Nice management John

You really know how to run things into the ground

"frederickson" wrote... > You really know how to run things > into the ground Seeing as he got the bitching because he existed, rather than for anything he actually did, I find it offensive you should consider the current situation to be his fault. Jan. =---

As an outsider Jan, I think it is from his style and abusive language and approach. Running a league is not easy, I run my own hence why I don't run RASCAR, but it task a firm but respectful approach IMHO. Cursing people and giving orders all the time doesn't do a league any good. Takes a certain personality to do such an unrewarding task. Just my 2 cents worth. "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oqb2b.85666$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "frederickson" wrote... > > You really know how to run things > > into the ground > > Seeing as he got the bitching because he existed, rather than for anything > he actually did, I find it offensive you should consider the current > situation to be his fault. > > Jan. > =--- > >

In article <Gvb2b.61357$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> As an outsider Jan, I think it is from his style and abusive language and > approach. > > Running a league is not easy, I run my own hence why I don't run RASCAR, but > it task a firm but respectful approach IMHO. Cursing people and giving > orders all the time doesn't do a league any good. Takes a certain > personality to do such an unrewarding task.

Ya know, no response to this from me is gonna be acceptable, but let me say this - if you weren't there for the whole show, you have absolutely no grounds on which to form anything that resembles a valid or informed opinion.

"Schooner" wrote... > As an outsider Jan, I think it is from his style > and abusive language and approach. As an insider, it follows these people should know what John is like. It's not like he's never ruffled anyone's feathers before for crying out loud!! I've never really known him to go around the bend unless provoked, so he's got my vote of confidence.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Running a league is not easy, I run my own hence why > I don't run RASCAR, but it task a firm but respectful > approach IMHO. Cursing people and giving orders all > the time doesn't do a league any good. Takes a > certain personality to do such an unrewarding task. > > Just my 2 cents worth.

As a fellow admin (also why I never stepped up to run RASCAR) I know what you're talking about. I usually manage to keep my cool, but I can assure you have I have been fairly calleous as well. I actually told the guy that ran GPVL FV before me to do as he was told or take a walk. He walked (he has since realised he missed the racing and come back, though <g>). Idem the server operator (we still run on his server). It boils down to this, if we don't want to do the donkey work ourselves we need someone to do it in our place. John is the obvious choice and he's willing to do it if we do things his way, so we do things his way. End of story. Jan. =---

"frederickson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:y3b2b.8640$[email hidden]... > You really know how to run things > > > into the ground > > Seems to me that any blame could be aimed in more than just 1 direction. Just my (belated) $0.02 -Brian

I was merely making a statement from what I have seen in RAS alone, nothing more. "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <Gvb2b.61357$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > As an outsider Jan, I think it is from his style and abusive languageand > > approach. > > > > Running a league is not easy, I run my own hence why I don't run RASCAR,but

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > it task a firm but respectful approach IMHO. Cursing people and giving > > orders all the time doesn't do a league any good. Takes a certain > > personality to do such an unrewarding task. > > Ya know, no response to this from me is gonna be acceptable, but let > me say this - if you weren't there for the whole show, you have > absolutely no grounds on which to form anything that resembles a > valid or informed opinion. >

I don't believe John has run anything into the ground. In fact I believe he tried all he could to make RASCAR a good thing. Unlike a few others that participated in RASCAR, I respect John. Just so it's known, I've never had a problem with anything he's done. -- Richard "ZZ" Busch Member: Screamers Racing League OAO CORS RASCAR GPL Rank + 17.415 MoGPL Rank + 318.586 N2002 Rank + 7.695

Schooner wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> As an outsider Jan, I think it is from his style and abusive language and > approach. > > Running a league is not easy, I run my own hence why I don't run RASCAR, but > it task a firm but respectful approach IMHO. Cursing people and giving > orders all the time doesn't do a league any good. Takes a certain > personality to do such an unrewarding task. > > Just my 2 cents worth.

I agree. BTW, John said he wouldn't allow me to compete in any league he was in charge of, after I ticked him off here over something. That happened even before the conception of RASCAR! So I claim to be the first person to be banned from a league which didn't even exist. Gerry

Eldred youre such a cool guy and Im very un-happy about the turn of events. I hope you don't think anything Ive ever said went against you or RASCAR because thats simply not what I ever tried to do. We may have disagreed on things but it wasn't ever personal. What I'd really hope for would be you to continue giving us a server, John doing the painting, Ed running the site, Jan doing recaps and the rest of us racing as clean and fun as could be humanly possible. Thats what I'd like... Thanks for ALL you've done and put up with buddy youre a CLASS ACT! Mitch "frederickson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:y3b2b.8640$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> You really know how to run things > > > into the ground > > >

