Nate

iTrader: (2)

Would it be worth 'Me' copy and pasting his entire thread into a new thread and posting myself.

The main problem with it being 'locked', no-one can answer, so it will eventually fall off and not be seen by anyone.

This is the main issue I see

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I am going to go 'mad' with a reply here, and what I will state is that this is a reply strictly as a member of this board and not a moderator! I don't expect anyone to necessarily answer this publically, but it could be food for thought.

And I state that I am not taking sides

If you guys that are friends of Ross are so sure he is right in all this and has been royally shafted and that there is compelling evidence that would prove him to be the wronged party, would you put your money where your mouth is in helping him, other than just ranting on a forum?

It has been stated a few times before that he isn' in a financial position to take this to court, but how about you as a group, pool together and raise the funds to do this??

Ultimately, sounding off on a forum may or may not influence the decisions of other members....It could well make no difference, who knows, but no matter what, it doesn't really help Ross.

Assuming he is totally right, the right way to go is through the law and you guys could help with that. I know that if I was the friend of a wronged person, I would want to actively help them personally, and back and forth exchanges on a forum isn't going to achieve anything to speak of.

Again, I repeat, this is not me assuming who is right or wrong, I don't know either way without a doubt.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I can see that, but please try and see it from a neutral point of view. We allowed the thread to stand, as a warning if people take it that way. But we don't know either way.

As an advertiser, you know only too well what it can be like to get slated, whether it be warranted or not (probably unfairly as I love you ), and how bad mouthing has the risk of damaging business/reputation, especially if the information is actually false/unfair. In this case, we just don't know, so we have been as fair as we can, only nobody seems to get that, most likely as they feel a personal attachment to this.

This is how we are between a rock and a hard place.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I can't say tbh. If you were to do so, or even Ross for that matter, and it went the same way as the last, it would only most likely end up locked as well.

It is up to the mods as a whole how things will pan out, but if the thread was only going to be used as a project thread, then maybe it could be reopened/copied, but I'm not sure it would be and if not, we get back to square one.

Nate

iTrader: (2)

From what I understand, the said 'Dealer' isn't an authorized advertiser .... Or am I wrong ?

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Well this I'm not sure of. I had a brief look, and couldn't actually see him advertising as such. If it was clear he was advertising regularly (trading) then he would be dealt with as an AA and banned from adverising unless he paid up.

Like I say, I have only had a quick look, but I'd imagine, given the circumstances that other mods have also looked into posting history and determined he isn't actually advertising commercially on here. If we have missed something significant, then I'm sure you'll help us out.

Seriously for a mo, this should be even more reason for you guys to understand we are not 'protecting' an AA. We are making no money off the back of him, we have just tried to act as fairly as poss.

To add, as I really don't want people to think I am ignoring them, but I must go to bed. I've got work in the morning, as said no web , but will be back in the evening.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

That was the first thing I checked when all this cropped up, Lisa. To see if he was a authorised advertiser or if he was trying to trade as a private member; I didn't find any obvious advertising on Scoobynet (apart from thrid party references), and certainly nothing that was reported.

I could be wrong but I don't think he has ever been an authorised advertiser on here, otherwise there would be contact details in the vendor list (expired advertiser accounts won't be visible to the public). Also the username would cross-ref to any users names that would have been enabled for advertising (note all trade accounts are automatically disabled when they cease paying to be an authorised advertiser). Usernames used with the advertiser account can't be used once that user ceases to be an authorised advertiser (or at least that was the case when I last checked), so the Juggers account has never have been enabled for trade status, as it were, it would have been disabled by now.

(hope that makes sense )

banny sti

iTrader: (68)

He did for a while

https://www.scoobynet.com/scoobynet-...ucing-pcm.html

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Well, the user profile for PCM in the mod control panel should be show as being listed as in the 'former vendor' usergroup.

This account isn't. So either he has never paid SN to trade on here or something has cocked up; as when payment lapses it 'should' automatically put the advertiser into the former vendor user group (which then locks teh user out of the account to prevent them using it to trade).


edit: Hang on, 2006? Was this before Stu/IB took over? If so, that may explain it and why there is no vendor listing in the directory (I suspect things weren't quite so organised back then )

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Yup, as I suspected Stu took over in 2008. So this is long before we hand any handle in the running of this place.

