Access???

[hogs]

Evening,

He Mods, I seem to have lost my access to many areas can you please assist.

In fact it now appears that I am non validated???? What's the go???

Cheers,

Hogs.

[Devil CV8]

The loss of the areas is due to the non validation.


Is your email address current?

Has anyone you vouched for to be validated been banned lately?

[XLR8 V8]

Hogs,

From what I can see on the file, your validation has been affected because you nominated user Phantom_Menace for validation back on 5/5/07. It was recently discovered that this user was in fact Robski, a long term banned member and well known troublemaker. This user has also caused untold trouble recently, creating accounts on other forums pretending to be a variety of LS1.com.au users, sponsors and Moderators in an attempt to portray a bad image of all. He has also attempted to try and access the forum through trying to crack passwords on other members accounts.
As someone who vouched for this users integrity, you have had some consequences applied as per the validation guidelines.

[mido2k]

..ooOO(note to self, always vouch for the right person!!)

[WAVESS]

Crikey thats tough, sorry cant help with this Hogs but feels the same when you recommend anyone for something and they fling mud in your face.

[XLR8 V8]

Crikey thats tough

Tough would be banning the people who nominated him, and then those who nominated the nominators too ;) Please note that it takes a whole lot of crap from a user before we pass on punishment to a nominator - it isn't done lightly.

Everyone knows that when you vouch for the validation of another user, you are taking on some responsibility for their behaviour. If you don't feel like you know them well enough that you're prepared to take a hit if they really act up, you shouldn't nominate them until you do. :yup:

[HRT Stroker]

A good lesson to be learned by all here.:teach:

We get alot of people validating say "I sold this guy a grille last week and he seemed nice enough"...........met the guy for five minutes and they are prepared to vouch for them.:shock:

Yet another victim of Robski.:vpo::vpo:

[Devil CV8]

Thought it may have been something along those lines.


Please note that it takes a whole lot of crap from a user before we pass on punishment to a nominator - it isn't done lightly.
I would suggest you can count them on one hand. Can't recall too many others.

Is there any way that nominators affected in this way (Hogs for example) can one day recover their validated status, even if they lose their ability to vouch for others?


thought I'd ask before someone else does.

[XLR8 V8]

Thought it may have been something along those lines.

I would suggest you can count them on one hand. Can't recall too many others.

Is there any way that nominators affected in this way (Hogs for example) can one day recover their validated status, even if they lose their ability to vouch for others?


thought I'd ask before someone else does.


Certainly.

Situations can always be reviewed .... all depends how thirsty the Mods are, which pub we're at, and how much cash Hogs has on him at the time :lmao:

[hogs]

Evening,

I have just read the current state of play and sent a PM.

Would appreciate some feedback asap.

Cheers,

Hogs,:)

QUOTE!!

Certainly.

"Situations can always be reviewed .... all depends how thirsty the Mods are, which pub we're at, and how much cash Hogs has on him at the time."

Evening,

This really makes one feel that the whole process is taken seriously? MMMM?:confused:

Cheers,

Hogs,

[Ryzz]

This really makes one feel that the whole process is taken seriously? MMMM?:confused:
The situation is extremely serious and the offending person (Robski, Phantom_Menace, etc) has caused a lot of grief to a lot of people and has probably broken a number of laws as well, he is lucky no-one has considered legal action following up on what he has taken part in and done.

This would have to be one of the first times i can remember in the 3 years I have been a mod that we have actually taken action against the people who nominated a validated member, so hopefully that shows how serious we are.

[Devil CV8]

This would have to be one of the first times i can remember in the 3 years I have been a mod that we have actually taken action against the people who nominated a validated member, so hopefully that shows how serious we are.

I thought this may have been the first, although I can't recall if action was taken against a nominator for that bloke that posted about seeing ghosts nd other crap threads.

[volt]

I thought this may have been the first, although I can't recall if action was taken against a nominator for that bloke that posted about seeing ghosts and other crap threads.

I believe the mods asked the nominating members to drive that particular person to a drug rehab clinic or psychiatric hospital. :jester:

[hogs]

Evening,

To put this whole thing in perspective folks, I met a person at the Nats, who appeared to be part of one of the Premium Sponsors group.
If this was not the case, then the location of the persons car certainly indicated that this appeared to be the case.
When approached a short time after the Nats to provide support for his validation, I did so, given the fact that he appeared to be part of the above mentioned group.