"Mitch_A" wrote... > <snip> Wrong thread Mitch... Jan. =---

In article <0Pb2b.85700$[email hidden]>, Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> writes > >It boils down to this, if we don't want to do the donkey work ourselves we >need someone to do it in our place. John is the obvious choice and he's >willing to do it if we do things his way, so we do things his way. End of >story. > Why? Why does it have to be this way? There are many ways to skin a cat. Why is this the ONLY alternative? It seemed to me that there were others here who wanted to at least feel that they were involved in something more than just turning up and racing every saturday and who were not being given that chance. Yes, if John had allowed others some kind of input, it would have taken more time and effort, but as far as I could see, that was all it was going to cost. As of now, it seems to have cost a whole lot more. -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:+8$k3PAj4pS$[email hidden]... > In article <0Pb2b.85700$[email hidden]>, Jan > Verschueren <[email hidden]> writes > ><snip>

Quoted text (7 lines)

> It seemed to me that there were others here who wanted to at least feel > that they were involved in something more than just turning up and > racing every saturday and who were not being given that chance. Yes, if > John had allowed others some kind of input, it would have taken more > time and effort, but as far as I could see, that was all it was going to > cost. As of now, it seems to have cost a whole lot more. > --

Peter, you have given some good input. John was listening, he made rules, heard objections, tried his rules on a test basis and dropped or changed them I was in a few discussions with John, we debated back and forth, I agreed to wait and see (see my post in above thread) John did say on some topics, NO WAY. The interesting thing is, those same topics he had the majority behind him. With one glaring exception (chatting) John really did have a consensus of support. He was just shouted down here, with the help of non-rascar participants. that is fine that others on ras posted as the discussion was brought here. I think Mitch did that on purpose in order to get that outside support because he did not have it on the rascar forum where the majority of the give and take was happening. Sean

In article <[email hidden]>, McWhom <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (31 lines)

> >"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in >message >news:+8$k3PAj4pS$[email hidden]... >> In article <0Pb2b.85700$[email hidden]>, Jan >> Verschueren <[email hidden]> writes >> > ><snip> >> It seemed to me that there were others here who wanted to at least feel >> that they were involved in something more than just turning up and >> racing every saturday and who were not being given that chance. Yes, if >> John had allowed others some kind of input, it would have taken more >> time and effort, but as far as I could see, that was all it was going to >> cost. As of now, it seems to have cost a whole lot more. >> -- >Peter, you have given some good input. >John was listening, he made rules, heard objections, tried his rules on a >test basis and dropped or changed them >I was in a few discussions with John, we debated back and forth, I agreed to >wait and see (see my post in above thread) >John did say on some topics, NO WAY. The interesting thing is, those >same >topics he had the majority behind him. >With one glaring exception (chatting) John really did have a consensus of >support. >He was just shouted down here, with the help of non-rascar participants. >that is fine that others on ras posted as the discussion was brought here. >I think Mitch did that on purpose in order to get that outside support >because he did not have it on the rascar forum where the majority of the >give and take was happening. >

Ok Sean, I can see what you're saying. Perhaps there was more than one agenda going on here, and some people had a better perspective of things. Who knows? Despite my potentially myopic position, I still feel this is going to work out for the best, in most cases. Time will tell. :) -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

In article <Ce7L$eAxArS$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (40 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, McWhom > <[email hidden]> writes > > > >"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in > >message > >news:+8$k3PAj4pS$[email hidden]... > >> In article <0Pb2b.85700$[email hidden]>, Jan > >> Verschueren <[email hidden]> writes > >> > > ><snip> > >> It seemed to me that there were others here who wanted to at least feel > >> that they were involved in something more than just turning up and > >> racing every saturday and who were not being given that chance. Yes, if > >> John had allowed others some kind of input, it would have taken more > >> time and effort, but as far as I could see, that was all it was going to > >> cost. As of now, it seems to have cost a whole lot more. > >> -- > >Peter, you have given some good input. > >John was listening, he made rules, heard objections, tried his rules on a > >test basis and dropped or changed them > >I was in a few discussions with John, we debated back and forth, I agreed to > >wait and see (see my post in above thread) > >John did say on some topics, NO WAY. The interesting thing is, those > >same > >topics he had the majority behind him. > >With one glaring exception (chatting) John really did have a consensus of > >support. > >He was just shouted down here, with the help of non-rascar participants. > >that is fine that others on ras posted as the discussion was brought here. > >I think Mitch did that on purpose in order to get that outside support > >because he did not have it on the rascar forum where the majority of the > >give and take was happening. > > > > Ok Sean, I can see what you're saying. Perhaps there was more than one > agenda going on here, and some people had a better perspective of > things. Who knows? Despite my potentially myopic position, I still > feel this is going to work out for the best, in most cases. Time will > tell. :) >

