I have deleted the thread that asked about people’s experiences with a vendor of Caterpillar parts and equipment (who is also a member of ACMOC).

I have deleted my own comment about another vendor that appeared in another thread in the For Sale/Wanted section.

I had to go back and find the rules that the board of directors adopted some time ago, and refresh my own recollection of them.

Those rules are found in Resolution Number 31, adopted by the board of directors on May 3, 2006. In pertinent part, the rules say:

“3. That the web master or administrator(s) of the ACMOC bulletin board are authorized and directed to remove any post (or “thread”) that communicates dislike or distrust of another person, or that accuses another person of dishonesty or deceit”.

Based upon that rule, I concluded that the material referred to above should be deleted.

The board of directors met last Monday afternoon by telephone conference call. There were two business items on the agenda concerning a proposed inquiry into two different vendors and their business practices. However, a director raised the question of whether the club should “police” its vendors. The minutes of the meeting reflect in relevant part:

“A lengthy discussion ensued about the appropriateness of the club policing its advertisers. As a result of the discussion, it was agreed that the general question of the extent to which the club ought to police advertisers in its magazine (and Internet bulletin board) would be referred to the Shows and Advertising Committee for review and recommendation.”

The members of the Shows and Advertising Committee are:

Lee Sorbel, chairman
Glen Ghilotti
Ron Meeder
Tricia Potts (our Executive Director)
Dave Wintermute.

You may make your opinion known to the committee by responding to this thread. Please avoid using the names of vendors. Aside from the appropriateness of “policing” vendors that advertise in the club’s magazine, you should feel free to comment on the rule found in Resolution Number 31, adopted on May 3, 2006.

George:

Thanks for the update. I do not disagree with the decision of the Board of Acmoc; however, we do need to have an effective method to warn the ACMOC membership of certain questionable practices. I need not remind you of a certain member from the southern states who was taken to the cleaners by a former Cat collector from the upper midwest. In several conversations with this collector he voiced his opinion that he should have been warned as many before him were fleeced and all negative comments were removed by ACMOC. To the uninformed one who has published books and holds him/herself out as a reputable member of the Club who has no negative public comments on the board must be ok to deal with. Perhaps the fallback position is to request off the record comments (as I suggested to Glen's request) so the uninformed can be warned before their hard earned bucks are sucked up by "vapor tractors" as we like to call them.

Just my 2 cents worth.

we do need a thread or section where we can help each other with vendors and individuals after all a good vendor or person wouldnt have a problem with it just the bad

Hi, GWH Diesel75.
I'm with Tom Madden here. I firmly believe that one of the functions of a forum such as this ought to be to exchange information, either for or against, about people or companies offering goods or services in exchange for money or payment in kind.

Admittedly, you have a LOT of people viewing this site who are not paid-up members of ACMOC - I was one of them for a good number of years - but you also have a goodly number of forum members who ARE paid-up members of ACMOC. I don't know about you but I would like to be able access any available information about vendors or service providers with whom I might potentially want to do business, especially if people have had unsatisfactory dealings with them.

Yes, I admit that there is a bit of a legal minefield here but I would have thought any comments posted in the forum would have belonged to the poster rather than the forum. And so too the responsibility.

Just my 0.02.

George and the S&A committee,
"Ditto" with what Tom has said. I think this should be allowed but we as fellow "posters" to the BB should keep our comments professional, non judgemental and constructive. Stick to the facts, not the feelings! Example; Instead of posting that a parts dealer screwed you in a transaction, tell us what happened to make you feel this way. He/She Mis-represented the parts, slow shipping, poor communication, etc.

Thanks for giving us the chance to speak and give input on this subject.

I'm a new member of ACMOC and need parts for my Caterpillars, but this thread makes me wonder which dealers I should shy away from doing business with. If some dealer is out out there making unsatisfactory transactions repeatedly, I would sure like to know before I send them any of my hard earned money. Even if they are one of the ACMOC illuminati, they deserve to be outed if they are engaging in unsatisfactory business practices.

Hi oldparker! I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as ACMOC illuminati. Actually, only 1 of the 2 vendors that have been publicly discussed recently on this bb was even a member of ACMOC. You would probably agree that "illuminati" means something along the line of elite. In my experience, some people think of themselves as elite when they have a lot of very old rare tractors - that is, when they have a lot of money invested in their collections. It used to be (not at the beginning, mind you) that you couldn't be nominated for the club's board of directors unless you were one of these people. Today at least that has changed. Otherwise, I would not be welcome to serve. The members of the board are just a bunch of pretty ordinary guys who are trying to make things work the way they ought to work. No illuminati here!

GWH

Hi GWH,
I agree with Tom's comments. In my humble opinion, It is perpetuating "fleecing" if someone does not acknowledge such things are occurring. In an instance where one person has a gripe about another, if that person is in the minority, others will speak up to defend the accused. Of course it should remain factual and not emotional.

Years back, had it not been for the comments on this board regarding the "author" Tom referred to, I probably would have been one of his victims. In general we are a pretty trusting group and we assume everyone on this board is legitimate unless we hear otherwise. If we close our ears to these problems and sweep them under the rug, we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.

My 2¢.

The lid to Pandora's Box is just opening. I can see legal pitfalls to public incrimination (what others would feel is rightful) but I also see a positive side to reinforcing a good business transaction. It may be a bit cumbersome to enact, but how difficult could it be if we instituted an EBay-like rating system? If you are a vendor advertising in the magazine or on the Bulletin Board, you would start with a zero rating. As transactions occured, your rating could go up (or down) based on the successful completion of business. Pie in the sky? Maybe, but at least EBay side steps the legality of negative feedback. They didn't leave it, the buyer did. I do feel that freedom of speech is just as important as minimizing negative comments viewed worldwide, but we need to be mindful of the legal exposure of the club.

There is a stand alone rating system. www.heatware.com Both buyers and sellers could be encouraged to use it. No cost to users either. This is commonly done on all of the electronics forums to provide some insurance you are not dealing with a rock. No need to reinvent the wheel. Gives you the eBay like FB without having to set it up.