Scooby Mania not happy
02 April 2005, 03:13 PM
#31
Mark
Apologies if this sounds harsh, but you are poorly informed.
Mike was asked to remove his url in the same way as everyone was asked. In your specific case, the url is to a personal home page. This is absolutely fine, as there is no commercial intent. Commercial advertising is not permitted without authorisation. These are just the rules, and nobody else took the same stance when asked.
So.. regarding your comment
I hope you now understand the reason.
--
Tuckshop did indeed support scoobynet, as did many other companies and individuals, me included. But that doesn't give us the right to continue to abuse the system. ScoobySport paid for its advertising month in month out.. and STILL does to this day. There will be no denials, as its not worth spending the time trying to convince those who simply will not be convinced. Mike did not pay for advertising, but continued to advertise in an unauthorised manner.
This is very important. Mike has NOT been forced to withdraw from posting. He has decided to do that himself at the point he was finally forced to stop advertising for free while everyone else (including ME for heaven's sake!) had to pay for it. He decided to stop contributing as soon as he was unable to use scoobynet for commercial gain.
I'm not a fortune teller as you appear to be, but he certainly wouldn't have been slated by us. In the same way as we've attempted for the last 3 years to turn a blind eye to his continued advertising against our requests until the time came when we had to clamp down on EVERYONE due to many claims of double standards and unfair treatment.
Why don't we discuss things that happened in the bible! They were about as dim and distant past events!! 
In all seriousness. These events happened prior to scoobynet in its current form. I cannot comment on them, but you're talking at least 4 years ago.
Mark. We've "known" each other on and off for a while now. I know you to be of sound mind, and really hope that you will step back a bit and think about what I've posted, and realise that you were possibly mis-informed at the time of your post. I hope you will now understand the full situation.
regards
Simon
Apologies if this sounds harsh, but you are poorly informed.
Mike was asked to remove his url in the same way as everyone was asked. In your specific case, the url is to a personal home page. This is absolutely fine, as there is no commercial intent. Commercial advertising is not permitted without authorisation. These are just the rules, and nobody else took the same stance when asked.
So.. regarding your comment
for no discernable reason I can fathom.
--
Tuckshop did indeed support scoobynet, as did many other companies and individuals, me included. But that doesn't give us the right to continue to abuse the system. ScoobySport paid for its advertising month in month out.. and STILL does to this day. There will be no denials, as its not worth spending the time trying to convince those who simply will not be convinced. Mike did not pay for advertising, but continued to advertise in an unauthorised manner.
I think it's something that's perfectly justified given the way he's been forced to withdraw from posting on SN despite still being a 'major player' in terms of products and knowledge.
He was banned from showing his company URL in his personal profile, but of course had he continued to post giving advice and information, he'd have undoubtedly been slated for being biased and having a conflict of interests.
We all know how bad backlashes against suppliers can be (particularly on SN). Anyone remember Power Engineering and Anders? Or even Greg from BPM?
In all seriousness. These events happened prior to scoobynet in its current form. I cannot comment on them, but you're talking at least 4 years ago.
I think Mike's just stating his case in response to being backed into a corner by the owners of SN, and I can't blame him for doing that.
regards
Simon
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post