[R5 racer]

Having followed this since the beginning on here. What seemed like a simple enough situation to remedy, has become impossible I guess.
While Sarah has done nothing wrong, she seems to be the target of a hate campaign by fellow members/micro racers. Before you say, she did this, she did that blah blah, she registered a domain name, full stop!! This, she is LEGALLY entitled to do. Her reasons for doing so are hers, and hers alone. As previously posted, this happens every day. It is also common for a third party to miss out on a domain that he/she has wanted. When an opportunity arises for said third party to gain the domain to which he has sort, you would not expect the barrage of negativity from this party, or those that stand behind them/him.

An offer was made to gain the domain, with terms/conditions. This was not taken up. In fact, all that I see on here is cyber-bullying!! If anyone disagrees with this term, look it up!

A sad fact is, that a chairman chose not to discourage this type of tactic. Someone in this position should lead by example, and leave the dirt in the gutter.

Base line, (A) has something (B) wants. (A) offers (B) item with terms and/or conditions. (B) either accepts or not. (B) chose not to accept. So item stays with the legally entitled holder.
So why the constant barrage?

@ ScottyDogWoof, “As a police detective myself” if indeed this is true, your terminology is rather juvenile and immature. Who are you to say why, what, when Sarah should spend her money? As for damage limitation, again, it’s not your place to decide what another party should do. Plus you have now openly targeted Sarah with that statement. Would not the bad PR affect the micro world based on that its very own “chairman” is the other party in all of this?
As an alleged officer of the law (which I sincerely doubt), do you normally affirm an instruction to a individual whereby he/she is to HAND OVER that of which is legally his or hers? I was not aware the NWPH conducted their selves in this manor.

@sldmodels (Sarah). The statement made by ScottyDogWoof , where he suggests “It’s pretty much the only option you have to save a bit of Rep!”Is, as you know, untrue.
In fact, it would be argued that you are indeed defending your “Rep” as he put it, by the willingness to part with the domain name. All be it with terms/conditions, which as we all know is common practice with any type of transaction.

IMO.