My recent e-mail to Clay Stuckey of Sherco Offroad

[Boom Boom]

As other threads have been closed or removed I feel this one has run its course and should do the same. The person that is being attacked I consider a friend and not all friends are perfect or always do the right thing but I feel the growing up and acting like adults needs to start here and this should have been handled on a private matter in the first place. I no longer own a Gas Gas but have many friends that do and I find this site a very worthwhile tool and so I continue to visit here to offer what I can about issues I have fixed while my Gas Gas ownership and I continue to send my donation yearly to support this site. When Clay made post about taking on Sherco also and offering both brands I was one of the first people to nudge him to do it. In my mind it was a win -win to have 2 great bikes being imported by a person I call a friend.
You guys can make your posts about what will the 2016 bikes look like...God bless you all. I for one hope someone can pick up the mess that has been created and continue on with the bikes we all came to love.
The question I have is if Clay address was banned once before...how did he manage to register again with the same address if he was locked out?
Do us all a favor and just remove this complete thread....to call out a person by name on a public forum is stepping over the line IMHO......rant over

 

[Bryan]

I don't post here much, but I do read and follow this site very often.

I know a lot are upset, but I support Jeff's actions to out Clay. I don't have a dog in the fight, but given what I have read, I would have done the same as Jeff. Clay had ample warning from him privately to stop. He chose not to, and now the truth of the whole matter is exposed for all to see.

The only person Clay will have to blame is the reflection in the mirror as he is the one who's actions required a response. The first attempt(s) didn't get his attention hopefully this one will.

I do understand that Clay was pissed with the manufacturers, but that should have been addressed between those two, not aired here. That was Clay's choice which did violate the agreement to use this site.

Jeff, keep up the good work in a thankless job. I really appreciate your efforts.

I don't think this thread should be deleted, it should serve as a reminder to all that actions have consequences and to think before you post.

Bryan

 

[webmaster]

I am closing this thread for now as I do not have time to fully respond. - I have a "real job" to do - I will open it back up when I have time to completely address the statements made.


I will say a couple of things :

1. I hold no malice towards anyone. I have never acted with malice towards anyone on this forum. And I have not acted with malice for the topic at hand.

2. I will protect anyone from unfair attack based on practices of common law and the rules of this forum. For example, I previously protected GasGas Offroad from unfair attack when it was under Clay's watch.

3. This forum is "community owned' - it is owned by this community - the gasgas rider's club - this has been stated very clearly from the date this website went live. Also, I am performing my work here on behalf of the club, of which all of you are members - all 6000 of you. All of my actions are performed on behalf of the GasGas Riders Club. And I have done so without compensation. In this thread some have said this is "jeff's place" - this is not true. It's the club's place. I will start a separate thread on how this benefits the entire community and how the forum is run/moderated etc.

4. I imagine that I will now be criticized for closing a thread. So I will remind everyone of the user agreement that they agreed to when they registered for the forum. It states "The owners of GasGas Riders Club Forum reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason." ... And I do have a reason - it is stated above..



jeff

 

[webmaster]

The question I have is if Clay address was banned once before...how did he manage to register again with the same address if he was locked out?

My final statement in my e-mail to Clay said that

1. I was banning him again (the first banning occurred on march 14, 2014).
2. I stated that his ip address would be blocked.

Related to item #1 : Banning someone simply locks their account so that they can no longer log in - this prevents them from posting or viewing their private messages, etc. It does not prevent someone from registering again using a different user name.

Related to item #2 : Note that I only used the word "again" related to item #1 (banning him). I did not use the word "again" related to item #2 - blocking his ip address. This is something that I am going to do now that was not done on march 14, 2014.

I now have to go through a separate process to completely block his IP address from our web server - which I haven't done yet. This involves modification of the configuration of the Apache Web server running on the linux server "in my garage". I will add an entry to the configuration files to deny any access from the IP address in question. I haven't had time to do this yet. But will do so this weekend when I have time.

It was a good question. But given the current configuration of the discussion forum software and the apache web server - this IP address was not and is not currently blocked. Any claims to the contrary are false.

To put it simply -> "I have locked that door again. And this time I am going to slide that big old heavy book case in front of the door too..."

Thanks,
jeff

 

[webmaster]

I think Bryan states things so well that I will close this thread with his statement -

I hold no malice. Nothing I have stated is false. Clay had multiple warnings in the past.

jeff

I don't post here much, but I do read and follow this site very often.

I know a lot are upset, but I support Jeff's actions to out Clay. I don't have a dog in the fight, but given what I have read, I would have done the same as Jeff. Clay had ample warning from him privately to stop. He chose not to, and now the truth of the whole matter is exposed for all to see.

The only person Clay will have to blame is the reflection in the mirror as he is the one who's actions required a response. The first attempt(s) didn't get his attention hopefully this one will.

I do understand that Clay was pissed with the manufacturers, but that should have been addressed between those two, not aired here. That was Clay's choice which did violate the agreement to use this site.

Jeff, keep up the good work in a thankless job. I really appreciate your efforts.

I don't think this thread should be deleted, it should serve as a reminder to all that actions have consequences and to think before you post.

Bryan