarily meaning to, and I've had 3 mods come for me (albeit fairly gently). EDIT: I never said the system WAS flawed
- I said that if *A* system is flawed that's the point to change it.Luthor1, I am sorry if you see my posts as defensive.
All I can do is explain things from my point of view. I though the fact that I am replying, I am asking for suggestions and have offered to take these forward for people would have shown that I am trying to help and not shutting the door. I accept that you did not say the system was flawed, however I read in your post an implication that the system was flawed, hence I asked for suggestions.
Given what has happened on the site in recent months, I don't think you can blame me for drawing that inference from the comments. Steve said what he thought, I did not read that as a suggestion.
I simply pointed out that it would create more work for the Moderators and the Committee members. Which is true. If Steve wants to suggest it formally with a workable system then I stand by my earlier comments to pursue it with the Committee. I still maintain that we need a system applicable to all, whcih means under the current system if I rip people off I am banned for life.
Under Steve's system I could rip people off, get banned for a month, get let back on, rip people off again,get banned for three months, get let back on again then permenant ban. We need a simple system that applies to all members, not a system that calls for grading of offences, which would mean that time would be spent arguing with people who feel they have been prejudiced and their offence didn't warrant a particular grading.
Again, sorry if my posts come across as defensive, but all I can do is state things as I see them, which if they are a contrary view then are going to be perceived as defensive and
/ or IMOC corporate whore, depending on your take on things. Luthor1Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:46 pm
Post subject: I was trying to make a valid point about how communication can be perceived, and how this can differ from how it's intended, in the hope that the relationship between the mods/committee and some of the general population of IMOC could quickly repair to trust and respect.
I didn't succeed, perhaps this thread was the wrong place to do it, sorry
all.
TiamatPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:28 pm
Post subject: luthor1 wrote:
I was trying to make a valid point about how communication can be perceived, and how this can differ from how it's intended, in the hope that the relationship between the mods/committee and some of the general population of IMOC could quickly repair to trust and respect.
I didn't succeed, perhaps this thread was the wrong place to do it, sorry all.
I want to
"repair" the relationship too, am fed up of the mod bashing and want to make IMOC fun again. I take on board your point about perceived communication and I was trying to make the same point, you saw my posts as defensive, I saw your as implied attacks on the system. Both of us misunderstood the other.
Its the usual internet problem, all the information you get is from what you read, there is no emotion to it, no inflection and its easy to misunderstand.
I have said in the past if people have a serious problem I am prepared to PM my mobile number for people to actually talk to me on rather than just across the forum board. Speedy
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:39 pm
Post subject: Quote:There are no
'instant bans' on IMOC and if it was attempted I'd fight it. Actually, thats not quite true.
We do ban people/bots who post offensive content onto the forums instantly (phama / adult related stuff). It's just one of the fun things you get used to when moderating. Limeymk1Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:47 pm
Post subject: Speedy wrote:Quote:
There are no
'instant bans' on IMOC and if it was attempted I'd fight it. Actually, thats not quite true.
We do ban people/bots who post offensive content onto the forums instantly (phama / adult related stuff). It's just one of the fun things you get used to when moderating.Good point I'd fogotten about that.
Must ask Ben to clear the ban list, I've lost my place.
EarlPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:19 pm
Post subject: luthor1 wrote:I was trying to make a valid point about how communication can be perceived, and how this can differ from how it's intended, in the hope that the relationship between the mods/committee and some of the general population of IMOC could quickly repair to trust and respect.
I didn't succeed, perhaps this thread was the wrong place to do it, sorry all.
You did suceeded Luthor, but unfortunately, some of the wrong people were listening.
.. Steve HorrocksPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:29 pm
Post subject: Tiamat wrote:
Steve said what he thought, I did not read that as a suggestion.
I simply pointed out that it would create more work for the Moderators and the Committee members. Which is true. If Steve wants to suggest it formally with a workable system then I stand by my earlier comments to pursue it with the Committee.Blimey, don't think i've ever had my name quoted that many times since JAE photo's!!
Right, the idea was just that an idea, not a fully thought out suggestion, but thought i'd try
& plant a seed for some brainy folk to sort out!! I just felt that all the strife
(always wanted to use that word on here for some reason!) could've/would've been avoided if a temp ban was issued. As far as i recall, no-one was
"ripped off" just Timothy's behavior on the board was at fault(forgive me if i'm wrong) If it's been already looked at
& decided it wasn' the ideal avenue to take,that's fine, just floatin some thoughts!! EarlPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:06 pm
Post subject: jmachling wrote:Anyway, on-topic
- Earl - sorry you feel you need to step down as a mod but glad to see you'll still be around to offer wisdom. We can all learn a great deal from the big bhp pioneers like yourself. Cheers John,
Thanks for the support mate.
EarL.
