Newbies and nominations etc.

[tugboat]

How is it that newbies can vote let alone self nominate themselves to a post when they haven't even been active on this site at all until this election stuff got brought to light? Seems that if you truly had an interest in the goings on taking place on this website you would have joined long ago, not make a sudden bullrush right around nomination time. I know I am not the only one who is thinking this way so I decided to speak my mind and deal with the consequences as they unfold. This isn't intended to "stir the pot" just bring thoughtful discussion to what many on here are thinking already.

[four_by_ken]

I totally agree with this.

I understand completely that there is a lot more to the MCA than just these forums.  But, you would think there would at least me accounts created or SOME kind of activity on the forums prior to voting time.

I have some concerns with this.

[Ron]

How is it that newbies can vote let alone self nominate themselves to a post when they haven't even been active on this site at all until this election stuff got brought to light? Seems that if you truly had an interest in the goings on taking place on this website you would have joined long ago, not make a sudden bullrush right around nomination time. I know I am not the only one who is thinking this way so I decided to speak my mind and deal with the consequences as they unfold. This isn't intended to "stir the pot" just bring thoughtful discussion to what many on here are thinking already.

FWIW, even though they can create a post to self-nominate, anyone reading the rules posted by Marty for the nomination process will explicitly show that members of less than a year are unable to participate in the voting portion for positions. Hopefully the voters are very conscientious when it comes to voting to help alleviate the rest of the concerns.

The one thing I've noticed is all the nomination posts above having 2 supporters. If you read the rules carefully, there is no rule against doing so, but it's unnecessary. I'd personally be backing more than I've publicly posted for, but I read the rules. 

[Marty]

I totally agree with this.

I understand completely that there is a lot more to the MCA than just these forums.  But, you would think there would at least me accounts created or SOME kind of activity on the forums prior to voting time.

I have some concerns with this.

Using your logic, Marty Ruthkosky and Dave Hockey would likely not qualify to hold their positions.

Marty Ruthkosky is a longtime Board of Directors member.  He has 4 posts on the board, all of them of the Admin section of the site.  He's the guy that handles auction registrations, developed the auction and BAP database programs, and has done numerous things behind the scenes to make this club better.  He was also a longtime Board member of the ACA (not sure if he still is).

Dave Hockey is another MCA Officer that isn't on the site very much.  He's the current Treasurer, and has been on the Board of Directors for over 15 years.

Larry Jasinski (former Board of Directors - now deceased) was another one who didn't post very often.


The simplest way to exercise your opinion is to vote!  If you don't like someone, vote for someone else.  If you're eligible, run yourself, or nominate someone that you think will do a good job.

Bill Wyman -  If you had only made this thread, it wouldn't be "stirring the pot" but you also posted on a nominees thread, essentially alleging fraud (post has since been moved) even though I explained in the nomination thread there is a vetting process for new members.  If you interfere with the elections process again, you're gone.

[tugboat]

Marty, confused as to why you always make a threat when I ask a legitimate question? I was approached by several people on here with the same concern and I volunteered to post about it knowing you would probably threaten me with a ban etc. for whatever reason. As for those members you mentioned not being active on here they are all long time board members so that generates no suspicion since obviously they have a history with the site. I apologize for the other post on the "members" nomination post, it probably wasn't the best idea clearly. It did however bring to light that a large number of longtime members here feel like I do about this issue.

[greg y]

As a newbie here I have no preference in any of this and don't see why any newb would. Just saying...

[Marty]

Marty, confused as to why you always make a threat when I ask a legitimate question? I was approached by several people on here with the same concern and I volunteered to post about it knowing you would probably threaten me with a ban etc. for whatever reason. As for those members you mentioned not being active on here they are all long time board members so that generates no suspicion since obviously they have a history with the site. I apologize for the other post on the "members" nomination post, it probably wasn't the best idea clearly. It did however bring to light that a large number of longtime members here feel like I do about this issue.