I would also like to remind everyone (yet again), that my opinion that all manual chat, as well as any auto-chat that was not directly related to the race or a driver's status within the race should be avoided while in the race sessions, is NOT reflected in the rules. The rules state(d) that *excessive* manual chatting would be penalized. I don't see where that could be misconstrued as *all* manual chatting. Instead of READING what was on the rules page and UNDERSTANDING what was written on the rules page, some people saw what they wanted to see, got mad at what they thought they were going to read if they went any further, stopped reading, and refused to be talked off the ledge. The problem was exacerbated by Mitch and Dave, and once that started, there really was no hope of having even a semi-sane conversation with anyone. Finally, (and before this is brought up again), I did ONE incident report this season, and it was posted on the forum. I passed no judgement. I was not abrupt in any way. I think I may have indicated in one or two places where I think I know what happened, but those comments were not made in an accusatory tone. That's the way I was goin to do all of the race reports starting with last weekend's race at Bristol. However, things happened that kind of made the whole exercise irrelevant. Mitch and Dave were so stirred up and had pushed me so far beyond the desire to be anything but an asshole, that I said "fuck it" and I obliged them. It's unfortunate that others in the league got caught up in the bullshit. I figured if I could get rid of Dave and Mitch, things would have settled down, and we could get back to the task at hand - racing, and enjoying it again. But, here we sit...

"Peter Ives" wrote... > > <snip> > > Why? Why does it have to be this way? There are many > ways to skin a cat. Why is this the ONLY alternative? Because at the time I wrote that, THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE. Sorry for shouting, but how many times do I have to repeat that before it will start to sink in? Eldred had allowed John to change the rules in order to try and improve the races. Two people didn't like that. John didn't want to back down, Eldred put his head in the sand. What the heck did you want me to do Pete? I run in 5 GPL leagues, managing one of them, 2 NR leagues and work nearly full time. Do you honestly think I have the time to bring a more balanced solution to RASCAR? At the time there was no other server, there was no "group" (I'm still not sure there is) willing to take over the work of maintaining RASCAR. There was just two guys having a problem with John being put in a real position of authority. > It seemed to me that there were others here who wanted > to at least feel that they were involved in something > more than just turning up and racing every saturday and > who were not being given that chance. The only thing they weren't involved in was giving John the go ahead. Others provided input and discussed matter with John and either were successfull in changing his mind or, at the very, least to get him to explain himself. This discussion was also kept out of RAS, which, in retrospect, might have been a mistake as outsider support would have been reduced by people seeing the whole story. It's only when these individuals (already putting their personal aversion over the issue at hand, IMO) didn't get their way on the forum, did they come to RAS, ranting and raving and trying to get everybody to jump on John. You must remember, at this point in time not one, not a single race had been run under the _TEST_ ruleset (did you see that word back there?) and John had not, I say again: NOT, penalized a single driver. > Yes, if John had allowed others some kind of input, it > would have taken more time and effort, but as far as I > could see, that was all it was going to cost. As of > now, it seems to have cost a whole lot more. John did listen. He listened to Eldred, he listened to me, he listened to Sean. He didn't listen to the revolutionists and, in his position, I wouldn't have listened either. I use an authorative style in my league too and you just can't afford to succumb to someone flipping their lid like that. Honestly, can you sit there straight faced and tell me to my face those posts were "input"? All that said, I do support their initiative to keep it going 100% (no sense in fragmenting things). It's just I cannot shake the feeling the gun was jumped (over here we say "crying before they got smacked", which perhaps describes the situation better) and that these guys were more motivated by their personal aversion to John rather than by securing the long term survival of RASCAR. And I do mean RASCAR, not the RASCAR concept, which was flawed to begin with due to high novelty factor. Anyhow, they've finally backed up what they were going on and on about and we'll see how things go. I'll try my best to help them out and make it work. Jan. =---

This is going to become a new urban myth. Non-RASCAR-participants added a few opinions, but they weren't many, they weren't shouting anyone out, and they didn't have the decisive influence either. The conflict existed within RASCAR, and the outcome is the result of things that happened among the RASCAR drivers. Achim "McWhom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > He was just shouted down here, with the help of non-rascar participants....

John, exclusively blaming the clash that happened on some guys not reading the rules or on some guys being troublemakers isn't the entire truth either. Of course, some of the guys began to actually target you, but you weren't exactly trying to move out of the bullets way either, were you? ;-) Achim "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Instead of READING what was on the rules page and UNDERSTANDING what > was written on the rules page, some people saw what they wanted to > see, got mad at what they thought they were going to read if they > went any further, stopped reading, and refused to be talked off the > ledge. > > The problem was exacerbated by Mitch and Dave, and once that started, > there really was no hope of having even a semi-sane conversation with > anyone.

