Jump to content
sskunky

TM Troopermaster has recast CFO cast from original.

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, starsaber25 said:

I would like to ask everyone to please keep this thread on track.  This is about TM recasting CFO.  This thread is not about the differing opinions of UKG members.  Thank you.

Surely this is all part of the discussion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, firebladejedi said:

Hiding behind the 501st charter imho is also just a cop out. To be fair I know that neither member we 501st but that’s not the point. 
 

how it does tie in with the legion is the recommendation of armour makers. 
 

I still can’t believe that the UKG removed the discussion thread. 

 

IMO people in staff positions have a duty to remain neutral among vendors.  I am all for letting people post all the evidence they want as long as they aren't breaking forum rules.  If staff members show a preference, I don't think that's fair to vendors.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, OCD_Chad said:

 

IMO people in staff positions have a duty to remain neutral among vendors.  I am all for letting people post all the evidence they want as long as they aren't breaking forum rules.  If staff members show a preference, I don't think that's fair to vendors.

For the record, no Staff member here has taken sides in this.

What the Staff has done, as you have read in the Legion forums already, is to do what it has always done, and that is to look out for the members of the Detachment both present, and future by maintaining a list of vendors that operate fairly and skillfully to provide the membership with a quality kit, and a quality experience and support.

That, is one of the absolutely primary duties of the Command Staff here at the Detachment.

Whether you realize it, I have no idea, but in 13 months you have managed to become one of the "always unhappy, white noise" voices in the Legion.  No matter what happens, you have an opinion, often contrary and often based on anything aside from the history and precedent of the Legion, and/or how it, its Detachments, Garrisons, and Outposts have operated over the last two decades plus.  Just a bit of advice, member to member, spend a little more time reading and a little less time typing.  Understand the history that has been  mentioned time and again both here at FISD and at the Legion forums.  An informed opinion is far more likely to be taken seriously and respected than a loud one.

But, I digress.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, firebladejedi said:

The original poster of this thread, who is directly effected by this has already said that garrison politics should be included in this discussion. So why do you keep stating otherwise?

 

54 minutes ago, Trooperman said:

Surely this is all part of the discussion? 

 

Sorry to both of you.  Garrison politics will not be included in this discussion.  Evidence was provided by Mark that Paul recasted him.  This discussion will only ensue to those facts.  People have the right to review these facts and comment to the fact that Paul recasted Mark or he did not.  We will not allow our forums to be utilized for an internal garrison struggle on opinions.  We will not allow what happens on the legion board to happen here.  Again, If you all feel that this is necessary then I encourage you to visit the legion forums and either take part in this discussion there or to create a new thread on the legion forums in regards to the differing opinions of the UKG.  Thank you.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OCD_Chad said:

 

IMO people in staff positions have a duty to remain neutral among vendors.  I am all for letting people post all the evidence they want as long as they aren't breaking forum rules.  If staff members show a preference, I don't think that's fair to vendors.

A little history lesson, I've only been around these parts since 2014. During that time myself and quite a few members here have been verbally backhanded by the vendor who's action are in question here. He's even been banned on a couple occasions for his actions. Up until last weekend I was promoting TM armor. I put my feelings aside and promoted the quality of workmanship that deserved praise and recommendation. As Tim mentioned you might want to do some homework before you question the motives of some of the staff.

 

  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OCD_Chad said:

 

IMO people in staff positions have a duty to remain neutral among vendors.  I am all for letting people post all the evidence they want as long as they aren't breaking forum rules.  If staff members show a preference, I don't think that's fair to vendors.

Chad, Chad, Chad....... what do we do with you.  So true to form as per your continual comments on the Legion boards with matters you simply have no clue about, you feel compelled to make uneducated commentary with no research behind it here.

Now you can do that all you like over there, but do not bring your political pot stirring here please.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDK who Chad is, or really anyone else on here (but thanks for all the good threads and help I've received), but I see his point but I think it is an incomplete thought. If we are just talking about staff showing preference to a specific vendor it can set a bad precedent. I know some staff members are vendors and will obviously support and promote themselves, but if a staff member heavily promotes/supports a single vendor (as in they only promote that vendor no matter the quality, and ignores the existence of others) then that would not be acceptable in my mind. In that case I would be suspicious of some type of foul play, under the table deals, bribes, or other shenanigans. I am not accusing anyone of this nor do I expect to, but if it happens I would expect that member to step down from their position or to change their ways and to support all approved vendors equally. 

