NO Match for Harriman/Schmidt

I Respect your question

Says who?
By asking a question?

However you should have ask it under another AZ handle other than that of a moderator. You ask a very good question as a valued AZ member but not as a moderator. They should be separated entities...be well!

Frank
 
However you should have ask it under another AZ handle other than that of a moderator. You ask a very good question as a valued AZ member but not as a moderator. They should be separated entities...be well!

Frank

It's against forum rules to have multiple handles.
 
However you should have ask it under another AZ handle other than that of a moderator. You ask a very good question as a valued AZ member but not as a moderator. They should be separated entities...be well!

Frank

Youre only allowed one handle. Mr Wilson I don't think you over stepped anything. thanks for joining us.
 
Response from Kimberly to Mr. Wilson

The promoter who put on the event advertised as following:

Adults made a $40.00 donation to be eligible to play
Youth made a $15.00 donation to be eligible to play

At the events there was literature handed out regarding Children's Hospital. The promoter of the event did this event and also worked with Walgreen's. A substantial donation was made to Children's Hospital but you would have to contact Walgreen's to get the actual total of the donation as I have forgotten.

Everyone who signed up knew this was to be the case as it was on the flyers, the registration page, and it was announced at all events.

Note: We tried to attach the flyer but received this notice Your file of 271.7 KB bytes exceeds the forum's limit of 100.0 KB for this filetype. I will have someone resize it tomorrow so it does not exceed that limit and upload it after they do.
 
I'd like to think that my question is succinct and relevant.
I'm not biased. I just think we'd all like to hear exactly how this works.
 
Mr. Wilson

I have spent several days listening to the things that have been said about our company and me personally throughout this and several other threads. Several other people have asked why this thread has not been deleted and to my knowledge no one has responded to them. I have spoken with members of this community who are and have been active on these forums and they have stated that several threads have been removed by moderators in the past that contained far less damaging attacks on other companies/individuals.

According to the rules of this forum we agree not to do the following:

“In addition to any other rules or regulations that we may post in connection with a particular service, you agree that you shall not upload, post, transmit, distribute or otherwise publish through the Web Site or any service or feature made available on or through the Web Site, any materials which (i) restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Web Site or the Web Site's services, (ii) are fraudulent, unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, offensive, pornographic, profane, sexually explicit or indecent, (iii) constitute or encourage conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law, (iv) violate, plagiarize or infringe the rights of third parties including, without limitation, copyright, trademark, trade secret, confidentiality, contract, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary right.”

Why is it that this thread has been allowed to remain open when there has not been one factual piece of evidence presented by anyone to suggest that I or the company has done any of the things we have been accused of doing? I think we can all agree that there have been many violations of the rules throughout this thread.

I am not asking you to remove the thread at this point as the damaging information has been up for a month. I will spend the time to address each of the problems. I am just curious as to how you all determine what is a violation of the RULES and what is not.
 
Kimberly, the "rules" you're citing are cookie cutter stuff that every forum or even website with membership will post as a blanket.

here is a link for the rules that I've written as they regard to AZB and particularly, these forums.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=25061

There are numerous ways that people are "allowed" to post and in general, if people can remain civil I allow the posts to stand.
 
Kimberly, the "rules" you're citing are cookie cutter stuff that every forum or even website with membership will post as a blanket.

here is a link for the rules that I've written as they regard to AZB and particularly, these forums.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=25061

There are numerous ways that people are "allowed" to post and in general, if people can remain civil I allow the posts to stand.

Civil? Many, many of these posts were not only uncivilized, but borderline libelous.

Ken4fun just had his thread on the unscrupulous activities of the cuemaker John Showman deleted. And his was just a recantation of his first hand, personal experience.

Kimberly asked a very important question. One that deserved, among other things, a serious policy/enforcement review.
 
Civil? Many, many of these posts were not only uncivilized, but borderline libelous.

Ken4fun just had his thread on the unscrupulous activities of the cuemaker John Showman deleted. And his was just a recantation of his first hand, personal experience.

Kimberly asked a very important question. One that deserved, among other things, a serious policy/enforcement review.

“In addition to any other rules or regulations that we may post in connection with a particular service, you agree that you shall not upload, post, transmit, distribute or otherwise publish through the Web Site or any service or feature made available on or through the Web Site, any materials which (i) restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Web Site or the Web Site's services, (ii) are fraudulent, unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, offensive, pornographic, profane, sexually explicit or indecent, (iii) constitute or encourage conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law, (iv) violate, plagiarize or infringe the rights of third parties including, without limitation, copyright, trademark, trade secret, confidentiality, contract, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary right.”

Find me ANY post on AZB that I could not delete based on the broad scope of these "rules". How about just the "offensive" part? Name anything that EVERYONE agrees is non-offensive.

Can you seriously suggest that I apply the above quote to every post on AZB? ...Hmm? Maybe just the ones the most vocal people would have me remove?
 
Find me ANY post on AZB that I could not delete based on the broad scope of these "rules". How about just the "offensive" part? Name anything that EVERYONE agrees is non-offensive.

Can you seriously suggest that I apply the above quote to every post on AZB? ...Hmm? Maybe just the ones the most vocal people would have me remove?

Then you acknowledge that the enforcement of site rules is purely, 100% subjective? If every post is subject to review, as you state, and only a few select ones are actually censored/deleted, then we should conclude that there is no uniformity to how that process is conducted. Hence, my two examples, and why a thoughtful review of present policies/enforcement should be considered.

Thank you for demonstrating the need for concern.
 
Back
Top