Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 10:04 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
I'd suggest/request that those folks be un-banned: 1) By this point in time they've gotten the message...


Nice try, Khethil. But the repeated attempts to circumvent the bans continues to make clear their intentions of those working with you.

The notion that it was done though PMs as a lesser of two evils is plainly ridiculous. Some of the PMs sent out en masse themselves explicitly say it was done to be covert, and to try to prevent a2k administration from finding out (so keep it a "secret" till the "exodus"). When I offered to post the link above-board myself, if the PM spam would cease, it was refused and VCS said he supported recruiting of a2k members to continue, admiring the "community spirit" of the spammers (and the 600 number you are citing is just the number of times Salima sent one particular piece of spam, the scale of what your associates did was breathtaking, especially given that they were limited to 10 per hour and received messages about this flooding limit the whole time). Lesser of two evils, my ass. VCS was consulted by multiple people to try to do this above board, and took the underhanded route for a reason. You and all involved know damn well that doing this is wrong and that was the reason to do it covertly. Not any sensitivities for a2k, so don't feed me that line of bullshit.

When this happens on your forum (and it likely will, I'm going to make sure forum administration communities that discuss forum administration and forum administrators know about the folks involved, and they tend to take a "do unto others..." approach to this kind of ilk) , let's see how fast you guys unban them.

Let's see how much you want to see the good side in them when the shoe is on the other foot and other forums are recruiting there incessantly and trying to create subversion. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What you guys want done to you is has been stated loud and clear and I'm sure you guys will try to be as understanding as you would have me be.

Quote:
While I'm an enthusiastic volunteer to take part in the new forum going up, as someone already mentioned, that's no reason to not contribute here too (unless and until I too am banned).


As long as your "contribution" isn't to recruit members here, and to organize spam campaigns like your associates did I could care less what other forums you may be involved in, we don't have a forum exclusivity clause.

But we still don't accept spam and spammers, so that's about the only way you can get booted here.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 10:06 am
@Robert Gentel,
you forgot to wish him a motherf*cker of a fantabulous day...
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 11:44 am
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
sarek wrote:
My background is in law and I am pretty sure that what you did does constitute a breach of privacy regulations as they are commonly understood.
Lighten up, Francis.

With the hindsight, we can see what the old assertions can become.

Looks like this peculiar passage keeps engraved on the minds of some A2Kers.

I'm lighten up now and don't care the least but it's a reminder for those who pretend to follow personal ethics.

Isn't it funny, joe?

Lighten up, Francis.
0 Replies
 
The Joke Explainer
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 11:58 am
@Francis,
The joke is based on the humor derived from a shared cultural reference to the 1981 film Stripes.

I like the part where it said "Lighten up, Francis."
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 12:09 pm
@The Joke Explainer,
I could explain also what I'm up to, but "the past is a foreign country"...

Some of the A2Kers remember the episode..
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 12:56 pm
@Francis,
I'm starting to use the descriptive 'earlier a2kers' now, since I am thinking of the philforum folk who are participating as a2kers too.......

Not to natter, but it's a change in mode for me.
0 Replies
 
melonkali
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 01:06 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Khethil wrote:
I'd suggest/request that those folks be un-banned: 1) By this point in time they've gotten the message...


Nice try, Khethil. But the repeated attempts to circumvent the bans continues to make clear their intentions of those working with you.


Robert,

Repeated disclaimer: I've never been, and likely never will be, a "regular" poster at any forum because of time constraints.

While I know nothing of the particulars of "what went down here" (and do not care to), I have come to consider Khethil a most reasonable and considerate forum poster, and IMO a person whose opinions are worthy of thoughtful consideration. All forums have their sophistic provocateurs and saboteurs and posts with clearly self-serving or covert motives, but I've seen nothing of that nature in Khethil. The same could be said, I must add, of a few of "the banned". (Note: I don't even know who all of "them" were -- and mentioning specific names would not be appropriate).

I understand that you have first-hand evidence of actions constituting blatent wrongdoing, acts for which there could be no other less malevolent motivation or intention. I've read posts from long-time A2K'rs who strongly vouch for your wisdom and integrity, and I have find no reason to doubt that.

Frankly, some (not all) of the opinions expressed and actions taken by a few old PF'rs seem ill-conceived, and I admit to being taken aback by the degree of emotionalism and vitriol expressed by some. I would initially presume, unless evidence indicated otherwise, this represented some kind of emotional knee-jerk reaction, since it was not consistent with their past normal demeanor or behavior.

But I still can't fully understand what provoked such seemingly irrational reactions from reasonable people. Nor do I care to. I'm staying STRICTLY AWAY from the particulars here, on both sides.

The purpose of this response to you is to serve as a kind of "character witness" for old friends, asking you to take their past behavior and reputation into consideration when ascribing intention or motivation to present actions. However, I understand that there are certain actions for which there can be no truly "good" explanation, just, perhaps, ill-conceived reactions based on misunderstandings. In some cases, like Khethil suggests, I, too, would appeal to the mercy of the court for a second chance, an "unbanning" -- on a case by case basis -- negotiated strictly by you on a one to one basis. In the end, of course, we must all realize that only you know all relevant details, and, therefore, only you are in a position to make a final judgment. Based on your reputation at A2K, I find no reason to mistrust that judgment.