My mistake in hindsight!

The situation on the weekend of the Nats gave me the full impression that this person was considered an accepted part of this group, therefore I did what I thought appropriate, and vouched for him.

If the powers that be want to make an example of me for what was an inoccent error of judgement, so be it , and the FORUM loses an enthusiastic and dedicated member, albeit a fella who speaks his mind!!

Perhaps that may be the underlying motivation????

Cheers,

Hogs

Evening,

Hey, RYZZ, this was the more important bit in relation to the process of
DE Valdation!!!

"Situations can always be reviewed .... all depends how thirsty the Mods are, which pub we're at, and how much cash Hogs has on him at the time." :confused:

Cheers,

Hogs,:)

[macca33]

I can certainly empathise with Hogs on this one. It seems as though this Robski bloke managed to get into many circles/areas, that perhaps he should never have been.

It may have been a little naive on Hogs' part to assist the nomination of a person whom he did not know, however, I can see how a bloke - being a nice bloke - could be deceived.

I hope this matter can be sorted out in the near future and duly nominate Sunday 23 September, 2007 as my official 'Save Hogs Day.'

Cheers,

Macca

[Uncle Tone]

This would have to be one of the first times i can remember in the 3 years I have been a mod that we have actually taken action against the people who nominated a validated member, so hopefully that shows how serious we are.

What it certainly shows in this case is how ridiculous this particular process of yours is. :slap:

You would hold Hogs responsible for what this guy has done. Very childish, I'm sorry to say. :nono:

Who pressed the button for Robskis validation? Was it Hogs? I don't think so!!

Perhaps instead of passing the buck to another, you should look at your validation process being at fault here. Why aren't the mods/admin responsible for validations? Why is it left up to the members?

Just a thought.

[mido2k]

I think the reason for this UT, is to get the community involved. Once people get to know eachother and the alliances are formed, then u nominate for validation.. If it was left to the mods, How would people that live out the back of bum fark get nominated?

Mind you im sitting on the fence for this one, but i will say this....
I was warned by the people that nominated me not to do anything nasty, and was also warned if i ever give the nod to validate someone, that i need to trust them, and know them....

All i know is this Robski/Phantom character has caused a lot of grief for a lot of people, and unfortunately this has tarnished the reputation of some people.

Hogs, i feel for ya on this one mate... but i also feel for the others who have been effected by this.

[macca33]

What it certainly shows in this case is how ridiculous this particular process of yours is. :slap:

You would hold Hogs responsible for what this guy has done. Very childish, I'm sorry to say. :nono:

Interesting there UT and actually it is very true. Why should someone be held responsible for the actions of another, it defies natural justice.

It is akin to my everyday experiences in Sudan at the moment. Say a bloke rapes/kills another, then escapes apprehension. 'No worries,' say the coppers; they simply arrest the suspect's wife/brother/child/parent/uncle/aunt/goat/dog in his place, hoping that he will hear of it and hand himself in. Bad luck for the innocent party if the suspect decides not to front up - as is often the case - the innocent person simply remains rotting in the bin.

Transferrence of responsibility/liability gone mad, I say.

Cheers,

Macca

[Uncle Tone]

Interesting there UT and actually it is very true. Why should someone be held responsible for the actions of another, it defies natural justice.

It is akin to my everyday experiences in Sudan at the moment. Say a bloke rapes/kills another, then escapes apprehension. 'No worries,' say the coppers; they simply arrest the suspect's wife/brother/child/parent/uncle/aunt/goat/dog in his place, hoping that he will hear of it and hand himself in. Bad luck for the innocent party if the suspect decides not to front up - as is often the case - the innocent person simply remains rotting in the bin.

Transferrence of responsibility/liability gone mad, I say.

Cheers,

Macca

Spot on Macca. Hang the man who's mates with the murderer.


I think the reason for this UT, is to get the community involved. Once people get to know eachother and the alliances are formed, then u nominate for validation.. If it was left to the mods, How would people that live out the back of bum fark get nominated?