Arkwright

iTrader: (3)

spot on Gary.

Lisa a great idea but you`ve missed the part where the dealer had the engine rebuilt or replaced with an inferior one and so there is no definate proof of Ross`s engine being the original one to the car as possibly it was changed by the dealer before Ross bought it. And the scenario that followed with the two mechanics opened a loophole which the dealer is hanging onto grimly with both hands so going to court would be expensivly pointless.
And so what Ross`s friends and Ross has tried to do is warn others as this is the only option left open to us. And we`ve been met with nothing but resistance from yourselves making us wonder who`s pulling your strings. I fully understand the legalities of libel and the forum being involved and some moderation has definatly been needed. But you have some powercrazy Mods there who have done nothing more than wind people up. So you should expect the accusations that have been made.
To clarify we believe it only fair to use this forum to warn others about the way Ross has been treated. As has been shown by the other thread with possibly a different dealer on a vx 220 forum. Where the Mods felt it was right to exspose a cheat before someone else got ripped off.

Nate

iTrader: (2)

I tell you what ..... SNET Admin don't give 'straight' answers do they!

Have a look in policy at my PM's threads .... One has been closed already

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Please be aware that SN has a no tolerance policy towards direct insults of the Web Team. All the Mods are volunteers and do not deserve this level of abuse. Such abuse will result in an instant ban.

If you have a legitimate complaint against a member of the Web Team, put it politely and in the correct forum.

As far as this situation goes: You are not aware of the all the facts regarding private conversations between the Web Team and the parties involved. You do not know what is occurring away from the public forums and are utterly unfairly accusing the Web Team of bias.

Simply because we are not 'siding' with one party you are wrongly assuming we are 'siding' with another. We are not.

We are trying to remain neutral in this which will mean that BOTH parties will feel the same.

I suggest that those people who continue to belittle the Web team here remind themselves that all the people not in the employ of IB (including myself) are not paid to do this, but simply to help out on this forum; and that you wind your necks in and provide constructive criticism rather than invent wild conspiracy theories and throw insults around.

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

The question put in the thread has been answered, and therefore the thread closed. This is normal procedure.

Spec'c'57

iTrader: (1)

Sorry its easier to reply here than in policy as i cant reply.

So if there are still further questions relating to a similar item of the original we have to start YET again another thread?

Nate

iTrader: (2)

Wrong, 'A' question was answered loosely, but was followed up with another that didn't get answered and the thread locked without it being answered, threads being locked just creates more threads.

Nurse Gladys

Therefore not allowing the right of reply?

Nate

iTrader: (2)

Exactly, and I have also raised the point about not being able to reply in Policy as well (which seems silly), unless there is a reason, but it has been proved (by Swiss Tony), that certain people 'are' able to reply ????

Nate

iTrader: (2)

That's it,

Ali-B words were ... 'Post in Policy', but if nobody can reply, what is the point ?

53

iTrader: (41)

They don't read PM's which implies they could if they wanted to

Having used V-Bulletin under 'Users' you can 'Read PMs' It's not a question of can you but do you

Nate

iTrader: (2)

Because of thread closures/vapings etc now, every long post or one that is informative, I type up first in MS Word and save..... Then just 'Paste' over to here, as it makes it easier to repost if it gets vaped

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

The question has repeatedly been put to IB regarding this and the answer is that ONLY the OP and the Web Team should be allowed to post in a thread created in Policy.

You may not like it, but that is the Policy laid down by IB. I have spoken about this, and that is what I am told.

Nate

iTrader: (2)

Wrong way round Stu, they admitted they don't read them, but 'CAN' they ?

Arkwright

iTrader: (3)

Guilty conscience Kieran I never said who it was.

And if it was you, you are prooving me right because it seems it`s fine for you to insult me but IF it`s returned it`s against the rules.

Just choose my non constructive posts to comment on and ignore the constructive ones.
Love from the " Old man smartarse "

ps you wonder how bad feelings are created and we`ve been told to grow up.

Nate

iTrader: (2)

And Swiss Tony replying in one of my policy threads ?

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Also being chased up

Spec'c'57

iTrader: (1)

You could probably use a few more mods to watch policy then as i can see LOTS of threads still open.

Nate

iTrader: (2)

Or not close them prematurely .... Have had to start yet another policy thread.


Which may be worth reading