Misleading Forums
Discussion
I read that too, MaM's posts were slightly offensive at best. Obviously MaM has a vested interest and took offense that you didnt simper and decide to buy his car immediatley and heap praise upon it. With that in mind I dont think you said anything bad about his actual car anyway, just pointed out that an original would be better and outlined your reasons. Obviously you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for daring to have a different opinion about a motor car on a motoring forum though! 
I agree, having read the thread in question I think it is a joke that people can not have a discussion without those who have a vested interest in it banning people from the discussion for not agreeing with their views.
I thought MAM would have known better than that being a moderator.
I thought MAM would have known better than that being a moderator.
Los Angeles said:
I really enjoy getting told to piss off, I'm drunk, a Scottish git, a liar, and on another forum by the same immoderate moderator, a commie. Is he reading my diary? Some PR salesman.
PS: Don't let the humour fool you - I am bloody furious.
must be all that buckfast PS: Don't let the humour fool you - I am bloody furious.
Im off to chase a haggis round a hill whilst bladdered on whisky, god knows how I can type this, what with us jocks be illiterate and all! Los Angeles said:
I love the way Meeja says in self-defence, "No one has been banned from the forum, just this thread." Split hairs - moi?
Not self-defence.Comments were made of "Banned from the Forum".
If someone is banned from PH, they cannot contribute anywhere on the site.
I was clarifying that no-one (you) had been banned from PH.
Also, "what's left" of the thread is everything with the exception of the personal insults. LA's points and comments towards MAM's posts remain untouched, and MAM's responses also remain.
Not censorship, just trying to keep the thread on track. If you can assure me that you can contribute to that thread without personal insults (albeit in retaliation) then I will happily restore your access to it.
I think all points are valid dependant on your viewpoint. I can see both sides of the argument, I just can;t be bothered with an e-fight.
Right, enough of this. It wasn't me who took offence on the thread LA, it was you. I pointed out the benefits of buying a replica car over an original. Your response was rude, damaging and insulting.
2. Spares availability.
3. Ease of maintenance.
4. Resistance to rot.
5. The fact that you can have a new one.
6. The fact that the car is bespoke - you specify the colour and trim and, to a certain degree, the mechanics
7. Performance - the replicas far outperform the original
8. Useability
That should do for starters...Therein lies the self-delusion: you are presuming a copy will not degrade, is more robust than the original (how much more - which parts?) will always have spares available (by a company often close to bankruptcy?) will accrue in value like an original, and the copy will be more fun to drive than the real.
Upon what hard evidence is that view based?
You then exacerbated this by suggesting that the quality of the new vehicle was not up to scratch, without actually having seen one.
Let me spell it out carefully for you LA. The car mentioned here was a Chesil. Chesil no longer exists. Tygan makes better quality cars than Chesil. We have invested in a completely new factory, completely new manufacturing equipment and installed the most rigorous ISO manufacturing standards. Don't you think it's a bit stupid to damn the quality of the product without having seen it or even having any contact with someone who has seen it? Our first cars roll off the line this week. If anybody would like a factory tour or a test drive, all they have to do is drop me a line and I'll gladly organise it. Did I react unwisely? Probably. There's lots at stake for plenty of people here though, it isn't just a game for people who have their reputations and cash involved. I think the discussion about the role of replica cars is a relevant debate. I personally love classic cars but don't see that replicas and classics compete in any way. You are the one who took umbrage at my justification for replica cars and started flinging insults around. At that point you appeared to be contributing nothing to the thread but negativity and provocation.
I do regret that I responded in the precise way that I did, there are emotions attached though, money involved, mouths to feed, mortgages to pay. Qualified criticism is by no means unwelcome and debate is healthy. I'm sorry I was rude to you, but I still think that you generated the opprobrium.
Los Angeles said:
Mon Ami Mate said:
Los Angeles said:
Why put good money into a copy when the original is still there?
1. Reliability and robustness.2. Spares availability.
3. Ease of maintenance.
4. Resistance to rot.
5. The fact that you can have a new one.
6. The fact that the car is bespoke - you specify the colour and trim and, to a certain degree, the mechanics
7. Performance - the replicas far outperform the original
8. Useability
That should do for starters...
Upon what hard evidence is that view based?