...

In article <bif35a$8pive$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > John, exclusively blaming the clash that happened on some guys not reading > the rules or on some guys being troublemakers isn't the entire truth either. > > Of course, some of the guys began to actually target you, but you weren't > exactly trying to move out of the bullets way either, were you? ;-) That would be a bit "chickenshit" wouldn't it? I did what I thought was right for the group. Why shouldn't I stand completely behind it?

What I meant was, the way you dealt with the issues was undiplomatic and that this provoked to an extent similarly 'undiplomatic' actions from others. Achim "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > That would be a bit "chickenshit" wouldn't it? I did what I thought > was right for the group. Why shouldn't I stand completely behind it?...

>>Jan wrote:Eldred had allowed John to change the rules in order to try and improve the races. Two people didn't like that. >> There were more of us. I, for one, chose to resign, as per J.S' "If you don't like it, leave!" directive. I don't care for bullies, loudmouths and "over the phone toughguys" and J.S, IMHO certainly presents himself as such and, again IMO seems, oddly enough, to revel in it. I really had no quarrel at all with the rules, even though I didn't agree with some of the discussions. What I had a problem with was the way in which they were presented. If your going to talk to people like they are annoying, stupid and unworthy to make an assesment of the discussion, then you deserve whatever comes your way. As my dear, Sainted Mother would say... "What did you THINK was going to happen?" Michael

In article <ywy2b.87989$[email hidden]>, Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> writes >"Peter Ives" wrote... >> > <snip> >><snip>

Quoted text (33 lines)

>> It seemed to me that there were others here who wanted >> to at least feel that they were involved in something >> more than just turning up and racing every saturday and >> who were not being given that chance. > >The only thing they weren't involved in was giving John the go ahead. Others >provided input and discussed matter with John and either were successfull >in >changing his mind or, at the very, least to get him to explain himself. This >discussion was also kept out of RAS, which, in retrospect, might have been >a >mistake as outsider support would have been reduced by people seeing the >whole story. It's only when these individuals (already putting their >personal aversion over the issue at hand, IMO) didn't get their way on the >forum, did they come to RAS, ranting and raving and trying to get everybody >to jump on John. > >You must remember, at this point in time not one, not a single race had been >run under the _TEST_ ruleset (did you see that word back there?) and John >had not, I say again: NOT, penalized a single driver. > >> Yes, if John had allowed others some kind of input, it >> would have taken more time and effort, but as far as I >> could see, that was all it was going to cost. As of >> now, it seems to have cost a whole lot more. > >John did listen. He listened to Eldred, he listened to me, he listened to >Sean. He didn't listen to the revolutionists and, in his position, I >wouldn't have listened either. I use an authorative style in my league too >and you just can't afford to succumb to someone flipping their lid like >that. Honestly, can you sit there straight faced and tell me to my face >those posts were "input"? >

You know, I decided to have a browse of the RASCAR forums on simracingcentral (and I suggest that there are others here that should do the same in order to gain or more balanced view) and you are 100% right. It was pretty obvious from reading those threads that John was indeed trying to listen to as many opinions as he could and take them on board (at least from the threads I read). I know its akin to 'closing the door after the horse has bolted', but I feel I owe him an apology for being one of the most vocal about how much it appeared that he had just usurped RASCAR without any regard for the views of others. Because we on ras were only seeing half the picture it was way too easy to see John as the only one at fault here. I'm not saying that he was without fault (there were a few occasions here that could possibly have been dealt with in a more circumspect manner), but the original accusation seems to have been without complete substance. For my own mitigation, however, there is one thing I don't quite understand, though. Why, oh why, didn't someone else just speak up, nay, shout out loud, 'Hold on a minute. Before you all start hurling abuse in John's direction, take a look on racesimcentral and see what's really going on.' All we were seeing was John telling people to put up or shut up, which just compounded things, surely. Anyways, sorry about criticising you so adamantly, John. You didn't deserve it. -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:N0Y8eAAoz5S$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> In article <ywy2b.87989$[email hidden]>, Jan > Verschueren <[email hidden]> writes > >"Peter Ives" wrote... > >> > <snip> > >> > <snip> > > For my own mitigation, however, there is one thing I don't quite > understand, though. Why, oh why, didn't someone else just speak up, > nay, shout out loud, 'Hold on a minute. Before you all start hurling > abuse in John's direction, take a look on racesimcentral and see what's > really going on.' All we were seeing was John telling people to put up > or shut up, which just compounded things, surely. > > Anyways, sorry about criticising you so adamantly, John. You didn't > deserve it. > -- > Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) > Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email > If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) > GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