Bill, it's pretty plain that you don't like Rich.  It's also been a source of ongoing drama on the board because you take every opportunity to disparage him.

There was nothing suspicious about the people that nominated him.  They are all people I've seen in person at the very least at auctions.  t.willie has been on the board for over a year, and I know for a fact that he sold fish at the last auction.  While I don't know him on a personal basis, I do see from his Facebook posts that he's excited about the hobby and he and his father are building a fish room.  lorib143 is Corey Bergey's wife, who I have also seen at the auctions for years when we held auctions at the FOP lodge in New Baltimore, so she's been around longer than you, just not on the board.  But naturally, you let your hate for Rich get in the way, so you have to disrupt the board by making a post on Rich's nomination thread when you don't have all the facts. 

If it's as you say and there are a lot of members here that share your concerns regarding Rich, I'm sure they'll use their votes to ensure he doesn't get elected.

So here's what it comes down to.  If you can't leave your animosity toward Rich at the door and enjoy the site (as well as allowing others to enjoy the site), you're not welcome here.

[tugboat]

There is some truth to what you say Marty,
I have no use for Rich, I am from the old school that your word is your bond etc. so with his track record how could I (or anyone) ever like him or trust him let alone make him a board member. But that has nothing to do with my asking about newbies having voting rights etc. and yes I am counting on the folks here to vote with that knowledge (his past) in mind. And also I was first made aware of the newbie issues from others contacting me about it (several people genuinely concerned)  so I didn't actively seek to "hate" on R.E. as you are portraying. And honestly if you hadn't known any of those people (sudden newbies nominating R.E. and themselves for the board) you would have not found nothing at all eyebrow raising about that at all?

[Steve]

I have yet to be able to attend a MCA meeting so I have no input on the voting or nominations at all, but I have been here awhile and meet & bought from many of you guys and I just have to say one thing. Shouldn't the naming of names...in other words "I don't like this guy because he _____(fill in the blank)" ...be kept to PM's between the President and the member that has an issue with that person?

I dunno maybe it's just me, I like everyone here I have dealt with but when I see dirty laundry like this being aired where a member is called out specifically by name it kind'a puts a bad taste for the whole site in my mouth.

Just my two cents on the matter for what it's worth.

[Regalblue]

Points have been made. There's No sense in arguing about any of it any further.

[four_by_ken]

I totally agree with this.

I understand completely that there is a lot more to the MCA than just these forums.  But, you would think there would at least me accounts created or SOME kind of activity on the forums prior to voting time.

I have some concerns with this.

Using your logic, Marty Ruthkosky and Dave Hockey would likely not qualify to hold their positions.

Marty Ruthkosky is a longtime Board of Directors member.  He has 4 posts on the board, all of them of the Admin section of the site.  He's the guy that handles auction registrations, developed the auction and BAP database programs, and has done numerous things behind the scenes to make this club better.  He was also a longtime Board member of the ACA (not sure if he still is).

Dave Hockey is another MCA Officer that isn't on the site very much.  He's the current Treasurer, and has been on the Board of Directors for over 15 years.

Larry Jasinski (former Board of Directors - now deceased) was another one who didn't post very often.


The simplest way to exercise your opinion is to vote!  If you don't like someone, vote for someone else.  If you're eligible, run yourself, or nominate someone that you think will do a good job.

Bill Wyman -  If you had only made this thread, it wouldn't be "stirring the pot" but you also posted on a nominees thread, essentially alleging fraud (post has since been moved) even though I explained in the nomination thread there is a vetting process for new members.  If you interfere with the elections process again, you're gone.

By no means what so ever was that meant to be my logic.

I just meant that for a vote to count , there has to be something behind it.  Not just a person or account that steps in just for the vote and want heard from again or hasn't ever been seen.

I guess I feel the MCA has enough sense of who is who... so this shouldn't really be concern.

[Ron]

Points have been made. There's No sense in arguing about any of it any further.

Sounds good.