The mods can validate based on forum contribution.

Just for arguments sake, say you snap one day, and start causing all sorts of grief. Why is that the fault of the people who validated you?

[Haroc]

Well, you want us to go out and meet every person to say they are 'nice people' I doubt thats ever gonna happen, we have always warned people that when nomination someone for validation you are saying that they are genuine nice people and are not psycho's we have revoked members validation before Hogs is not the first, Our system isnt flawed, its there for people to take seriously. I guess this just shows why you DO NOT nominate someone who you have met for 5 minutes, we(the mods) trust you to nominate people for more access, do you just let anyone into your house?

Shesh everyone cries when they loose something but no one says thanks when they gain something, your all to hard to please.

[heavychevy]

If the powers that be want to make an example of me for what was an inoccent error of judgement, so be it , and the FORUM loses an enthusiastic and dedicated member, albeit a fella who speaks his mind!!

Perhaps that may be the underlying motivation????

Cheers,

Hogs

Evening,

Hey, RYZZ, this was the more important bit in relation to the process of
DE Valdation!!!

"Situations can always be reviewed .... all depends how thirsty the Mods are, which pub we're at, and how much cash Hogs has on him at the time." :confused:

Cheers,

Hogs,:)

Bloody hell, who would validate anyone if the forum rules were exercised to the absolute extent. Some jerk goes off the rails and I'm hoping life is tough for him given his serious attempts at causing an issue for the entire LS1.com.au community.
That's very serious.

I know the rules.

However Hogs has explained his situation and in my estimation, he is a good member of the forum and should have his validation reinstated.

Maybe forum peers should have some input as well to balance the situation.

[macca33]

Well, you want us to go out and meet every person to say they are 'nice people' I doubt thats ever gonna happen, we have always warned people that when nomination someone for validation you are saying that they are genuine nice people and are not psycho's we have revoked members validation before Hogs is not the first, Our system isnt flawed, its there for people to take seriously. I guess this just shows why you DO NOT nominate someone who you have met for 5 minutes, we(the mods) trust you to nominate people for more access, do you just let anyone into your house?

Shesh everyone cries when they loose something but no one says thanks when they gain something, your all to hard to please.

Haroc, I'm not having a crack at the Mods, however, I think that an individual case needs to be judged based upon all of the associated merits that lie within. Hogs is a crazy and at times, beligerent bloke, but his heart is in the right place. I'd simply hope that his good points are considered and even though he hasn't been given a life-long sentence, would appeal for a very short non-parole period.

Cheers,

Macca

[XLR8 V8]

Everyone, I have already explained all of this. Hogs has not been banned. He has taken on a temporary de-validation resulting from vouching that someone is a good guy when they are clearly not. This is just the application of a rule that has always been in place and it was only acted upon on this occasion due to the extent of problems that nominated user has caused. It's hardly the "death penalty" it is being thrown around as - it's a temporary devalidation.


If the powers that be want to make an example of me for what was an inoccent error of judgement, so be it , and the FORUM loses an enthusiastic and dedicated member, albeit a fella who speaks his mind!!

Perhaps that may be the underlying motivation????


Hogs, You can think up all the conspiracy theories you like - but as always it doesn't make them true. You always tend to fall back on the "everyone's out to get me" rubbish whenever someone edits or deletes a post, or closes a thread of yours. Noone is out to get you Hogs, so take off the tin foil hat mate.
If we wanted you gone, we'd just ban you and move on - no effort at all. We wouldn't continually repeat ourselves replying in threads like this one, or answer your PMs. But we didn't ban, or even suspend your account did we? We also fully explained the reasons up front as well as replying to any additional questions asked in this thread ... and answered your PMs in full ... nothing to hide here ... conspiracy out the window yet?
The rules about this were in place before you even joined the forums - People can use the "it was just an innocent error in judgement" reason for many situations, but it doesn't mean the rules are ignored as soon as you say it. If it was, I'd have a lot less speeding fines over the years - yes, that was a joke.

We have removed validations before. One regular user recently lost his because someone who had nominated him asked to have their nomination withdrawn. Someone else soon nominated him again and his validation was restored. This situation is a little different.

We Mods don't accept responsibility for anyone's nomination because we are not the one's saying that someone is a good guy. Someone who I may think is a twat will still get validated if 2 other people are willing to say that he isn't ... but in doing so they accept responsibility to take a hit if it turns out I was right. You can't be any more fair than that? If someone I have personally vouched for turns out to be an idiot, I'll happily take a hit if it's warranted, but if the forum only allowed members that the Mods thought were nice blokes, we'd have a pretty small forum.



Evening,

Hey, RYZZ, this was the more important bit in relation to the process of
DE Valdation!!!

"Situations can always be reviewed .... all depends how thirsty the Mods are, which pub we're at, and how much cash Hogs has on him at the time." :confused:

Keep your cash Hogs, you obviously need it to buy a sense of humour. My apologies for being in a pleasant mood and daring to try and lighten the mood when I posted the first reply.


Haroc, I'm not having a crack at the Mods, however, I think that an individual case needs to be judged based upon all of the associated merits that lie within. Hogs is a crazy and at times, beligerent bloke, but his heart is in the right place. I'd simply hope that his good points are considered and even though he hasn't been given a life-long sentence, would appeal for a very short non-parole period.

Cheers,

Macca


This action is not a judgement on whether Hogs is a nice guy or not - it is about how "not so nice" Robski/cammedvx/Phantom is. Hogs said he was willing to vouch for the bloke, so he has taken some responsibility for his action ... it doesn't go any deeper down the rabbithole than that. It is a temporary de-validation.
If it also means others will be more careful when nominating someone they only just met, then great, but that is not the reason this was done

[NickS]

This would have to be one of the first times i can remember in the 3 years I have been a mod ...

Australian LS1 and Holden Forums - View Single Post - Ryzz the Moderator (http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=561440&postcount=1)

3 years hey ... talk yourself up mate

:stick: :lol:

[Ryzz]

http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=561440&postcount=1

3 years hey ... talk yourself up mate

:stick: :lol:

Wow feels a lot longer than that, nice find ya bastard :stick:

[Chappie]

I must say i agree with Hogs, Uncle tone , Macca and all the other validated members in this thread with their opinion on this unfortunate event. About 2 months ago i was given a holiday by Ryzz and called a dickh@ad in his post after i asked a dumb question about Validation (once i submitted the thread i couldnt delete it) :doh: Then i got replys back to me with attitude from a certain validated member and i then replied with the same gusto and this earnt me a holiday with nothing happening to the other party. I look back now and i think i was out of line but not once did i swear or attack anyone personnally in any way. I offered an apology to Ryzz a couple of weeks after the incident via PM and i didnt hear anything back:confused: What this situation has done is turn me into a fence sitter(something i have never been) and make me think carefully what threads i reply to in the future. My 2c anyway:) Cheers Paul.

[Devil CV8]

Just for arguments sake, say you snap one day, and start causing all sorts of grief. Why is that the fault of the people who validated you?

I would suggest a lot of thought and discussion goes into these decisions. Look at the amount of time between the robski/etc blowup on this and other forums and Hogs devalidation. How well did hogs know the latest reincarnation of robski?
did he in fact know that he had been banned and by nominating him he is circumventing the mods? I would suggest no as anyone helping to circumvent a ban would lose more than their validation.

Personally I am glad there is repercussions for nominating someone who goes off the rails, as my friendly internet stalker (Hi EJS) who is on this forum, but playing within the rules atm, does not have a chance at being nominated and therefore following me into the validated area.
How do I know he is my stalker? Read every post of onehotvb. He picks my posts apart, makes no other contribution and has the same writing style. With his other banned accounts he attacked me openly and was promptly banned. This time he is taking it slower. Must be learning


About 2 months ago i was given a holiday by Ryzz and called a dickh@ad in his post after i asked a dumb question about Validation (once i submitted the thread i couldnt delete it) :doh:

I remember that thread. You were the first (or one of the first) to ask validation questions after Ryzz had put up the thread saying ask a question that is answered in the Faq and you will enjoy a holiday.

[Chappie]

I would suggest a lot of thought and discussion goes into these decisions. Look at the amount of time between the robski/etc blowup on this and other forums and Hogs devalidation. How well did hogs know the latest reincarnation of robski?
did he in fact know that he had been banned and by nominating him he is circumventing the mods? I would suggest no as anyone helping to circumvent a ban would lose more than their validation.

Personally I am glad there is repercussions for nominating someone who goes off the rails, as my friendly internet stalker (Hi EJS) who is on this forum, but playing within the rules atm, does not have a chance at being nominated and therefore following me into the validated area.
How do I know he is my stalker? Read every post of onehotvb. He picks my posts apart, makes no other contribution and has the same writing style. With his other banned accounts he attacked me openly and was promptly banned. This time he is taking it slower. Must be learning



I remember that thread. You were the first (or one of the first) to ask validation questions after Ryzz had put up the thread saying ask a question that is answered in the Faq and you will enjoy a holiday.

Agreed Devil i didnt see it and it was dumb i admit that! If i had seen it i would not of asked trust me!!!:) Ohh well been and done i must say i have learnt the hard way:bawl: No hard feelings on my side of the fence to anyone.

[Uncle Tone]

Hogs is back, everyone is happy!! :D :party:

[Devil CV8]

Hogs is back, everyone is happy!! :D :party:

welcome back Hogs.


I doubt we will see Hogs nominating anyone ever again.

[XLR8 V8]

FYI the person who seconded the nomination has also had their validation restored

[Devil CV8]

FYI the person who seconded the nomination has also had their validation restoredyet we never saw a thread from them...

good job mods

[hogs]

G'Day,

Thanks for the support fellas, much appreciated.:bow:

As has been stated by others, it is an importand discussion to have, and I for one will do far more homework in the future if I am asked to vouch for an
applicant.

FWIW Mods, would it be prudent to at least contact the nominator if this sort of issue raises itself and give them the chance to explain things prior to action taking place?

Cheers,

Hogs,:)

[Haroc]

G'Day,

Thanks for the support fellas, much appreciated.:bow:

As has been stated by others, it is an importand discussion to have, and I for one will do far more homework in the future if I am asked to vouch for an
applicant.

FWIW Mods, would it be prudent to at least contact the nominator if this sort of issue raises itself and give them the chance to explain things prior to action taking place?

Cheers,

Hogs,:)

Probably not, you do your homework first to save us and yourself the trouble of this sort of thread.

[hogs]

Evening,

Thanks for the understanding, take care.:confused:

WGACA!

Cheers,

Hogs,:)

[WAVESS]

Tough would be banning the people who nominated him, and then those who nominated the nominators too ;) Please note that it takes a whole lot of crap from a user before we pass on punishment to a nominator - it isn't done lightly.

Everyone knows that when you vouch for the validation of another user, you are taking on some responsibility for their behaviour. If you don't feel like you know them well enough that you're prepared to take a hit if they really act up, you shouldn't nominate them until you do. :yup:

No probs wasnt having a go at the system, More about when you stick your neck out for someone and they go jack on you.

[HRT Stroker]

There have been hundreds of threads about the nomination process. The idea is NOT to nominate someone 'cause they bought somethng from you, you met once at the drags, they hang out with the groupies at the local speed shop etc etc.

Basically you should only nominate someone if you think they are trustworthy, and you won't know that unless you have spent time with them over more than one occasion.

Once again this is a good example to ALL users not to take nomination lightly, to nominate a user is to offer your reputation to back their's - simple as that.

If you won't, then don't.

Hog's.......Leave the conspiracy theory's at the door, EVERYONE involved in running this site is sick to death of the soapbox routine you automatically go into everytime things don't go your way. You have been here for three + years and have nominated people enough times to know what it means.


For those that don't:

http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_user_maintain#faq_validation


Some light reading:

http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/search.php?searchid=3081705

[Tre-Cool]

I'm not sure if this is still happening, but as an example i remember back in 02/03 validation was originally performed by attending something like a dyno day and getting validated by the hosting workshop.

Now that i think about it, surely this is no longer acceptable given the forum is now sponsored by companies who are obviously paying cash for the privilege of having signs etc on the site.

Users may think that by attending a sponsors workshop from this site that they will get validated for spending money with them or perhaps the sponsor offers this as an incentive for the customer to spend money with them.