I posted that very fact last Friday night. No one has replied to that post as yet. It obviously did no good. But Serously folks! (RASCAR) Ok, Reality check all. Much of what John says is true. Point in fact. John made a new rule and associated penalties for not obeying this rule. I objected as well as several others. This all happened on the RSC website forum and went on throughout the day until the conversation moved over here to RAS. More input here for sure. Now, I will take some credit for having had a rational discussion on this topic, though certainly not all because of me, John has adjusted the penalty for this new rule to one that I personally can live with. A stop and go instead of a suspension. This is living proof that John is willing to compromise and work through these issues with us all. That my friends is as close to democracy as we should expect to get. John, I continue to support your efforts and thank you for listening. Sean

In article <[email hidden]>, McWhom <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (30 lines)

> >"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in >message >news:N0Y8eAAoz5S$[email hidden]... >> In article <ywy2b.87989$[email hidden]>, Jan >> Verschueren <[email hidden]> writes >> >"Peter Ives" wrote... >> >> > <snip> >> >> >> <snip> >> >> For my own mitigation, however, there is one thing I don't quite >> understand, though. Why, oh why, didn't someone else just speak up, >> nay, shout out loud, 'Hold on a minute. Before you all start hurling >> abuse in John's direction, take a look on racesimcentral and see what's >> really going on.' All we were seeing was John telling people to put up >> or shut up, which just compounded things, surely. >> >> Anyways, sorry about criticising you so adamantly, John. You didn't >> deserve it. >> -- >> Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) >> Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email >> If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) >> GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77 > > >I posted that very fact last Friday night. No one has replied to that post >as yet. It obviously did no good. >

I do remember a reply of yours to me where you suggested taking a look. Guess I didn't take enough notice of that suggestion. :( -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

Peter Ives wrote: > > Anyways, sorry about criticising you so adamantly, John. You didn't > deserve it. There are a few people in here that could learn something from you Peter, and in the process they might learn something about John Simmons as well Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Race1530" wrote... > > <snip> > There were more of us. I, for one, chose to resign, as per > J.S' "If you don't like it, leave!" directive. Ok, three guys didn't like it. <g> Seriously, it's my experience the vast majority of simmers doesn't care who organises things nor what he sounds like. As long as there's a race to connect to and a set of rules to ignore. Slight exaggeration, perhaps, but as an admin I regularly establish 80% of the drivers don't read my race briefings and usually 40% of them don't even read the messages I label !!IMPORTANT!!. They can't remember a password for more than 10 minutes and routinely manage to screw up previously working game configurations by changing "nothing". So why the good people of RASCAR couldn't look past John's style and simply continue to put eachother in the wall is beyond me. Look, can we just drop this? -It's gone beyond all recognition. RASCAR was going to try some adapted rules and the introduction of penalties in order to have cleaner races. Before we even got to trying them in a first race the whole deal got whipped up to a point where it had the power to destroy everything we've worked for over the past 1 1/2 years. To save that, John relinquished his vision on how to progress and now we're back to almost status quo, in that we're missing Eldred (who couldn't take it anymore, but I'm sure he'll be back for more). Can we move on mow? Jan. =---

>>Can we move on mow? Jan.>> Jan, you tell me when MOW is, and I'm there! :)) Michael

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:U_N2b.88924$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Race1530" wrote... > > > <snip> > > There were more of us. I, for one, chose to resign, as per > > J.S' "If you don't like it, leave!" directive. > > Ok, three guys didn't like it. <g> > > Seriously, it's my experience the vast majority of simmers doesn't care

who > organises things nor what he sounds like. As long as there's a race to > connect to and a set of rules to ignore. > > Slight exaggeration, perhaps, but as an admin I regularly establish 80% of > the drivers don't read my race briefings and usually 40% of them don'teven > read the messages I label !!IMPORTANT!!. They can't remember a passwordfor > more than 10 minutes and routinely manage to screw up previously working > game configurations by changing "nothing". So why the good people ofRASCAR > couldn't look past John's style and simply continue to put eachother inthe > wall is beyond me. > > Look, can we just drop this? -It's gone beyond all recognition. RASCAR was > going to try some adapted rules and the introduction of penalties in order > to have cleaner races. There was more than three. Ed quit at least partially because of John. Others have posted in r.a.s. that they didn't join RASCAR because of John. There were more than the issues you mention. The schedule and types of races for some of this season, and ALL of next season was determined by John (two SS races?, and we were told we'd have to buy a converter). There were adults being told when and where they could speak about the races. That was the last straw. More than just a few objected strongly to that and refused to accept that garbage. I got sick of hearing him tell people, "This is how I've decided it's going to be, and if you don't like it, quit!" That style is sucks. I also remember his absolutely shitty treatment of Ginger (who's been a perfect example to RASCAR drivers) after a race here at r.a.s. last July. He called him, "just some smack from the UK". That was the first sign to me that John had issues. His Vegas race review which followed, which caused all kinds of trouble, him then quitting, coming back, etc. was the first sign of bad things to come. David G Fisher