Edited by Los Angeles on Tuesday 3rd July 16:38
Mon Ami Mate said:
Los Angeles said:
bholleran said:
I owned a 2002 Chesil which cost me about £23,500 at the time. It had most of the top spec offerings at the time. I have to say that although I loved the car the build quality was not great, I got it all sorted under the guarentee in the end and was very happy with the result.
So much for the argument the new is far more reliable than the original.I do regret that I responded in the precise way that I did, there are emotions attached though, money involved, mouths to feed, mortgages to pay. Qualified criticism is by no means unwelcome and debate is healthy. I'm sorry I was rude to you, but I still think that you generated the opprobrium.
Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Thursday 5th July 15:41
Sorry MAM, I don't see it - even though it's fair to say LA has got a bit of a reputation for stirring things up, his points were succinct and put in a fairly detached, non-confrontational way. TBH I would wonder much the same were I faced with the choice between original and replica, based on your claims for the product, as a punter.
No offence intended
No offence intended
900T-R said:
Sorry MAM, I don't see it - even though it's fair to say LA has got a bit of a reputation for stirring things up, his points were succinct and put in a fairly detached, non-confrontational way. TBH I would wonder much the same were I faced with the choice between original and replica, based on your claims for the product, as a punter.
No offence intended
I respect your opinion. However the specific accusation of the company being "close to bankruptcy" is very damaging, factually incorrect and unjustifiable. The smug suggestion that problems with a five year old car manufactured by another company that no longer exists are proof of the lack of quality of our products is, in my view, needless, lacking in sense and designed to do damage. No offence intended
Los Angeles said:
Answer came there none.
If a moderator (of all people!) prints something that is clearly defamation of character and the victim asks that he stops doing it while taking care not to descend to his level the victim does not expect to be denied access to the thread for his trouble.
I believe in law that's called double jeopardy.
But my wish for explanation lies elsewhere. I ask again:
Did you ban the other party? If not why not?
Was I misled into believing the thread was an open discussion?
If PH is to post commercials as thread topics I, as a professional writer in the industry, will avoid those threads as a matter of ethics.
And if moderators are free to defame and demean then I will opt out of those situations when they arise for I know I have no redress and I do not want my character or integrity impuned!
Do I make myself clear?
At the moment I consider the way I was treated an abuse of trust, but that is only my opinion.
LA
I consider the way you "a professional writer in the industry", chose to publicly damn a new company that you have no experience or knowledge of, to be highly unprofessional and potentially libellous. Shall we call it quits now?Meeja said:
If you can assure me that you can contribute to that thread without personal insults (albeit in retaliation) then I will happily restore your access to it. I can see both sides of the argument, I just can;t be bothered with an e-fight.
I don't believe you have any right to demand conditions. If a moderator (of all people!) prints something that is clearly defamation of character and the victim asks that he stops doing it while taking care not to descend to his level the victim does not expect to be denied access to the thread for his trouble.
I believe in law that's called double jeopardy.
But my wish for explanation lies elsewhere. I ask again:
Did you ban the other party? If not why not?
Was I misled into believing the thread was an open discussion?
If PH is to post commercials as thread topics I, as a professional writer in the industry, will avoid those threads as a matter of ethics.
And if moderators are free to defame and demean then I will opt out of those situations when they arise for I know I have no redress and I do not want my character or integrity impuned!
Do I make myself clear?
At the moment I consider the way I was treated an abuse of trust, but that is only my opinion.
LA
Mon Ami Mate said:
900T-R said:
I respect your opinion. However the specific accusation of the company being "close to bankruptcy" is very damaging, factually incorrect and unjustifiable. The smug suggestion that problems with a five year old car manufactured by another company that no longer exists are proof of the lack of quality of our products is, in my view, needless, lacking in sense and designed to do damage. Personally I wouldn't expect my credibility to be at Zuffenhausen levels instantly
.900T-R said:
Mon Ami Mate said:
900T-R said:
I respect your opinion. However the specific accusation of the company being "close to bankruptcy" is very damaging, factually incorrect and unjustifiable. The smug suggestion that problems with a five year old car manufactured by another company that no longer exists are proof of the lack of quality of our products is, in my view, needless, lacking in sense and designed to do damage. Personally I wouldn't expect my credibility to be at Zuffenhausen levels instantly
.Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Thursday 5th July 16:24
Los Angeles said:
This is a complaint.
I and others on the Kit Car Forum have been misled. Apparently we have a new category of forum: the protected company commercial.
