How do I sign up for a Pista blast on the Autobahn?

I believe Brooks didn't know the rules; I don't think Brooks was trying to go around the policies. I think he was posting relevant content and hoping to get traffic as well — I don't think he meant anything malicious.

Your 5 points are a two-way street. Nothing stopped Brooks to reach out as well. Brooks got a timeout and assumed it was due to censorship. His next move was escalation with a public video containing false charges, specifically, that he was banned due to content, not commercial posting.

Fchat moderators are all non-paid volunteers chipping in due to our shared interest in cars. We get a large volume of adverts, solicitations, promotions, and spam daily. We neither have the resources or time to reach out to each post that doesn't follow the terms of use.

When things come in that are commercial, we do look at a user's history for context, in this case, he was not an active participant, and proportionally, his recent postings were mostly commercial.

If he made a video saying he was banned for posting commercial content, no problem. He can gnash his teeth at corporatism and intellectual property, heck throw in a heavy dose of open-source distribution rights! — all fine.

But to create a video that says Fchat banned him because his video didn't have Ferrari as Numero Uno?

C'mon man indeed.

 

This is seriously one of the dumbest thing to happen on here since 0846.

This is what happens in my opinion when people lose sight of the bigger picture.

This is/was/supposed to be a website for enthusiasts and sharing of all things ferrari and somethings not.

He shared something for enthusiasts.

I understand the commercial aspect but I do not see how you could use your brain and say is this punishment worthy of the crime.

Brooks may get paid PENNIES for 100 views but he is not outright SELLING anything.

Do I get to charge ferrari chat for selling my information? Do I get to determine whos ads I get to see. One of your advertisers advertises in a VERRY VERRY Agressive and annoying way that is unbecoming of the site in my opinion... it also doesn't help that he and I had a bad experience... but yet I endure... because he pays... BUT I ALSO PAY.

You would have something if he was on here spamming all the time. If he was constantly promoting.

No reasonable or rational person could make an argument that the punishment fit.

The best thing you could have done is PUBICLY ask him in that thread to JOIN or sponsor and help support the community he is trying to get. Even offer and reach out maybe with a special price or package or something.

Instead.. you chose the path of deleting and getting rid of everything.

You have made statements because you are in support of capitalism and there is nothing wrong with that. I would argue that if I was your sales manager I would say you failed to get in his pocket.

what salesmanship is banishment... how does that make him want to be more active... how does that make him want to sponsor.

You basically told a customer to go F themselves publicly.

Use some salesmanship and reach into his pocket and pull his money out.

Do it publicly so you GAIN the communities support and the community pressures him or sets the expectation. Right now you look like the cop that shoots everyone before the trial because well... they are guilty.

Its your guys site and its yours to do what you want... but over reach will kill you and completely devalue the brand. All the while keeping some questionable sponsor because they pay.

Just my opinion and I don't mean this as a threat or really mean spiritedly. I mean this in a take a moment and pause and think about if everything was handled correctly... what was the desired outcome... what was the actual... did anyone win or did everyone lose.

Anyways, I love this site, but even I was banned for some ridiculous stuff at one point. it was reversed in about a day... but I think you guys are too quick to the draw sometimes. I do give credit that you did apologize publically for banning me. That was very cool... but I think the mods/owners of F-chat might need a shift in corporate culture.

 

If we argue back and forth about this for ONLY 27 more days, his ban will expire and he can join the discussion.

D

 

Well... it seems like a great way to pass the time. LOL

We could always beat the dead horse and talk about T-R-U-M Never mind

 

technom3,
Thanks for your heartfelt post and feedback.
We have two things going on here.
One is the reason for the ban itself. (censorship of opposing viewpoints)
I think this is resolved unequivocally.
Now on to the second contention, justification for the temporary ban.

It's no secret at this point that I too am a fan of Brooks' content. I have no bone to pick. Also just to be abundantly clear, it was not me that banned or reported the post, just in case someone thinks this is personal. I didn't even get a chance to watch the video!

I am not privy nor would I want to know what Brook's balance sheet is, but I suggest you look at what Doug DeMuro is pulling in these days. In no way implying that Brooks makes as much money, but YouTube syndication is big business. As a personal fan of Brooks' I hope he makes as much if not more then Doug, if not today, then the future - his work is great.

I too pay Ferrarichat, and I have not found the site to be overly intrusive in ads. I've also felt I've received an order of magnitude back in terms of education, social connection and fun. After all this is a ......

....capitalistic system of we follow. I owe no loyalty to Ferrarichat any more then they owe me. If for some reason I find the $36 I pay them yearly (maybe they'll waive that because I"m a moderator now) no longer of value, they have no gun to my head, I suspect you are in the same boat. You're absolutely right, Fchat lost all the revenue Brooks has contributed to the site, which many assume to be negligible. How about the future?..well..I've said many times now in this thread the best way forward is to have both parties have dialogue with one another.

Brooks was given a time-out for commercial posting, is this still in debate? We're all adults here, I've been banned before from other sites. I reached out to find out exactly why/how/when/who/what. I did not however make a hit piece video saying site X banned me for a totally bogus reason.

Why do you think I keep suggesting to both parties to reach out and talk to one another?

I was not involved in this past transgression, so I can't comment.

 

''''''''''''

 

In your own words you believe he didn't know of the rule, his content was relevant and not malicious. What about your OWN statement would make a user think they need to reach out to you? There is nothing about your own statement that would make a user believe they needed to reach out to you. Nothing.

Be your job paid or volunteer it should not matter....your job was to handle this in a way that was logical for the forum, its users and this community. Instead you guys literally handled it in almost the worst way possible short of perma ban. How this has been handled is not only a bad look for this board but Ferrari ownership in general. Good job.

Brooks should hold this forum to the fire. He doesn't need you or your traffic. He posted on instagram yesterday his total numbers from your board. Its laughable. You guys should be paying him and/or using him as a resource to help your actual bottom line.

 

Nailed it.

 

FYI from yesterday.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yawn. Is this still going on? 1800ks of mountain driving and I come back to this? FFS put it to bed for gods sakes. Like enough already! Mods please close the thread so the mac boys can go back to mac chat.

 

Brilliant comment. Let's get everyone riled back up again.

 

Well they could have a pecker measuring contest over there but I'm wondering if there is a ruler small enough. Yeah...prolly not. Lets forget that idea. Maybe they can collectively play a game of chess to keep occupied for the next 27 days.

 

Appreciate seeing both sides of this topic. Brooks doesn’t seem off base in the above.

 

I saw this and appreciate the fact that he is not complaining that the reason his video was taken down cause the Ferrari didnt perform to the level of the 720. He posted the real reason his video is taken down and like Dustman, I can see both sides of the discussion but glad Brooks corrected himself. I like his videos and I like what he is doing with his channel. At the same time I can appreciate Fchat viewpoint.

And for the first time in a long time I agree with Shadowfax- shut the thread down.

 

We'll keep this thread open for the following two reasons.
1) Make it clear beyond any doubt, we don't censor opposing viewpoints.
2) Provide a public forum for folks that have any questions or challenges about Brooks' 30-day timeout.

 

+1!!!
But I am not un-muting.

 

I may be speaking out of turn here, but I can only speak for myself. I emailed Brooks directly and suggested he reach out to Rob & Booker for clarification on posting rules. My thought is they may be able to come to an understanding where no money is even involved. I never said he should pay Fchat, only that he reach out and talk like grown adults.

I am not aware of discussions with @rob lay and/or @Booker where they asked Brooks for money.

We've had past members that were given a pass after they had a discussion. The members were able to explain about their planned activity and exposure of their businesses. It's a case by case by case basis. I've seen folks that got given the go-ahead (as long as they didn't abuse the privilege.) An excellent past example is some people were allowed to post their channel/business in their signature.

*If* a conversation did not take place between Brooks (Rob/Booker) that asked him for money - I have no choice to start wondering about the intellectual honesty of his posts. I mean this would be 2 for 2.

Furthermore, *if* a money discussion did not take place, what does it say about his videos and their claims? What's to say his videos are also not equally one-sided as my recent experiences have seen? What if they only focus/show the results that are favorable to his thesis?

 

I appreciate your reply and your cool headed approach. Also, the amount of time you put into your reply. I wish I knew how to quote and respond in the middle of a quote like you did but thats a topic for a different day I suppose.

So... the biggest thing to ME...not that it matters... but the material problem here is the reason for the ban.

I understand that it had nothing to do with silencing a non ferrari opinion. I don't think you guys would really ever do that. The only time that was happening in my experience were the Mods that supported Jim Glick on 0846 and they were shutting down the evidence that 0846 wasn't. Not trying to debate that here... but... it was eventually corrected and free discussion was allowed which was GREAT!

The material problem of the ban for unsponsored content is the problem. This is where CONTEXT MATTERS and a level head really really matters.

What did Brooks gain or have to gain? He wasn't selling merch or anything. Sure he could gain some pennies or maybe even 5 dollars if it had a TON of views from Fchat. But he did not solicite anything. He gained it or would ave gained it at ZERO cost to the viewer or Fchat. There was ZERO pay wall.

SO the second part of the problem and using your head and context is... lets say he recived 5 dollars or even a whopping 50 dollars... USE YOUR HEAD... that wouldn't even have covered the fuel used in the cars for the video... let alone flights, memory cards, equipment insurance, wear and tear etc...

