Everyone has seen my Announcement in all Forums about FerrariChat.com Rules. If you haven't, please read it. Im removing it and giving you a one day ban. You know better than to have that as an avatar. Thanks, rob Are you serious ? Its a girls bottom, how is that offensive ? All the bits that could be 'deemed' offensive are covered up. Do you get offended on a beach when women are in Bikini's, as that is what this women is wearing ? You have totally amazed me with this ! There are avatars all over the site showing womens breasts ! Are you saying the skin on a womans bum is more offensive than that of skin on the breats ! Bizarre And why should i know better ? Who am i to know better ! I pay a subscription to this site and banning me is a joke. Thanks for the , 'could you remove the picture because of point a, b and c I have been banned with no reason and no real explanation. Very interesting Many Thanks Chris Rob, many thanks for threatning to ban me for life for F-Chat for wanting to discuss the nature of my one day ban. I suggest you update the UK mods on 'your' rules. I have run that particular avater for about a month and not one person has said anything to me that it wasnt allowed. So you may forgive me for thinking there was nothing wrong with it. I pay a subscription, i have a picture i dont think there is anything wrong with, i want to discuss why i got banned - and you threaten me with a life time ban ??????? thank you for you understanding and courtsey Chris Rob, this is ridiculous. Phil obviously knew what he had posted was wrong, i did not think i had done anything wrong. I have stated this time and time again. If you had simply put a message to me saying 'please remove picture because of rule a' it would have been removed and i would have seen why and all of this would not have happened. You seem to be on some massive power trip that doesn't wash with me and think you can be rude to anyone you please, I'm not that type of person and done appreciate it. Your condescending manner is very offensive. Perhaps it is you who could learn a think or two about courtesy and people skills. At one of my offices, we have a no drinks near computers rule. If i walked in there today, there would be countless drinks at computer desk's. If you apply your theory, i should send them all home for the day. I personally prefer to show some respect and some common sense. if you want to ban me for life for posting a picture i didn't think there was anything wrong with and then asking why you didn't just ask me to remove it, then that's your prerogative. I can now see my picture was against rules but your manner is totally unnecessary. hopefully this is the end and there will be no more communication between us Chris This is a private e-mail adress, i asked you once for no correspondance from you and i shall ask again. I do not want to recieve another e-mail from you ! Rob, seriously, I dont like your language or your 'dont piss me off or else' attitude. I dont know who the hell you think you are or why you consider yourself to be so important but you might need a dose of reality. You are very insignificant to me I have saved all e-mails between us, and any more with foul or threatening language will sent to the appropriate person. I will inform my friends on f-chat that i will no longer be coming on, and then you can ban away. You do not make f-chat, everyone else does and i dont want to be a part of anything that is run by a person like you. Please let this be the end Chris Stimson
I'm not sure your poll is worded fairly Rob. I appreciate the need for rules, but they have to be applied consistently and in this instance I'm not convinced they are - unless you're about to go through a purge of all avatars and posts. And whilst Chris' responses to you get a tad tetchy, I can see why in the circumstances. So in this instance, I think you may be being a bit heavy handed (have you had complaints from other members?). Murph PS Chris - I've noticed that some of your posts of late have been a bit on edge, taking the bait or otherwise. Difficulty with the typed word is you can never tell how it's being taken. And whilst this equally applies to people you've replied to, things can escalate unless someone steps down with a smiley...
Personally not offended by the avatar. Cant see why anyone would be. Think a ban is a little excessive. Surely as mod you can choose to delete avatars anyway. Im sure chris respects rules but this ruling seems to be a little strong in this instance. sorry for disagreeing with you rob.