 

On the other hand, if a staff member guides newcomers like myself toward vendors who have a good reputation and deliver accurate and timely products, while not showing undue preference, that would be acceptable by my interpretation of the charter. Hence the approved vendor list. Once a vendor, 501st member or not, shows bad intent, is unable to deliver quality parts, or is shown to marginalize and degrade others work then they should be publicly removed from the vendor list. Their accusations should be laid out, and then forum members should easily be able to find why they aren't a good person to buy from. Nobody has control over what armor anyone buys, or what they do with it on the own time, except the person who bought it. If they want to paint it pink, or rainbow, or blue, or turn it inside out and wear it to walmart then that's impressive, but just fine. The legion, and the detachments, should make the accusations known, and if they are valid they should remove said vendor, and that's it. 

 

I have watched a recaster in the SLD get called out, get help, and is now back on the "approved list" for vendors (I think there is a list somewhere there, but it's a smaller detachments so they may not have an actual list, just recommendations). So it is possible, but in this case I don't see that happening. 

 

Now, back to the subject at hand. I really hope my comments aren't controversial, I just followed 40+ comments and figured I would summarize a little of what a lot of people are feeling, and also help get the thread back on subject. 

 

To sskunky, That totally sucks. I can only see a few minor differences (not been looking at white armor long, but I can spot a vader version from 100 feet away haha), but the ears and a few other tells makes me believe your accusations. Ive seen your work over the past few years since I started this hobby and I really wish this hadn't happened to you. I wish the best for you and your family. If able, I would find it easier to spot the similarities if you compared both of the helmets in the pictures to another vendor's helmet. The shadows and other small details you mention are just not visible to me yet. But I understand if you don't have the time/patience/desire/ability to do that. 

 

To TM (assuming you read this), I would be interested in what you have to say about the accusations, and I would like to see if you have any proof that sskunky's accusations are incorrect. If you can prove that you didn't recast this or any other items that you sell then I will happily refer people to your quality products and I hope others will follow. If there is no proof, or no response then me and (most of) the rest of the legion will assume you are a recaster and will try to keep current and future members from purchasing from you. The ball is in your court, I hope you don't drop it. 

 

To everyone else, HI! :D Thanks for all the help, I'm getting close to finished on my TK and the forum has been invaluable, as expected. Sorry if I sound uneducated in TK stuff, it's because I am ;), if you have any questions about Vader, R2D2 building, or MSE building there is a good chance I can answer them (or at least direct you to a good source) so please don't hesitate to ask. Keep up the good work, don't get the Rona, and I hope to see you trooping soon!

 

LLAP (oh wait, wrong forum) MTFBWY (uhhh... nevermind, how about) Long Live the Emperor!

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, whosdachief said:

Whether he made the castings (molds/forms) himself or bought them from an un named source, I would think (as any reputable armor maker would) that being in the armor business he should have known it's not right to pull and sell without talking to and getting permission from the original mold owner (in this case CFO/Mark, and or JoeR). I'm sure if someone was to make castings (molds/forms) from one of his helmets that he would be livid especially if someone started pulling helmets or armor from them and sold them to the community! Being mad because of pictures on a CD in the past doesn't hold water with me and make it right! Just my opinion!

Please don't buy into the "I got the moulds in a trade" bullshucks. Someone has tried to disguise where they come from when they were created. Someone has form for doing this time and time again and someone has been very quiet on this subject. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't buy into the "I got the moulds in a trade" bullshucks. Someone has tried to disguise where they come from when they were created. Someone has form for doing this time and time again and someone has been very quiet on this subject. 

Thanks guys.
It’s not hard to see the BS when you’ve been in this hobby as long as we have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I have not been on here in a while and have only just read all of this.

I realise that we have been asked not to involve 'garrison politics' however many have called our stance into question.

Please feel free to move or delete this if it is not appropriate.

The thread was removed into the COG area on our forum because I personally received a call enquiring as to who these people were?

I stated that they were not our members and that I had no particular information about those in the fb thread.

My personal views or those of any member of UKG staff have had nothing to do with the thread being moved for our CoGs to discuss. This is about protecting our garrison and our relationship.

Unfortunately the unintended consequence of this has been bringing information to the attention of those perhaps we would prefer not to involve or inform.

Whereas we are passionate about the who did what and why there are others out there interested in protecting their brand and IP.

