Hello Everyone,
I was recently alerted to a post made by Joel Alpert on another forum where he accused me of not adhering to GUU forum rules as an administrator. He claimed it was due to what he perceived as a biased toward him based on his affiliation with mears. While part of me thinks the claim is so ridiculous it's not worth responding to, I also think it would help to provide all the facts in the situation in case someone happens to run across the accusation.
The issue derived from a post made by a GUU forum member asking a question on the forum about the tagging of a jersey being sold by Mr. Alpert without contacting Mr. Alpert first. The GUU rule in this regard is as follows:
In instances where a forum member is identifying an item in the hobby they believe to have issues, it is expected that the poster clearly state their findings in the form of an opinion and provide adequate rationale for why they believe there is an issue. When possible, it is expected that the poster questioning an item will attempt to contact the seller of the item and allow at least 24 hours for the seller to reply before posting. This will prevent postings that may be generated based on misunderstandings of an item.
While the moderators of this forum constantly work to enforce this rule (you can search the number of posts we make on this topic), in this instance we felt it ill-advised to ask the poster to contact the seller directly (the "When possible" part of the rule). The reason we felt that way was because the poster received an email from Mr. Alpert dated March 29, 2007 (a little over two months before the post) where Mr. Alpert issued the following directive (I have used asterisks as filters because we do not believe in or allow foul language on the site):
"F**k off. Don't ever email me again or you'll find another letter from
a legal office at your door.
You are a piece of s**t, just remember I told you that. Go play games with the world on the GUU forum and I'll be fine with my life.
Got it?
P**s off."
I explained to Mr. Alpert that we were not going to force someone to email him after receiving such a threat and that we would monitor any future posts to make sure the poster did not attempt any malice toward him. In fact, here is an excerpt from an email I sent to Mr. Alpert on June 18, 2007 which elaborates on this point:
"In addition, I did want to let you know that your assumptions regarding any attempts to discredit you or mears are simply not true. I know your relationship with [name omitted] is an emotional one but I honestly don't think it is difficult to see why anyone who received the email below from you would not want to email you. I understand you stated it is your right to threaten and swear at [name omitted] but please realize that those things can't simply be dismissed when it is convenient. Your relationship with [name omitted] is really none of my business but I would strongly suggest considering the implications of any threats before you make them in the future.
I will also keep an eye on future posts made by [name omitted] to make sure they are not attempted with any form of malice toward you. While I stated I understand his reluctance to email you given the situation that certainly does not give him license to say whatever he wants about you either. I just want you to know this is nothing personal and we are not trying to sabotage anyone as you suggest."
Again, while I almost hate to even respond to such an unfounded claim, I thought it would help to let everyone know the circumstances behind the situation in case anyone had any questions.
Sincerely,
Chris
I was recently alerted to a post made by Joel Alpert on another forum where he accused me of not adhering to GUU forum rules as an administrator. He claimed it was due to what he perceived as a biased toward him based on his affiliation with mears. While part of me thinks the claim is so ridiculous it's not worth responding to, I also think it would help to provide all the facts in the situation in case someone happens to run across the accusation.
The issue derived from a post made by a GUU forum member asking a question on the forum about the tagging of a jersey being sold by Mr. Alpert without contacting Mr. Alpert first. The GUU rule in this regard is as follows:
In instances where a forum member is identifying an item in the hobby they believe to have issues, it is expected that the poster clearly state their findings in the form of an opinion and provide adequate rationale for why they believe there is an issue. When possible, it is expected that the poster questioning an item will attempt to contact the seller of the item and allow at least 24 hours for the seller to reply before posting. This will prevent postings that may be generated based on misunderstandings of an item.
While the moderators of this forum constantly work to enforce this rule (you can search the number of posts we make on this topic), in this instance we felt it ill-advised to ask the poster to contact the seller directly (the "When possible" part of the rule). The reason we felt that way was because the poster received an email from Mr. Alpert dated March 29, 2007 (a little over two months before the post) where Mr. Alpert issued the following directive (I have used asterisks as filters because we do not believe in or allow foul language on the site):
"F**k off. Don't ever email me again or you'll find another letter from
a legal office at your door.
You are a piece of s**t, just remember I told you that. Go play games with the world on the GUU forum and I'll be fine with my life.
Got it?
P**s off."
I explained to Mr. Alpert that we were not going to force someone to email him after receiving such a threat and that we would monitor any future posts to make sure the poster did not attempt any malice toward him. In fact, here is an excerpt from an email I sent to Mr. Alpert on June 18, 2007 which elaborates on this point:
"In addition, I did want to let you know that your assumptions regarding any attempts to discredit you or mears are simply not true. I know your relationship with [name omitted] is an emotional one but I honestly don't think it is difficult to see why anyone who received the email below from you would not want to email you. I understand you stated it is your right to threaten and swear at [name omitted] but please realize that those things can't simply be dismissed when it is convenient. Your relationship with [name omitted] is really none of my business but I would strongly suggest considering the implications of any threats before you make them in the future.
I will also keep an eye on future posts made by [name omitted] to make sure they are not attempted with any form of malice toward you. While I stated I understand his reluctance to email you given the situation that certainly does not give him license to say whatever he wants about you either. I just want you to know this is nothing personal and we are not trying to sabotage anyone as you suggest."
Again, while I almost hate to even respond to such an unfounded claim, I thought it would help to let everyone know the circumstances behind the situation in case anyone had any questions.
Sincerely,
Chris
Comment