I agree the poll isn't worded fairly. Chris is definitely not above the rules. There is no argument against that point. I think the question is more about whether Rob's (forgive me) "bull in a china shop" approach to the situation was appropriate. I don't think it was. Surely if you break the rules, you get asked to correct the situation and if you continue to break them, then a ban ensues. I agree with Chris in that he shouldn't necessarily have "known better". I've read the rules before and was unaware that his avatar was against them. Clearly it was and needed to be removed. Rob should be aware that just because announcements are placed does not mean that they are read. There's nothing you can do to ensure that all users are educated against all of the rules. The only thing you can do is to help people to learn the rules by pointing out when they have been broken. I don't believe breaking of this particular rule warrants a ban. It does warrant correction and explanation. This is certainly how the UK section is generally moderated and I think the approach works well. More severe measures such as that taken just serve to annoy. The anonymity of the Internet has allowed Chris to be a little more 'direct' than I think he would have been if this were a face to face discussion. I think the same is true of Rob - he probably wouldn't have banned him if he'd been able to shout across the room and ask him to remove his avatar. We sometimes forget we are dealing with real people on here. So in summary, Chris isn't above the rules, his avatar should have been removed, but the approach of 'one strike and you're out' definitely isn't cricket ! Ric.
No probs with the pic either, as he said he's had it for over a month now and no one has complained (?). If Chris is banned (wondering where he was) then there are other Avatar's out there too that need clamping down on. IMHO there is no offence. Free Chris. Rick
I obviously have no personal problems with it, hey, I'm the one that created the 69 forum for Rossa users and also the Bikini Thread! We have not been cracking down on avatars and pictures breaking our rules (that have been published over a year). However, with it getting out of hand and more concern from our users (yes there have been many complaints) we've decided to clean things up. That's why I posted the Forum Rules Announcement. We weren't picking on Chris, we're doing a complete sweep of all users as described in the Announcement. Just happens Chris hasn't been receptive to this overall sweep. I told him a one day ban was no big deal and just move on. He is acting like it is the end of the world and wasting my time in the process thinking he is above the law. It will take a few days to reach and update all users.
Like I said, I personally am not, but all the coworkers of users that visit from the office might be and that is the issue. Look at our hourly traffic charts, activity picks up 7am and drops off after 5 pm. What does a girl avatar say about you personally anyway? Unless you are gay, then we all LOVE women! Big deal.
I just explained this, we're just now starting to enforce. Also, ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. Y'all Brits are hard about this issue, I guess that's what happens growing up with Page 3. I wish I had Page 3 in Kansas.
I guess it's the principle that's irritating Chris, and perhaps it's a measure of how much he frequents the site that it is a big deal! I think the balance on ths site has been one of the best I've frequented of late, certainly since a few of the knob jockeys were banned a while back (Chris not included in this, but the likes of AL, TA etc). But we have to be careful not to go too far otherwise it'll become immensely tedious. I'm not sure acquiescing to those reading it at work is the way to go. Why are they reading it at work? Why in a place where they can be overseen by colleagues? And why should we listen to the views of these colleagues when they neither frequent the site, nor subscribe (and hence pay) to it? This sort of nannying is going way too far on both sides of the pond. Kid access is something else too, but to be honest this is not a kid's site really. And those that do read are obviously a bit more streetwise and savvy than the usual pimply youths (as there's little kid content on here). Whilst Chris may have got on your wrong side Rob, you could also have left it at "please remove the avatar as it contravenes the rules. We're tidying up everywhere and I'd appreciate it if you could read the rules thread <here>". Had Chris not towed the line (which to my mind doesn't automatically constitute questioning a rule), then get heavy.
