Andy316 still being aggressive towards members

[Joey]

I agree, Cernan. (Very well said, by the way.)

[Nammzi]

To be fair in the last few days I have seen some friendly posts from Andy, and nothing aggressive, maybe he is trying to be more polite?

[elmomommyto2]

And here is my point. Andy can dish it out, but can't seem to take it:

http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/mcp.php?i ... 2&p=297273

And I'm afraid I'll still have to adamantly disagree that banning Andy would cause more harm than good.
So it's okay for him to run off new members and cause problems for moderators, causing some members
to leave for good? What if someone with far more knowledge of autographs joins the site and Andy does
something to make that person leave? Now how exactly would that benefit this site?

He claims that he doesn't have to offer proofs of his assumptions because something is "widely believed"
to be truth are conjecture at best. That to me, lends him even LESS credibility.

What I think Andy really doesn't understand is that he thinks I have a personal vendetta against him, which
is FAR from the truth. I've never had a run-in with him and I hope not to. However, it wouldn't surprise me
if that happens in the future. And because of that, now I can view him through neutral eyes. I read his posts
as I would read through everyone's posts. I'm afraid for the day when Andy runs off someone who could
be very important for this site...or even worse, myself. I don't think Andy can be deemed as more valuable
to this site than other active members/moderators, but I'm finding myself questioning my reasoning being a
moderator and for wanting to make this site a good place to come if I'm not backed up by others who have
the same goal in mind.

[cernan]

b]What if someone with far more knowledge of autographs joins the site and Andy does
something to make that person leave? Now how exactly would that benefit this site? [/b]

I really don't wish to start an argument here but...
If someone that joins does have far more knowledge of autographs, then they wouldn't be arguing with Andy. Andy only attacks those whom he believes is spreading false information. I don't really want to be seen as an "Andy Defender" because I'm not. I agree that his statement regarding the Samuel Jackson autograph is a bit uncalled for as there wasn't even a scan of the autograph.

[Nammzi]

Maybe admin should PM him or talk to him, and tell him that he does contribute to the forum, but that people have a problem with his constant reporting people and aggression toward other members? It could make him see that he is actually upsetting people. I just saw a post of his from a few days ago when a new member asked a question which had already been answered (obviously being a new member they didn't know this), and Andy was very aggressive towards them:

http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic ... 19&t=69215

[elmomommyto2]

I really don't wish to start an argument here but...
If someone that joins does have far more knowledge of autographs, then they wouldn't be arguing with Andy. Andy only attacks those whom he believes is spreading false information. I don't really want to be seen as an "Andy Defender" because I'm not. I agree that his statement regarding the Samuel Jackson autograph is a bit uncalled for as there wasn't even a scan of the autograph.

So no one can know more about an autograph than Andy? How laughable!!!

And the big problem with him jumping on people for "spreading false information" is that everyone is supposed to be able to voice their OWN opinion. Andy is not an autograph authenticating service nor should he be given the credit of one! He refuses to give proof to back his own views, is very rude to new members...and in general he just does it for the attention, I'm pretty sure. He discredits himself by saying that the Samuel L. Jackson is secretarial without even seeing a scan of it!!! So yet again...it's ok for Andy to drive off other members with his rude behavior and that's beneficial to the site how?

[cernan]

I really don't wish to start an argument here but...
If someone that joins does have far more knowledge of autographs, then they wouldn't be arguing with Andy. Andy only attacks those whom he believes is spreading false information. I don't really want to be seen as an "Andy Defender" because I'm not. I agree that his statement regarding the Samuel Jackson autograph is a bit uncalled for as there wasn't even a scan of the autograph.

So no one can know more about an autograph than Andy? How laughable!!!

And the big problem with him jumping on people for "spreading false information" is that everyone is supposed to be able to voice their OWN opinion. Andy is not an autograph authenticating service nor should he be given the credit of one! He refuses to give proof to back his own views, is very rude to new members...and in general he just does it for the attention, I'm pretty sure. He discredits himself by saying that the Samuel L. Jackson is secretarial without even seeing a scan of it!!! So yet again...it's ok for Andy to drive off other members with his rude behavior and that's beneficial to the site how?

I never said that it was okay for him to be rude. I understand that he is not an authenticating service. Nor should he be considered one. The fact is that he understands what he is talking about unlike some new members. He can get a bit carried away with his posts sometimes but he just does not want people to be "mislead" or "misinformed". Well, if he is just doing it for attention, he's got it because of the fact that everybody is pointing it out. I said that I agree that his comment in the Samuel Jackson thread is uncalled for. He made a statement without proof, ex. a photo/scan. But, he is beneficial to the site. Look through the Autograph Collecting Discussions and Collecting Help forums. He worked incredibly hard to put together his autopen and secretarial threads. And he often answers questions in those forums. If that is not considered beneficial, I don't know what it. I admit, yes he does get a bit carried away sometimes. He may not be the most polite member on this site. But, that's just the way he is. You cannot force him to post like a "princess".

[cernan]

Yet another thread locked and Andy at the centre of it, in this case though I do think that he was 'set up', it seemed as though the member what trying to provoke him but even still he had reported the post and there was no reason for him to reply and cause the argument.

Regardless of the irony, I was the one that locked the Samuel Jackson thread. I do agree with you all that his post in the Samuel Jackson thread was uncalled for. I also understand the possibility of him doing all of this for attention. But, consider what would happen if he were to be banned. Andy spends most of his time going around and "correcting" others. He is one of the most knowledgeable members here. I can only think of maybe a handful of members that could potentially be more experienced than him. If he were to leave, I can totally see "more spam", repeat questions, and a circulation of false information. My apologies for a lack of modesty but, I have been here longer than you. I personally believe that as long as we keep a watchful eye on Andy, he will be an asset to this place.

JC

[rpbluesman]

Ok...time for me to chime in and take a stand.

Here's the deal. Andy is a good help to the site, he just goes about it a bad way. He gives members advice on their authenticity when that person thinks they have a real one. Should he do it if they don't ask, no...but does he, yes. And he does give proof, just not everytime as he should. One example is w/ Samuel L. Jackson. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they're fake. They're clearly autopenned if you compare signatures, but on top of that, Jackson is a terrible signer IP, making it nearly impossible to get one TTM.

Now, does Andy get argumentative...yes, but you have to admit, sometimes the situation is set up to make him look like a bad guy.

Now, I have talked with him on a regular basis, and he is a great guy. I think that you all are making a bit too much of a big deal on him. I think that all that needs to be said is a PM to him about being blunt in his posts. I'll PM him and tell him. He seems to understand his wrongdoings, for lack of a better word, and he usually straightens up.

Daniel

[jdp3577]

I have to agree with Cernan and rpbluesman. Andys biggest complaint is the people posting fakes and he points it out when they do.