Rules are rules...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nishy

Forum GOD!
Staff member
British company law is quite clear. Darron and Wickham Soap Co. Ltd are two separate legal entities/persons.
Darron is not Wickham Soap Ltd, although he may be a spokesperson for the company or hold shares.
Darron is not liable for what Wickham Soap Co. Ltd. does - that's the concept behind limited companies.
If you have beef with the company you can sue the company, but not the shareholders personally.
Wickham Soap Co. Ltd is not liable for what Darron does as Darron while not representing the company.
If Darron runs over a chicken with his bicycle, the owner of the chicken can't sue the company.
Discriminating against members because they are shareholders in a limited (or public) company would cause me headaches without end.

Treating a limited or public company as being identical to its shareholders causes all sorts of trouble.
Consider the following scenarios:
  1. Wickham Soap Co. Ltd. hire me as Social Media Manager. Would I need to give up my personal account? Could Darron have his back?
  2. Wickham Soap Co. Ltd. hire 10 Social Media Managers and I'm one of them. Would I need to give up my personal account?
  3. I buy one share in Wickham Soap Co.Ltd. I now own 0.1% of the company. Would I need to give up my personal account?
  4. Darron sells four times 20% of his shares in Wickham Soap Co. Ltd. to me and 3 other members. Would we all need to give up our personal accounts?
  5. Same scenarios with Gillette, if they had an account. Would I need to give up my personal account?
P.S.: Sole traders are a different issue.
End of rant.
Apologies Andreas currently swamped at work but as a very quick response rules 6 and 20 set from day 1 and applicable to most forums should provide an answer. Definitely will look into them again just time permitting.
 

RandySp

Forum GOD!
As long Darron does not participate anymore on this thread the discussion won't help..
Whilst I appreciate the rules and the decisions the mods have taken. I would like to make a few comments if I may.

Firstly, I think it's great that this discussion is taking place and that the mods are allowing it to take place.

Secondly, I agree with some of the comments above and I think that there is some merit to members and vendors from clearly separating the vendor account and the personal account. I wouldn't expect a vendor to be commenting on general matters or other people's products. Yet a personal account would clearly separate this issue. Members would then be crystal clear as to the interaction taking place. Potential abuse of this would be identifiable and the mods could then deal with it as required. Clear labelling of the vendor account would continue.

I think that this matter has only arisen due to the previous decisions taken for vendors to be required to support the forum with fees. At that point some vendors chose to pay and some didn't. In this particular case, Darron chose to participate as a member rather than marketing, running group buys etc. A decision was then taken to become a vendor with a separate account and here we are.

Could a discussion be had between the mods and existing vendors to gauge opinion as to whether it would be useful for all vendors to have the option of separate accounts?
I believe that if Darron had a vendor's account from the beginning, he couldn't be able to participate a lot in the discussions. Imagine if he disliked a soap and wrote it in public what the reactions would be. If I dislike something, no problem, I'm a user only not a vendor.

Perhaps, If he had kept only the Fox account and paid directly as a vendor, would it make any difference?

I don't know really, but I don't like at all the situation with Darron permanently logged out.
 

Rufusdog

Forum GOD!
I struggle with this legal fiction when management, directors or controlling shareholders are not held accountable for the actions of a corporation. A corporation is inanimate and as such is not capable of making decisions, taking actions, etc; these are made by people. Thus, when a corporation is sued, fined, etc its management, directors, controlling shareholders should be indicted as well.
 

sɐǝɹpu∀

riverrun
Apologies Andreas currently swamped at work but as a very quick response rules 6 and 20 set from day 1 and applicable to most forums should provide an answer. Definitely will look into them again just time permitting.
I still don't know how the decision would be in any of my scenarios.
Who is this ominous 'You' referred to in the rules? Can corporations be members of the forum as well as individuals?
I struggle with this legal fiction when management, directors or controlling shareholders are not held accountable for the actions of a corporation. A corporation is inanimate and as such is not capable of making decisions, taking actions, etc; these are made by people. Thus, when a corporation is sued, fined, etc its management, directors, controlling shareholders should be indicted as well.
Sorry, but you struggle with legal facts, not fiction.
If a corporation couldn't make decisions you wouldn't be able to make a contract with and buy from Amazon. You'd have to contact Jeff Bezos every time.
If staff break the law in the line of duty, they can very well be sued. Different issue.
I dislike our modern economic system as much as the next guy, but... welcome to capitalism. You probably voted for it. :devil:

P.S.: I didn't really want to discuss this rule in this thread, but hey...
 

Nisse

Old geezer
I think it would be fair to trust Darron or other vendors with private accounts just like you trust me or any other member with accounts, we might be idiots for all you know but give us the benefit of the doubt to start with :)
 
Last edited:

DamianJ

Forum GOD!
Rule 6, specifically the part about having one account, is the part that's being enforced here. Although reading the rest of rule 6 it looks like there's some sections that aren't being enforced. Several members use their own names or variations in their username, with no issues or moderator action.

Playing devil's advocate, should there be inconsistencies? Should there be a review and potential change of rules that aren't being used? Should there be guidelines instead of some of the rules? Could part of the vendor payment and vendor rules be one that opens up an option of a second "business" account if the vendor chooses? That account could then be closed if at any point that particular vendor chooses to stop paying the required fees.

I'm not advocating a hard line hard moderator action on all rules, particularly when the forum runs pretty well with the membership as it is. I'm just highlighting that some things that are in the rules that possibly aren't followed to the letter don't cause any issues. So a second account for a vendor might not cause any issues. If it did moderator action would quite rightly be taken.

The important thing here is to come to a solution and extend a hand to the member that is feeling aggrieved. Particularly when that member has done so much for this forum.
 

Nishy

Forum GOD!
Staff member
Hi chaps so the decision we have come to is to stick to the current rules. They have served us well over the last 4 years and hopefully for many more to come. I have offered my apologies as typed earlier and refunded any payment as well as taking personal criticism on the chin. My conscious is clean. So 1 member per account stands I'm afraid. Hopefully we can get back to enjoying the hobby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top