"David G Fisher" wrote: > "Jan Verschueren" wrote: > > Look, can we just drop this? -It's gone beyond all recognition. RASCARwas > > going to try some adapted rules and the introduction of penalties inorder > > to have cleaner races. > > There was more than three... <snip> No chance, Jan, not since the declaration of JUNTACAR... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003

"David G Fisher" wrote... > <snip> > There was more than three. Ed quit at least partially > because of John. Ok, so 4... still less than 10% of the total membership. <g> (--> <g> means I'm exaggerating for the sake of humour, BTW). > Others have posted in r.a.s. that they didn't join > RASCAR because of John. Not liking John is an easy excuse for having a problem with being judged on your performance, attendance and level of preparation for the races. > There were more than the issues you mention. The schedule > and types of races for some of this season, and ALL of > next season was determined by John (two SS races?, and we > were told we'd have to buy a converter). It follows the Cup schedule as it has done from the beginning and that's enough for me. Other races are of minor or no interest to me, so that's a non-issue AFAIC. Also, it said on the site/forum you'd have to buy the converter because that's a requirement by racesimcentral (they can't be portrayed as condoning piracy). I'm sure everyone willing to race the converted track but not willing to buy the converter (or source games) would have been obliged in a kind of peer-to-peer way. Same situation in ESCORS, alledgedly. <g> > There were adults being told when and where they could > speak about the races. That was the last straw. More than > just a few objected strongly to that and refused to accept > that garbage. Someone running the show hasn't got infinate time to discuss or monitor what is being said about the races by the drivers. It's therefore sensible to put a cap on discussion from an admin point of view. BTW: who says he would not have taken each infraction on its own merit? -Did I get punished for posting the Michigan review anyway? -No. Did Mitch get punished for provoking John? -Yes. > I got sick of hearing him tell people, "This is how > I've decided it's going to be, and if you don't like > it, quit!" In my experience he didn't resort to that unless it was clear the difference was unresolvable. > That style is sucks. I also remember his absolutely shitty > treatment of Ginger (who's been a perfect example to RASCAR > drivers) No-one is infallible. Not me, not you, not Ginger. Some drivers in RASCAR still take too many risks with regard to latency related issues, IMO, and I'll point that out each time this causes an incident. Ad nauseum, until it filters through. > <snip> That was the first sign to me that John had issues. > <snip> Yeah, yeah, yeah... I admit it. Fresh out of College, I wouldn't have been able to be in the same room with John for 15 minutes. Since then, however, I've done a stint in the army, have worked in customer services, retail, and been involved in the design phase of many projects for the past 10 years. Basically, I've had to learn to deal with people. I'll also admit I like an authorative management style as it is easy to know what is required and I also like a guy who his not afraid to make a decision and accept the concequences. Anyhow, we're trying the democratic option now... Jan. =---

"Tony Rickard" wrote... > <snip> > No chance, Jan, not since the declaration of JUNTACAR... <GROAN> Jan. ;-) =---

In article <bifirp$8phb2$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> What I meant was, the way you dealt with the issues was undiplomatic > and that this provoked to an extent similarly 'undiplomatic' actions from > others. > > > "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > ... > > That would be a bit "chickenshit" wouldn't it? I did what I thought > > was right for the group. Why shouldn't I stand completely behind it? > ...

I was as diplomatic as I felt the need to be. I ain't no politician, and I don't coddle constant whiners. I reached a limit. Simple as that.

In article <[email hidden]>, race1530 @aol.comnojunk says... > >>Jan wrote: > Eldred had allowed John to change the rules in order to try and improve the > races. Two people didn't like that. >> I did not change the rules. I added penalties for breaking them. > There were more of us. I, for one, chose to resign, as per J.S' "If you don't > like it, leave!" directive. I don't care for bullies, loudmouths and "over the > phone toughguys" and J.S, IMHO certainly presents himself as such and, again > IMO seems, oddly enough, to revel in it. Hey, if you're gonna go over the edge, you may as well enjoy yourself. > I really had no quarrel at all with the rules, even though I didn't agree with > some of the discussions. What I had a problem with was the way in which they > were presented. If your going to talk to people like they are annoying, stupid > and unworthy to make an assesment of the discussion, then you deserve whatever > comes your way. People were acting stupid and really starting to annoy me. How did you really think I was going to react? Hand everybody a box of chocolates and call for a group-hug?