For the record not one UKG member has contacted me personally to ask, even those that have my personal number.

On a personal level I have posted my own views on the 501st thread which you are welcome to read.



Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gary.  Thank you for the official stance in regards to the thread on the UKG forums.  At this point I believe both sides of the issue in regards to the thread on the UKG forums has been discussed to the fullest for our purposes here on the FISD. 

 

So again, at this point the DCOGs are letting everyone know that this thread will need to be kept on target from this point forward.  We would really like this thread to continue on for discussion in regards to the original post of Troopermaster recasting Cast from Original.  If this thread derails then we will have no choice but to lock it and warnings may be issued.  This will do nothing but circumvent the whole purpose of this thread which was Mark bringing this information to us and then to a hopeful response from Paul.  Thank you. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just posted similar on the 501st, if we need a better more specific rule.in the charter then we need to.propose one. A much more pro-active way forward.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, starsaber25 said:

So again, at this point the DCOGs are letting everyone know that this thread will need to be kept on target from this point forward.  We would really like this thread to continue on for discussion in regards to the original post of Troopermaster recasting Cast from Original.  If this thread derails then we will have no choice but to lock it and warnings may be issued.  This will do nothing but circumvent the whole purpose of this thread which was Mark bringing this information to us and then to a hopeful response from Paul.  Thank you. 

Correct, and the facts remain...

 

Recasting is bad for everyone

 

Mark has proven his armor was recast by TM. People can choose to believe it or not.

 

Garrisons and Detachments have taken their stand which undoubtedly will cause a rift in the force, for a while at least.

 

A vote from the FISD staff by the end of the week will determine if TM remains on the vetted vendors list and a member of the FISD.

 

FISD staff DO NOT promote one armor over another, our sole purpose is (as Caleb nicely put it) guide members/newcomers toward vendors who have a good reputation and deliver accurate and timely products, while not showing undue preference. 

Edited by themaninthesuitcase
Fixed formatting, preventing it from showing.
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Official Statement TM recast CFO JoeR helmet.

 

Fellow troopers, Thankfully it is not often we need to deal with situations such as what has unfolded over the last week, with the subject of recasting one the Detachment has always taking a strong stance against.

Our members are our priority, having you all feel comfortable with buying various products from reputable vendors and honest vendors falls into that mandate.

We supply a trusted vendors list that brings that confidence to purchase and is governed by several factors some of which are, quality, reliability, accessibility, integrity, honesty and trust.

This recast thread, the above factors and content within have all formed part of the tough decision making the staff has had to make.

 

We feel the integrity and trust has been broken between members, FISD command staff and other vendors with one of our long serving armour suppliers.

This is not a subject that the staff or I have taken lightly as we have poured over this since the initial post was made.

We have looked at the very compelling evidence and  we have seen the response from the accused sent only to the accuser.

TM (Paul) has been given equal opportunity to respond directly and state his case here in this thread but he has chosen not to do so.

The evidence has been viewed as irrefutable, and Paul's response to CFO (Mark) a full admission that this was done with ill intent.

This has led the command staff no choice but to make some decisions and take actions in the best interests of our FISD membership.

First decision was to have TM removed from our vetted sellers list. This does not prevent anyone from making purchases from him, we simply wont feature TM any longer.

The second discussion  was in regards to a possible forum ban.

A poll was set up for staff to vote anonymously with four options:  No ban, 6 month ban, 12 month ban and Indefinite ban.

The top poll placed was the indefinite ban, so from this point forward an indefinite forum ban period will be put in place against Paul.

 

Paul is not a 501st member so there is no maximum period a ban can be in place. An indefinite ban period also gives flexibility that if this or future command teams decide to lift the ban, that option exist.

We are not sorry for taking this hard stance as I have stated our membership is our first priority and we believe they should be able to procure their costuming needs from vendors that uphold honesty and integrity.

 

Thank you for your time

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi FISD staff, members and friends.

I’d like to thank all the FISD staff for working tirelessly over the last week on this nightmare. I know it’s not a decision you and the other staff members have taken lightly.
Believe me the last thing I wanted was to bring down a trusted vendor who I respected and trusted. But in his own admission of guilt has done this to himself.
I’d also like to thank all members I have known on this forum for many happy years and members I hope to get to know, a heartfelt thanks for the overwhelming support I’ve had through this whole debacle. It really has been a humbling experience in more ways than one.

THANK YOU ALL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...