Unfortunately it is pretending to be an open discussion forum. It has an employee of the company on sales and sentry duty who will not entertain doubt, uncertainty or dissent. Perversely, he will not even accept praise for the car.
The facts are: I post an interest and, along with other PHers, express caveats not in any aggressive manner but in the spirit of open discussion. It receives a reply from someone acting as PR manager for the company and moderator. Because I feel his answers biased I post a reply. He considers that reply unacceptable, replies with vindictive abuse, threatening to ban me. Now, that's a curious situation to be in: after all, anytime someone posts pictures of a new car countless posts are logged stating the car looks crap, or words to that affect. We don't expect the company chairman to appear condemning opinion with menace.
I, on the other hand, knowing diplomacy, steadfastly avoid discussion of the actual marque in question, or the company, instead stick to defining what is a copy and what is a replica. In fact, I came down on the side of the company in question but that seems to make no headway at all. As evidence of my interest I point out I considered buying one of the cars in California, a sure sign I had studied the marque. This receives the rebuke I am a liar and have no interest in it whatsoever.
I regard the charges coming from someone out of control.
I am denied access "because of bickering." This is an insidious charge because it is made by those who were unable to accept reply, who then post defamation of character, and finally delete posts. Moreover, the other party remains having assumed a third role, that of judge and jury.
It's customary for the condemned man to be allowed a last word. Here is mine:
Either the forum subject matter is open to discussion as others are of a similar nature, or it has to be signified a blatant advert and no discussion allowed.
What is it to be?
LA
Having just reread this in a slightly calmer frame of mind I would also like to point out:I and others on the Kit Car Forum have been misled. Apparently we have a new category of forum: the protected company commercial.
Unfortunately it is pretending to be an open discussion forum. It has an employee of the company on sales and sentry duty who will not entertain doubt, uncertainty or dissent. Perversely, he will not even accept praise for the car.
The facts are: I post an interest and, along with other PHers, express caveats not in any aggressive manner but in the spirit of open discussion. It receives a reply from someone acting as PR manager for the company and moderator. Because I feel his answers biased I post a reply. He considers that reply unacceptable, replies with vindictive abuse, threatening to ban me. Now, that's a curious situation to be in: after all, anytime someone posts pictures of a new car countless posts are logged stating the car looks crap, or words to that affect. We don't expect the company chairman to appear condemning opinion with menace.
I, on the other hand, knowing diplomacy, steadfastly avoid discussion of the actual marque in question, or the company, instead stick to defining what is a copy and what is a replica. In fact, I came down on the side of the company in question but that seems to make no headway at all. As evidence of my interest I point out I considered buying one of the cars in California, a sure sign I had studied the marque. This receives the rebuke I am a liar and have no interest in it whatsoever.
I regard the charges coming from someone out of control.
I am denied access "because of bickering." This is an insidious charge because it is made by those who were unable to accept reply, who then post defamation of character, and finally delete posts. Moreover, the other party remains having assumed a third role, that of judge and jury.
It's customary for the condemned man to be allowed a last word. Here is mine:
Either the forum subject matter is open to discussion as others are of a similar nature, or it has to be signified a blatant advert and no discussion allowed.
What is it to be?
LA
Edited by Los Angeles on Thursday 5th July 11:34
1. How more aggressive could you be than to imply that the company is close to bankruptcy and that the standard of the products is not up to scratch?
2. I never threatened to ban you.
3. I didn't post the article or the pictures.
4. I made it clear at the beginning of the discussion that I was Tygan's PR consultant and that I had a small share in the business.
5. You almost actually apologised later in the thread for apparently not having read this.
6. I have never called you a liar.
7. I do not moderate the kit car forum. The moderation was undertaken by another moderator.
I accept that I shouldn't have been rude to you and I'm man enough to say that I'm sorry that I was. There is lots at stake here.
Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Thursday 5th July 16:40
Mon Ami Mate said:
Having just reread this in a slightly calmer frame of mind I would also like to point out:
1. How more aggressive could you be than to imply that the company is close to bankruptcy and that the standard of the products is not up to scratch?
2. I never threatened to ban you.
3. I didn't post the article or the pictures.
4. I made it clear at the beginning of the discussion that I was Tygan's PR consultant and that I had a small share in the business.
5. You almost actually apologised later in the thread for apparently not having read this.
6. I have never called you a liar.
7. I do not moderate the kit car forum. The moderation was undertaken by another moderator.
I don't normally jump into these things on PH but I have to say I'm with LA on this one. 1. How more aggressive could you be than to imply that the company is close to bankruptcy and that the standard of the products is not up to scratch?
2. I never threatened to ban you.
3. I didn't post the article or the pictures.
4. I made it clear at the beginning of the discussion that I was Tygan's PR consultant and that I had a small share in the business.
5. You almost actually apologised later in the thread for apparently not having read this.
6. I have never called you a liar.
7. I do not moderate the kit car forum. The moderation was undertaken by another moderator.
You appear to have taken his derogatory comments about kit-cars very personally and with a view that they're an attack on your own company.
For example, I believe he said
"will always have spares available (by a company often close to bankruptcy?)"
You have interpreted this as an insinuation that your company is on the verge of bankrupcy. Which I wouldn't read it as at all. I would read it as any kit car company is on the verge of bankrupcy (on account of them being so small)
Mon Ami Mate said:
There is lots at stake here.
I'm sure that is the case and I wish you luck. But that doesn't mean that someone can't criticise you on a public forum be it fairly or unfairly. Can you imagine if someone from a larger car manufacturer came on to their respective forum and responded in the way that you have done? Uproar wouldn't be the word....
Edited by Muzzer on Thursday 5th July 17:22
I was following that thread and witnessed all the posts. So what do we have in conclusion?
Two old hands at PH towers, one of which was a mod. Vested interest or not its just another PH debate that got emotional due to the passion on both sides. At the end of the day passion is why we are here because we care about out cars and hobbies.
If it had not been a Mod involved would anyone had batted an eyelid? No.
Trawling it out is not going to make anything any better and MAM apologised for his outbreak so what's the problem?
Come on guys you're wasting posting time
Two old hands at PH towers, one of which was a mod. Vested interest or not its just another PH debate that got emotional due to the passion on both sides. At the end of the day passion is why we are here because we care about out cars and hobbies.
If it had not been a Mod involved would anyone had batted an eyelid? No.
Trawling it out is not going to make anything any better and MAM apologised for his outbreak so what's the problem?
Come on guys you're wasting posting time
IMHO MAM and A N Other went completely overboard in their reaction to LA.
LA said nothing rude or defamatory about Tygan or its products but was faced with personnal abuse beyond reason.
then was effectively shut down by people with a vested interest in the company.
While Meeja claims not to have an interest it seems coincidental that he runs a certain type of 356 replica......
MAMs responce does nothing but damage to the name of Tygan cars.
Can you imaging if you had bought a car from him and dared to try to make a warranty claim or raise a complaint?
What barrage of abuse would thet get you.
Hardly the attitude of a professional businessman and does not bode well for the prospects of customer care at Tygan IMHO
Think I will steer clear of that one thanks.
LA said nothing rude or defamatory about Tygan or its products but was faced with personnal abuse beyond reason.
then was effectively shut down by people with a vested interest in the company.
While Meeja claims not to have an interest it seems coincidental that he runs a certain type of 356 replica......
MAMs responce does nothing but damage to the name of Tygan cars.
Can you imaging if you had bought a car from him and dared to try to make a warranty claim or raise a complaint?
What barrage of abuse would thet get you.
Hardly the attitude of a professional businessman and does not bode well for the prospects of customer care at Tygan IMHO
Think I will steer clear of that one thanks.
Edited by odyssey2200 on Thursday 5th July 23:46
I have no comment to make on the original thread or its contents having not read it. However, in the interest of free and open debate that is the real joy of Pistonheads, I can't help but feel there is a real case of conflict of interest in having a moderator holding sway over a forum that is specifically designed to discuss the relative merits of kit-cars whilst also holding such a close personal interest in a company producing such a product. I cannot see how MaM's position is tenable and would ask him to consider his position as moderator, or failing that, for Ted to intercede and replace MaM as a moderator. There is also the obvious potential for general trouble making and MaM baiting to the detriment of Tygan as a commercial entity and that would be just as unfair.
MaM, I wish you well in your new venture and hope you will realise that the above is in no way a comment on your past contribution to the forum.
MaM, I wish you well in your new venture and hope you will realise that the above is in no way a comment on your past contribution to the forum.
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff