Announcement

**amphibious drew** · 08-01-2017, 07:41 AM

I have grown from this website, and I like to think I helped this website grow too. I consider more than one person I the list to be a friend of mine. Heck I consider most people on the list to be my friends. I understand wanting to clean up the site and keep it positive, and I also believe publically shaming these forum members/former forum members is uncalled for and unprofessional. There is no need for public shaming from forum members or the moderators. This makes me very sad.

**Moderator Bob** · 08-01-2017, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by amphibious drew View Post

I have grown from this website, and I like to think I helped this website grow too. I consider more than one person I the list to be a friend of mine. Heck I consider most people on the list to be my friends. I understand wanting to clean up the site and keep it positive, and I also believe publically shaming these forum members/former forum members is uncalled for and unprofessional. There is no need for public shaming from forum members or the moderators. This makes me very sad.

Hey Drew, we completely understand your viewpoint. We believe a public announcement was the way to inform all members at once to explain who will no longer be around, and exactly why the decision was made.

**amphibious drew** · 08-01-2017, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Moderator Bob View Post

Hey Drew, we completely understand your viewpoint. We believe a public announcement was the way to inform all members at once to explain who will no longer be around, and exactly why the decision was made.

Thank you for acknowledging my concerns. I have no problem with a public announcement starting why people get banned from the site. My issue is listing the banned members. When a person is let go from a corporation, the corporation does not announce who was let go, but may list the reason for turnover without pointing out who was involved with the actions causing the turnover. It is your right to run the forum however you see fit, but I politely suggest in the future that you refrain from directly listing former members who have been banned in a post with the reasons the ban has occurred. Not only do I find it unprofessional, but I feel it is in poor taste to do so when those that are listed have no way of defending themselves in the post. We are only getting your side of the story. A certain member was permanently banned years ago after many temporary bans. I do not recall Mike ever posting as to who he was and why he was banned, and in the scenario I am talking about, it could have been benificial for the 6x6 community to understand why doing business with that person was a risky proposition. Never expose yourself in a way that could make you liable. Again, thank you for acknowledging my concerns. I hope this forum can return to the happy place that taught me so much years ago. I came here for the knowledge, and I stayed because of the community.

**dirtdobber** · 08-01-2017, 09:44 AM

We understand a portion of the community will disagree with this decision........With 6x6world freed of these individuals

Moderator Bob, in your original post you don't actually tell us what action you have taken, other than the obvious censure. The language implies a ban, but you don't say. I think the community needs to know.

I agree that there have been some recent posts that seemed to antagonize, but I, like amphibious drew, think this is a bit harsh. Admittedly, I don't know what efforts were made to address this privately, but in essence you have gone back in time to examine old posts and seem to be substituting your judgment now in place of the judgment then exercised by the prior administrator.

Please tell me there was significant private communication before creating this thread.

**Moderator Bob** · 08-01-2017, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by dirtdobber View Post

Moderator Bob, in your original post you don't actually tell us what action you have taken, other than the obvious censure. The language implies a ban, but you don't say. I think the community needs to know.

I agree that there have been some recent posts that seemed to antagonize, but I, like amphibious drew, think this is a bit harsh. Admittedly, I don't know what efforts were made to address this privately, but in essence you have gone back in time to examine old posts and seem to be substituting your judgment now in place of the judgment then exercised by the prior administrator.

Please tell me there was significant private communication before creating this thread.

Sorry dirtrobber you are correct, these members have been banned from the site. The previous site administration issued countless warnings towards the above users as well as had to delete a staggering number of their posts for breaking the rules. Continuing to our administration, these users have failed to adhere to the site rules and have been a nonstop disruption of the well being of the community (with points listed in the first post). Warnings have been ignored and rather became humerus to this group.

A single announcement deletes room for error in communication on a site with over 14,000 members. Our above statement is harsh, but we stand by our actions in this extraordinary case.