As a member on the forum which has obviously grown in numbers since "back in the day" i see it's up to the members to vouch for each other, rather than being vouched for because you attended a dyno day or had some work performed at a workshop.

In short Sponsors should not be able to vouch for people full stop, even though in saying that I'm pretty sure my validation was done through a current sponsor.

[Devil CV8]

As one of the early members I am probably one of the few members to be validated (by Sidey) without being first nominated. Have since met a few members at summernats, dyno days and even attended a pizza night when I visited Melbourne.

[BlownVR]

I'm not sure if this is still happening, but as an example i remember back in 02/03 validation was originally performed by attending something like a dyno day and getting validated by the hosting workshop.

Now that i think about it, surely this is no longer acceptable given the forum is now sponsored by companies who are obviously paying cash for the privilege of having signs etc on the site.

Users may think that by attending a sponsors workshop from this site that they will get validated for spending money with them or perhaps the sponsor offers this as an incentive for the customer to spend money with them.

As a member on the forum which has obviously grown in numbers since "back in the day" i see it's up to the members to vouch for each other, rather than being vouched for because you attended a dyno day or had some work performed at a workshop.

In short Sponsors should not be able to vouch for people full stop, even though in saying that I'm pretty sure my validation was done through a current sponsor.
Dave, I am one of the persons who nominated you for validation in March 2003 (still have the PM about it), so stay on your best behaviour... ;)

[Sidewindr]

What it certainly shows in this case is how ridiculous this particular process of yours is. :slap:

You would hold Hogs responsible for what this guy has done. Very childish, I'm sorry to say. :nono:

Who pressed the button for Robskis validation? Was it Hogs? I don't think so!!

Perhaps instead of passing the buck to another, you should look at your validation process being at fault here. Why aren't the mods/admin responsible for validations? Why is it left up to the members?

Just a thought.

Tone, you should not speak about things you have little or no knowledge of, the validation process is a tree of trust and if one branch of the tree is found to be problematic then it is cut off.

What should have happened and will happen in the future is the nominators for the trouble maker will be un-validated and need 2 different people to nominate them again to become revalidated. Any person the trouble maker validated will also lose their validation and need to find another nominator before they can get re-validated.

Hogs, ignorance of the rules or an inability to read a persons character etc. is no excuse. The best rule of thumb is if you are not sure then don't do it.


Interesting there UT and actually it is very true. Why should someone be held responsible for the actions of another, it defies natural justice.

It is akin to my everyday experiences in Sudan at the moment. Say a bloke rapes/kills another, then escapes apprehension. 'No worries,' say the coppers; they simply arrest the suspect's wife/brother/child/parent/uncle/aunt/goat/dog in his place, hoping that he will hear of it and hand himself in. Bad luck for the innocent party if the suspect decides not to front up - as is often the case - the innocent person simply remains rotting in the bin.

Transferrence of responsibility/liability gone mad, I say.

Cheers,

Macca

Chalk and cheese ... hardly a valid comparison. More like if you guarantee a loan for someone and they default the responsibility then falls to you ..


Bloody hell, who would validate anyone if the forum rules were exercised to the absolute extent. Some jerk goes off the rails and I'm hoping life is tough for him given his serious attempts at causing an issue for the entire LS1.com.au community.
That's very serious.

I know the rules.

However Hogs has explained his situation and in my estimation, he is a good member of the forum and should have his validation reinstated.

Maybe forum peers should have some input as well to balance the situation.

It depends on the severity of the infractions of the user. You also have the right to rescind your nomination of a user if you feel that you made an error in judgement before they act up. However you cannot ever nominate that same user again. This has been many times in the past where people felt that the user they nominated no longer deserved their marker.

Tre-Cool: not quite right, the social events used to be cruises and dyno days which is where most of us met for the first times and socialised. This meant that most of the validation discussions occurred at these events and still do probably. A Sponsor has no additional validation privileges unless already a validated user themselves, it is independent to the sponsor/advertising rules.


As one of the early members I am probably one of the few members to be validated (by Sidey) without being first nominated. Have since met a few members at summernats, dyno days and even attended a pizza night when I visited Melbourne.

I don't recall nominating you, in-fact any person who is an admin or mod of the forums cannot nominate any users due to a potential conflict of interest.