Well, I do object to the image used in this, and other avatars. The image in the appropriate context is not offensive. Other images have been offensive regardless of context. I take issue with some of the images displayed due to the fact that I sometimes look at FChat from work. The guidelines and principles that we all signed up to when we joined (and Rob's recent forum announcement) all support this. Hell, we even have a mirrored work safe domain name (www.bestemployee.com) to support he odd FChat visit from work! I dread to think what my internet cache looks like after a visit to FChat ! Putting the ability to surf from the office aside for a moment, there If we want to make the whole of FChat Not Work Safe (NWS) lads-only club then I see nothing wrong with this image. Many people aspire to owning the fantastic machines we are lucky enough to call our own. Just look at the UK section at any given time - always a few sticky posts about charity rides or get-togethers - people willing to help each other out. Are some of the images posted here consistent with that aspiration? I think not. I'll close my 2 cents with ... while I disagree with the appropriateness of some of the images and avatars used in recent months - I think individual contributions have been fantastic. I'm not as prolific a poster as some, but I do enjoy the contribution that Stimmers and others make. LWR
I agree 100% and that is what I'm doing now. However, Chris happened to be the straw that broke the camels back and it was a nude, not even just a bikni pic. After contacting Chris I did the Announcement and have contacted several other users, but have told them to take it down, not banned them off the spot. So I have evolved in these few days for the better, but still doesn't change how Chris over reacted. Fact is that a majority of our community browses from work. What is more important, full participation or bikini avatars? I would also not like to limit our community to adult males, although that is a strong majority.
So what happened? Was Chris given a ban without warning for his avatar, or was he banned after questioning a request for it's removal?
I've not complained to Chris - but I have to other members with similar avatars in the past. Sometimes they have changed them. To be honest, I'd given up on the assumption that this was how the UK section was going to be run.
What's that site meant to do? And I suspect many people could get into bother at work for more than seeing an 80 pixel square image of what may or may not be undercarriage! I was pushed to figure what the picture was anyway!
Maybe I got the wrong link Andy - no good pretending you couldn't figure out that picture! Lead a sheltere d life eh? Let me guess, just had posters of 365GTB/4's on the wall as kid?
Banned without warning and as I said, Chris was the first and only one I did this to. However, if he would have responded back more positively, I would have removed the ban. Also, IMHO his avatar of a nude from the back with some signs of frontage is more severe than just a bikini top. That is all IMHO though.
I think Chris always seems to have a positive influence on F-Chat and I'm sure approached the right way he would have had no problem in removing the 'offensive' picture. It would be a shame if he decided not to return for the sake of a birds arse........mind you, isn't that why LeeP isn't around anymore?
Rob, I am fairly new to F-chat in the UK. Having spent a thoroughly enjoyable 4 days with a number of you in Le Mans this year (including Stimmers360) I felt compelled to drop by and see what the website was all about. I have seen Chris' avatar over the last month and I am not offended by it - this is not to say that others won't be. However, I can't see how the pictures in your public profile are any different to the picture in Chris' avatar. You have a public picture of 3 girls in bikinis? In answer to your poll, I personally think that Chris should be asked to change his avatar and that should be the end of it. Take care one and all, Jim
I'm going to close this down now. I wanted to get a users perspective, I've explained mine. No reason to bust the chops of Chris more.
I must admit that I am not offended by nudity of any form, but I'd rather not see it when I'm using the computer at work. In the past, I have asked if it were possible for a "stealth" mode so one could suppress the Ferrarichat logo, all avatars, and all posted pictures, thus making it more "work frendly". But I recieved a fair amount of abuse (not from Rob) telling me that the difficulties of using the site during the working day should not be the concern of Rob. But now we see this consideration being made. This is not a democracy, and it has never pretended to be so. We are here because Rob set this site up, and it is his position to judge what is an appropriate modus operandi. He sets the rules, and if you don't like it, you are welcome to set up your own rival to Ferrarichat that has it's own rules. But I suspect that it would be pointless to bury a quantity of money doing so for the sake of a trivial dispute over rules (it has been tried and it failed).
Yes, if he wouldn't have been the first one or didn't have a severe violation, then he would have just received a request. Lesson learned. I haven't decided about the profile pics yet. That isn't in your face when browsing the forum, however, I guess someone could click on your profile not knowing what pic you have. I need to think on this more. The avatar pic displays on every post though.