In article <N0Y8eAAoz5S$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> You know, I decided to have a browse of the RASCAR forums on > simracingcentral (and I suggest that there are others here that should > do the same in order to gain or more balanced view) and you are 100% > right. It was pretty obvious from reading those threads that John was > indeed trying to listen to as many opinions as he could and take them on > board (at least from the threads I read). > > I know its akin to 'closing the door after the horse has bolted', but I > feel I owe him an apology for being one of the most vocal about how much > it appeared that he had just usurped RASCAR without any regard for the > views of others.

No apology necessary. > Because we on ras were only seeing half the picture it was way too easy > to see John as the only one at fault here. I'm not saying that he was > without fault (there were a few occasions here that could possibly have > been dealt with in a more circumspect manner), but the original > accusation seems to have been without complete substance. Well, I never claimed no fault 9and anyone that was involved was at fault - yes, even me). The accusations against me were (IMHO) completely groundless. > For my own mitigation, however, there is one thing I don't quite > understand, though. Why, oh why, didn't someone else just speak up, > nay, shout out loud, 'Hold on a minute. Before you all start hurling > abuse in John's direction, take a look on racesimcentral and see what's > really going on.' All we were seeing was John telling people to put up > or shut up, which just compounded things, surely. I think me and jan both suggested that people nreview the whole story before commenting. Of course, redTed was lost after about the fourth word of those messages... > Anyways, sorry about criticising you so adamantly, John. You didn't > deserve it. I *always* deserve it. :)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Now, I will take some credit for having had a rational discussion on this > topic, though certainly not all because of me, John has adjusted the penalty > for this new rule to one that I personally can live with. A stop and go > instead of a suspension. This is living proof that John is willing to > compromise and work through these issues with us all. Well, the real reason for that is because until the patch is released, I couldn't use the from-the-frid stop-n-go that I wanted to use, so a one-race suspension was in place until the patch came out. I was constrained by a limitation in the sim. > John, I continue to support your efforts and thank you for listening. Many thanks for the vote of confidence. However, if I ever do somethingto really piss you off, I fully expect you to let me know. :)

In article <[email hidden]>, search-apnic-not- [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > Peter Ives wrote: > > > > Anyways, sorry about criticising you so adamantly, John. You didn't > > deserve it. > > There are a few people in here that could learn something from you > Peter, and in the process they might learn something about John Simmons > as well

I think a lot of people know more than they want to know about me at this point. :)

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... That style > is sucks. I also remember his absolutely shitty treatment of Ginger (who's > been a perfect example to RASCAR drivers) after a race here at r.a.s. last > July. He called him, "just some smack from the UK". Heh, you should hear what I call him :-))) (back to lurking in this debacle, now)

"John Simmons" wrote: > > There are a few people in here that could learn something from you > > Peter, and in the process they might learn something about John Simmons > > as well > > I think a lot of people know more than they want to know about me at > this point. :) Well they do over at alt.fashion.crossdressing for sure... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003

Sure John, simple as that, and the consequences are what we've been seeing in the past couple of days. That's all I'm saying. Achim "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > I was as diplomatic as I felt the need to be. I ain't no politician, > and I don't coddle constant whiners. I reached a limit. Simple as > that.

"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, > if I ever do > somethingto really piss you off, I fully expect you to let me know. > :) No Worries :-)

John Simmons wrote: > > I think a lot of people know more than they want to know about me at > this point. :) You're just afraid that the secret about you really being a big old softy will come out some day Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

In article <3xQ2b.89097$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "Tony Rickard" wrote... > > <snip> > > No chance, Jan, not since the declaration of JUNTACAR... > > <GROAN> > > Jan. ;-) > =--- > > >

I actually like that name - it goes with my alternative dictatorial moniker "El Supremo"...

In article <WQQ2b.463$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > That style > > is sucks. I also remember his absolutely shitty treatment of Ginger (who's > > been a perfect example to RASCAR drivers) after a race here at r.a.s. last > > July. He called him, "just some smack from the UK". > > > Heh, you should hear what I call him :-))) > > > (back to lurking in this debacle, now)

And though I vaguely remember this particular incident, I said it expecting him to see it, but had left before it appeared on the chat screen. Of course, Dave wouldn't know a freindly jibe if it walked up and bit him on the ass.

In article <WRQ2b.5196$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "John Simmons" wrote: > > > > There are a few people in here that could learn something from you > > > Peter, and in the process they might learn something about John Simmons > > > as well > > > > I think a lot of people know more than they want to know about me at > > this point. :) > > Well they do over at alt.fashion.crossdressing for sure...