We appreciate everyone's questions and comments. Your input has been valuable in the past, and will continue to be valuable in the future. Our goal is to keep 6x6world a peaceful forum where users can enjoy their stay.

**Duck89** · 08-01-2017, 12:17 PM

This is sad and disappointing. This forum has definitely "changed."

**TravisW** · 08-01-2017, 01:09 PM

While I agree that it's definitely sad for a forum to have to dismiss such a large group of members, I completely understand why it was done. In my years on this forum I've been able to witness firsthand many of the offences listed in the announcement, and they contributed to an overwhelmingly negative atmosphere in many threads, which is unneeded and unacceptable within a community like this.

These individuals were given many warnings not only by the past and current administration, but the community itself, and persistently ignored them to continue serving their own agenda. This was bound to happen sooner or later, and it finally did. They only have themselves to blame.

**lcheney** · 08-01-2017, 01:18 PM

.

**john swenson** · 08-01-2017, 02:26 PM

my only humble comment is i did'nt like seeing the '' leaving for route 66'' post keep going on and on over the last few weeks every time i checked new posts. i wondered when it would finally be done. and for any new people checking out this site for the first time, what was their impression ? i think members can express their ideas and views on here in a positive,kind way..even if there are different views on things. seems to me if a member finds this site not to their liking at some point the appropriate thing is to just quietly fade out. i think all the few years i've been going to busco,it's always been kind , helping members having a great time together. would like to see this site stay that way as much as possible. thanks, johnboy va.

**frabbit** · 08-01-2017, 03:18 PM

As a friend of several, and an outside observer, this could be called " An assisted suicide", NOT A MARTYRDOM by any stretch of anyone's imagination

**countrybumpkin** · 08-01-2017, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by frabbit View Post

As a friend of several, and an outside observer, this could be called " An assisted suicide", NOT A MARTYRDOM by any stretch of anyone's imagination

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one Mike, l am going to miss them all the same.

**Duck89** · 08-01-2017, 03:56 PM

I guess a lot of us, including myself, are just confused and unclear as to what "Outdoor "Sports" actually is. There seems to be no information out there as to clear up this confusion. If more information was available as to who/what this company is, as well as the people behind it, this may clear up these questions and ease tensions a bit.

I haven't been very active the last year or two so I may have missed a thread with the answers to these questions, but I don't believe I have. I thought the image below shows an interesting bit of information where former owner Mike calls Outdoor Sports a "media company" in the "6x6World under new ownership" thread.

Any input/clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.

"FYI my screenshot might not come out but I'm sure you can find the thread if you want to)

Thanks,

IMG_0618.jpg

**smudvapor** · 08-01-2017, 05:21 PM

Why is it so important to know the background of a company that runs our web page? It isn’t as if we are distributing top secret information. It is a web page for AATV enthusiasts. To those of you who are so interested in the background of Outdoor Sports, do you put this much effort into the background of the company that you buy your television from? Your furniture? Your internet service provider? Since the change in ownership some of you are stuck on who the new owner is. Who cares? We can still do all of the same things that we did before. I realize that some of you enjoyed a more personal relationship with Mike but that isn’t the case most of the time. Do you have a personal relationship with the CEO of the company that you bought your last vehicle from? I think it is time to give it a rest and move on. As for the ones who were banned. I am not going to get into whether or not they should have or shouldn’t have been. The owner of the page made the decision based on the reasons that were listed earlier. It is their right to do so just as it is our right to continue to participate in the web page but if you are going to participate then let’s get back to AATV conversations. The horse is dead, stopping beating it.

**Duck89** · 08-01-2017, 05:35 PM

It was just a simple question...I'm just looking for a little clarification and am not out to "stir the pot."

I would like to know a little more because I sponsor the website with the "6x6World sponsor" feature. I would like to know if I should continue sponsoring or not.

Announcement

Forum Clean Up

Forum Clean Up

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment