Since
-we have had differences in the past, and
-one or more mods thought I was being disrespectful last year on the issue of dealers in FS/T, and
-several AT users have e-mailed me about all this in the ensuing months,
I hope it isn't out of line to give the mods a sincere and public "thumbs up" on a related issue that I thought they handled very well.
Today I received an e-mail from the moderators asking me to remove a fs/t webpage link from my AT signature. They explained that:
(1) they had just amended the rules of the AT forum to prohibit this;
(2) they saw it as a circumvention of the FS/T rules;
(3) they would give me time to change my signature before removing the offending link themselves.
FWIW, I think this was a very professional way to proceed. They took the time to notify me of what was up, gave a reason, made the amended rule public and uniform, and then gave me a chance to fix the problem myself per their rules.
Downright classy, IMHO, especially since some of them have wondered if I'm on the level with them.
Lest it be thought that I am trying to curry favor, I'll say that I still disagree with the dealer policy, and especially with the wording of the policy ("i.e. intent"), as well as the application of the "dealer" classification to my case.
BUT, they not only have every right to make these determinations, but I think they deserve broad latitude from us users given how tough some of the calls must be on this matter.
Anyway, thanks for your time, and hope you all have had a good weekend! 🙂
-we have had differences in the past, and
-one or more mods thought I was being disrespectful last year on the issue of dealers in FS/T, and
-several AT users have e-mailed me about all this in the ensuing months,
I hope it isn't out of line to give the mods a sincere and public "thumbs up" on a related issue that I thought they handled very well.
Today I received an e-mail from the moderators asking me to remove a fs/t webpage link from my AT signature. They explained that:
(1) they had just amended the rules of the AT forum to prohibit this;
(2) they saw it as a circumvention of the FS/T rules;
(3) they would give me time to change my signature before removing the offending link themselves.
FWIW, I think this was a very professional way to proceed. They took the time to notify me of what was up, gave a reason, made the amended rule public and uniform, and then gave me a chance to fix the problem myself per their rules.
Downright classy, IMHO, especially since some of them have wondered if I'm on the level with them.
Lest it be thought that I am trying to curry favor, I'll say that I still disagree with the dealer policy, and especially with the wording of the policy ("i.e. intent"), as well as the application of the "dealer" classification to my case.
BUT, they not only have every right to make these determinations, but I think they deserve broad latitude from us users given how tough some of the calls must be on this matter.
Anyway, thanks for your time, and hope you all have had a good weekend! 🙂