Speaking of that... I checked out Google Groups, and I'd like to proclaim righ now that Iam NOT the same John Simmons that is posting in alt.nude (et al).

"John Simmons" wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > I think a lot of people know more than they want to know about me at > > > this point. :) > > > > Well they do over at alt.fashion.crossdressing for sure... > > Speaking of that... > > I checked out Google Groups, and I'd like to proclaim righ now that > Iam NOT the same John Simmons that is posting in alt.nude (et al).

LOL !! After my post I checked that out too! I decided not to mention it - just in case :) Cheers Tony --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003

In article <[email hidden]>, search-apnic-not- [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > > John Simmons wrote: > > > > I think a lot of people know more than they want to know about me at > > this point. :) > > You're just afraid that the secret about you really being a big old > softy will come out some day > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx-- >

BLASPHEMER! JIHAD! :)

In article <ZdR2b.5224$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> "John Simmons" wrote: > > > > > I think a lot of people know more than they want to know about me at > > > > this point. :) > > > > > > Well they do over at alt.fashion.crossdressing for sure... > > > > Speaking of that... > > > > I checked out Google Groups, and I'd like to proclaim righ now that > > Iam NOT the same John Simmons that is posting in alt.nude (et al). > > LOL !! > > After my post I checked that out too! > > I decided not to mention it - just in case :) >

I wanted to get it out in the open myself before redTed or Dave twisted it into something evil (not that there's anything wrong with that). :)

"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> In article <WQQ2b.463$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > That style > > > is sucks. I also remember his absolutely shitty treatment of Ginger

(who's > > > been a perfect example to RASCAR drivers) after a race here at r.a.s.last

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > July. He called him, "just some smack from the UK". > > > > > > Heh, you should hear what I call him :-))) > > > > > > (back to lurking in this debacle, now) > > And though I vaguely remember this particular incident, I said it > expecting him to see it, but had left before it appeared on the chat > screen. > > Of course, Dave wouldn't know a freindly jibe if it walked up and bit > him on the ass.

I can pull a link from google and remind the group of how you offended Ginger, and the whole mess that followed with your Vegas review, but I won't bother. If anyone's really interested, they can look it up and see how you are. Ginger sure didn't take it as a friendly jibe. David G Fisher

In article <[email hidden]>, John Simmons <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> Anyways, sorry about criticising you so adamantly, John. You didn't >> deserve it. > >I *always* deserve it. :) > >

Well, let's not argue over it. You're right. :) -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > I think me and jan both suggested that people nreview the whole story > before commenting. Of course, redTed was lost after about the fourth > word of those messages... > > > Anyways, sorry about criticising you so adamantly, John. You didn't > > deserve it. > > I *always* deserve it. :)

You're nearly at the group hug stage now. Arhhhhhhh. You want to keep insulting me Simmo, go right ahead. I've been waiting ages for you to come out from behind your killfile. Please don't run off so quickly this time.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:25:37 GMT, John Simmons <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Well they do over at alt.fashion.crossdressing for sure... > >Speaking of that... > >I checked out Google Groups, and I'd like to proclaim righ now that >Iam NOT the same John Simmons that is posting in alt.nude (et al). Fluffypony told me otherwise <g> Andre

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > There were adults > being told when and where they could speak about the races. That was the > last straw. More than just a few objected strongly to that and refused to > accept that garbage. I got sick of hearing him tell people, "This is how > I've decided it's going to be, and if you don't like it, quit!" That style > is sucks. Then there need either be a free market economy (the users don't like it, they go elsewhere) or a democracy (the majority of users don't like it, the boss gets the boot). It seems like that's what's happening, which is good. Does seem kinda wierd though - you can for sure ASK people not to discuss something, but attempting to mandate it will get people flaunting the rule simply because it is there and unenforcable. I understand one of the guidelines in the military is never to give an order which will not be obeyed - the theory being that if you do, when it is disobeyed the "illusion" of control is shattered and anarchy could well follow. A similar principle should apply here - usenet is entropy on steroids, and it takes a delicate hand and a lot of thought to keep things on track. John ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:25:37 GMT, John Simmons <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> Well they do over at alt.fashion.crossdressing for sure... > > > >Speaking of that... > > > >I checked out Google Groups, and I'd like to proclaim righ now that > >Iam NOT the same John Simmons that is posting in alt.nude (et al). > > Fluffypony told me otherwise <g> > > Andre

Ouch.... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:35:13 GMT, John Simmons <[email hidden]> wrote: >I wanted to get it out in the open myself before redTed or Dave >twisted it into something evil (not that there's anything wrong with >that). There's....not? You're not doing your "it's not me" assertion any favours with that :-)