This was CLEARLY not a money grab at the expense of fchat.

If he spammed it all the time I get it...

I fully support and absolutely applaud your effort and stance that both parties should TALK.

In MY opinion... the best thing that could have happened is that they could have issued a warning post and almost shamed brooks and said hey... we don't typically allow this... this is on the verge of violating our agreements... you are NOT a sponsor which is what we require for this, but since this is realitivly minor we would like to warn you to not do this again AND we ask that you become a sponsor if you are going to frequently do this or at the very least become Silver or Rosso subscribed.

Im sure Brooks would have opened his wallet and spent the 50 or 300 bucks or said... well maybe I should try a commercial sponsorship for a limited time and see how I do...

instead it was just a blanket ban.

That is my personal issue.

BUT... its your guys site and I am sure you guys put up with TONS of crap to keep this place as great as it is. So I do thank you for that

 

I completely stand by my statement. I think out of the thousands of commercial posts we've banned; many didn't know it was not allowed. Yes, you quote me right.
But now now now now we're going in circles friend. As I said four times already in this thread (I guess a fifth won't hurt), moderators do not have the resources or time to reach out to every banned commercial post. Should Fchat hire and pay full service, concierge, velvet gloves, web guides? I don't know; it's not my business, but you're definitely open to suggesting it to Rob/Booker.

I think a lot of members assume we're trying to be dictatorial; commercial content is commercial content. Doesn't matter how small you are. Most our bans are first time posters peddling their burgeoning business. (i.e. Plastic-Ferrari-Logos . com)

 

Wait. Paul I just signed up for Rossa the other day. So that means I can't post ads for my new Ferrari shaving cream business?

 

Thanks, Justin, for your note. It is very much appreciated. I've been banned from many places for several reasons. Let me share a few.

BringATrailer (for debating the merits/demerits of a car)
Jalopnik (for posting a link from a competing site)
Wikipedia (for having two accounts)

Each time, I reached out to the said organization and either found the reason on the site itself or If that didn't work, I sent an email to the administration.
I did not, however, make a public proclamation denigrating said sites with false information.

Remember, Brooks was not perma-banned. For a good reason, specifically, it was the warning. Now you can say it was too harsh - but that's very subjective. Because of the subjectivity, every moderator has discretion on what length of time a ban should be. Considering Brooks posts only once every two months, I didn't think the 30 day time out was particularly egregious.

Finally, just for additional context that might make you go hmmm....the post only came to the attention of moderators after it was flagged as self-promotional by other members. You have every right to disagree on the merits of that, but at least know there are members here that thought it was not valid. I don't know since I never watched the video nor was I the one that reported it or issued the ban.

I looked at it in a very clinical way. Was the post commercial? Does the member have a long history of participation? Was it a permanent ban?
After answering those questions, you all know what side I fall.

But this is all academic, Brooks and Rob are both laughing....this is the sort of thing that is good for both parties. Why do you think the front page of any internet news site is filled with the non-troversy of the day?

 

hahahaha, talk to Rob/Booker

Or make a video and post it, on second thought, scratch that. I hope you actually do the measured thing and 'talk' to them.

 

In the same way there are members that reported it as a "violation" there are members that literally tink its crazy to ban someone about a rule you even admit he likely wasn't even aware of. Do as you like, but there is no justification in my mind for a 30 day ban on a rule you even believe he didn't know about.

What he did after is whatever, it happened after. A result of the behavior of the mods here. One disproportionate action created the other.

Lets see how biased you are. Point blank:
If a mod reached out to Brooks before a ban, made him aware of the rule and he deleted either deleted or you deleted his threads. Do you believe that video gets made about this forum? I don't think so. You don't either. Even if you don't admit it. His over reaction was in due to this forums over reaction IMO.

The owners might be laughing and I am sure Brooks doesn't care either over all. But my issue here is if this is normal you guys need to look at how you handle things like this.

 

You've made it abundantly clear that you think a moderator should reach out to *all* commercial posts before issuing a temporary ban. I welcome your feedback and appreciate you giving it.

I will say in the spirit of transparency and pragmatism; it's not possible given the volume of spam we get. Assume future commercial posts to be removed and a likely timeout if a member with limited participation posts a personal for-profit video.

My advice, as stated numerous times, as recently as two posts above, is when in doubt, reach out to Rob/Booker. It's been my experience; that they are reasonable men, and if given a chance to understand the context of said videos - be open-minded to it.

It should be evident with this thread that the workaround has his content percolate to the forum organically. No Harm, No Foul.

 

Paul is right they are reasonable. I agree and reached out as well. Booker sez he's in. Sending him a case of Ferrari shaving cream now. Actually on my way to the UPS Store. Have to go.