Mick Mason

[Steve Browning 1,742]

Not sure how there is any legal threat around the thread but that is not my question.

It seems to me it is important to keep this individual above the radar. With the specific thread locked, this drops down and eventually out. How can we make sure that our community is aware (and on the look-out) for him and his activities?

[Hamster 196]

I've stripped out a lot posts/banter/+1 replies etc  that just clogged this important topic up - please read my suggested post before filling it up again.

Thanks 

[ped 6,835]

1 hour ago, TheGreek said:

My thoughts exactly...are there plans to pin the thread??

@ped??

I didnt lock it and have explained why it won’t be pinned - personally I’d like it still open 

[TheGreek 6,454]

My thoughts exactly...are there plans to pin the thread??

@ped??

[Steve Browning 1,742]

Maybe I should rephrase my question.

We, as a community, know about an active fraudster. How complicit are we if we are open to the accusation that we enabled him by shutting down an effective warning to others?

[Steve Browning 1,742]

I have been told that it is down to caveat emptor. 

[hiram.k.hackenbacker 3,879]

5 hours ago, Steve Browning said:

Maybe I should rephrase my question.

We, as a community, know about an active fraudster. How complicit are we if we are open to the accusation that we enabled him by shutting down an effective warning to others?

Complicit in what exactly? The thread hasn't been erased and it can still be found through a search engine.

[Steve Browning 1,742]

Which future member (and potential victim) will know any of that?

Once the thread has dropped off the first page it is invisible except for those in the know. 

I think we should keep a warning about this guy easily available. 

I found the comment from the admin (caveat emptor) rather disappointing. 

Given that Mason can see all this we seem to be nothing more than keyboard warriors. 

The pressure we had brought to bear caused some to be refunded and for outlets for his criminality to be reduced. 

[hiram.k.hackenbacker 3,879]

3 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Which future member (and potential victim) will know any of that?

Once the thread has dropped off the first page it is invisible except for those in the know. 

I think we should keep a warning about this guy easily available. 

I found the comment from the admin (caveat emptor) rather disappointing. 

Given that Mason can see all this we seem to be nothing more than keyboard warriors. 

The pressure we had brought to bear caused some to be refunded and for outlets for his criminality to be reduced. 

Having it pinned here may possibly stop a member here (who doesn't already know) from dealing with him, but that's a very small percentage of his potential customer base.

As I said above, the thread has not been deleted, so it's not invisible to an internet search.

I don't see how you intend to fully protect the world from this person.

I also don't see the point of whinging about threads being closed when an Admin or Mod has chosen to take that course of action.

[Hamster 196]

I locked it because:

• Some of the comments were bordering upon, if not actually, being slanderous - that opens up the website to civil action
• If active members haven't read it already then they're probably never going to
• The whole thing is visible to search engines no matter how far it falls down the forum
• If Ped or Kiwi want me to open it then I'm happy to do so - I'm just trying to do what I think is best.

Sorry to disappoint you Steve.

Cheers

[Steve Browning 1,742]

8 hours ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

Having it pinned here may possibly stop a member here (who doesn't already know) from dealing with him, but that's a very small percentage of his potential customer base.

As I said above, the thread has not been deleted, so it's not invisible to an internet search.

I don't see how you intend to fully protect the world from this person.

I also don't see the point of whinging about threads being closed when an Admin or Mod has chosen to take that course of action.

Whingeing? I am questioning, that's what intelligent people do. 

Obviously we cannot protect the world but we have had some success for people, because he has refunded some (who believe that this thread facilitated that). It seems a shame to take our foot off the gas when we are having that success.

Maybe it's my old training. Once you sink your 'tax' teeth into something bad you tend to keep lock them shut. He's not ripped me off so it's no financial skin off my nose but he's getting one over on virtual friends/colleagues of mine and I take exception to that.

Hamster, yes I am disappointed but I also recognise that volunteers aren't going to put themselves in the firing line needlessly. He's hardly John Hall but the principle is the same (and it's your ball). 🙂

Edited January 14 by Steve Browning

[hiram.k.hackenbacker 3,879]

@Steve Browning - I agree the thread should exist as it’s brought a lot of pressure to bear. It’s also brought quite a few new people to the forum by its existence and that’s got to be a good thing. That said, there’s a lot of unnecessary posts in it and I recognise the easiest way to police that is to lock it, keep it visible (searchable) and rely on the members here to point people in the right direction if the name comes up again. I also think complaints about threads being locked are best discussed via PM with Mods/Admin or they can come across the wrong way. Maybe it’s just me. 

[Steve Browning 1,742]

I did PM Hamster but had thought my PM was being ignored. Possibly wrongly.

[BigRedX 2,818]

Personally I'd have removed the potentially slanderous posts (and given those that post them a warning) and kept the thread open, but I don't own Basschat and I'm not a moderator, so it's not my call.

[Steve Browning 1,742]

Absolutely. I was trying to persuade and nothing more for exactly that reason.

I maintain that having the thread available to someone landing on the page for the first time is preferable but fully respect the right of the admin/mod to act as they see fit.

Anyway, I'll get back in my box now. 🙂

Edited January 14 by Steve Browning

[Hamster 196]

7 hours ago, Steve Browning said:

I did PM Hamster but had thought my PM was being ignored. Possibly wrongly.

I did reply to you Steve

Col

[PaulWarning 1,508]

if somebody had the time to take out all slanderous and frankly unnecessary posts (a big job) it could be a worthwhile thread, I lost interest about half way through, it just turned into what a (insert any word you want) Mick Martin is fest, yeah we sort of know that, it doesn't need repeating a couple of hundred times

[Stub Mandrel 10,158]

We all know to avoid one particular seller, what about the others out there?

 

Generic warnings to keep your wits about you are probably more effective than targeting individuals in the long run.