Sorry for the rambling length of this post. I probably should just delete it, but I put so much time into it, what the heck? What's the worst that can happen? (Rhetorical Question -- please, no one offer an answer!)

rebecca
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 01:10 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali wrote:
What's the worst that can happen? (Rhetorical Question -- please, no one offer an answer!)

rebecca


the sun could explode

sorry couldn't help but answer such a great question
Pepijn Sweep
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 01:12 pm
@djjd62,
HA Sun explode... Th√Ęt would be like the Dutch

Phantasy fails me.
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 01:44 pm
@melonkali,
I'm melonkali's hubby and I thought I'd throw in my own two cents here. Like many philosophy forum members, I was startled to suddenly find myself at able2know upon checking in after about a week's absence. I don't know how much notice of this transfer was given or how it was given, but it came as a total surprise to me. And obviously to others.

Robert Gentel, you have a great little site here, and I do appreciate the new home you have provided to us old sophists. I'm very sorry for the inconvenience and disturbance this move has caused us all, and I'm proud of the efforts made by so many of us here to make this work as smoothly as possible.

I believe that we outcasts have the right to miss the features of our old home that we so enjoyed which do not happen at this time to be available at able2know--although some of them may be here but hard to find for us newbies. I am one of those who is anxious to return to an appearance of our old home even if it is an imperfect copy, but I also think able2know has many wonderful features for us here and I don't doubt that you plan to grow this home for your members as it continues to serve us.

I would very, very much like to see us turn this situation around, to make this transition in a cooperative and non-disruptive manner that best serves the needs of us all, and I think we can do that. However much it may have been bungled or not, the needs of the NewPhilosophy forum developers are simply to be able to communicate with the old forum members to let them all know about the new forum being designed and eventually becoming operational so that they, if they so choose, may sign on to that forum. Signing onto that forum does not require that anyone leave this forum if they enjoy it.

I think private mailing everyone was a bad choice in hindsite, one that I would have made too I think, because my transfer to this site inculcated a certain unmerited paranoia in me. I think you would be willing to have us discuss the new site on one or more philosophy threads here in order to get the word out to anyone interested in philosophy discussions. (None of us, I think, limit ourselves to just one or two sites where we can make good fools of ourselves pontificating over issues entirely beyond our understanding.) Can I ask all parties involved to return to the table and give this bad situation a positive end that we can all be proud of?

And if you do not want to open the table, Robert, to those you have removed from the room, perhaps you will agree to provide a place at the table for two or three emissaries on their behalf. And indeed I think Khethil might be one good choice. But I leave that choice to the ones who are absent for now.

Thank you for hearing me out, and whatever occurs, I do hope we can find a positive solution and resolution to this disagreement.

SammDickens
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 02:01 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali wrote:
While I know nothing of the particulars of "what went down here" (and do not care to), I have come to consider Khethil a most reasonable and considerate forum poster, and IMO a person whose opinions are worthy of thoughtful consideration. All forums have their sophistic provocateurs and saboteurs and posts with clearly self-serving or covert motives, but I've seen nothing of that nature in Khethil.


I agree, I would be the first to say that I have seen no such thing in Khethil either which is why he's still perfectly welcome here.

Quote:
The purpose of this response to you is to serve as a kind of "character witness" for old friends, asking you to take their past behavior and reputation into consideration when ascribing intention or motivation to present actions. However, I understand that there are certain actions for which there can be no truly "good" explanation, just, perhaps, ill-conceived reactions based on misunderstandings. In some cases, like Khethil suggests, I, too, would appeal to the mercy of the court for a second chance, an "unbanning" -- on a case by case basis -- negotiated strictly by you on a one to one basis. In the end, of course, we must all realize that only you know all relevant details, and, therefore, only you are in a position to make a final judgment. Based on your reputation at A2K, I find no reason to mistrust that judgment.


So far, about a dozen or so people (not accounts) were banned and about half immediately unbanned merely on their word that they are not going to spam and hadn't been involved in it and I trust them (perhaps gullibly, we shall see). In the case of others they refuse to stop and continue to try to gain access and send messages (which is why PMs are disabled for new users right now, so we don't have to play whack-a-mole) or it's not yet clear to us whether they will stop or not.

This isn't a ban-happy forum, and I think only about 3 will remain blocked after this is initially sorted out because they have so far expressed an interest in continuing to recruit here or supporting those who do.
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 02:05 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn,
My wife melonkali said that you have mentioned more than once that you had been banned from the old philosophy forum. Shocked This boggles the mind, Pepijn! You are one of the last people either of us can imagine ever being banned from the old homesite. Was it, well, you know... Drunk ??? Were you caught in the chat room with the owner's consort Embarrassed ??? We understand that certain "street drugs" have been legalized in Holland; do you recall making any posts while in a condition of transcendental biochemical immoderation Cool ??? Inquiring people want to know. Very Happy Seriously, it's your private business if you wish it to remain so. We were just wanting to remark that you seem like too nice a guy ever to be banned from anywhere. Confused

It reminds me of the scene in the movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" in which one of the escapees (played by George Clooney) is banned from the F.W. Woolworths for initiating fisticuffs with a fellow shopper (his wife's new beau), and his compadre, Delmar, asks him "Now I don't know, Everett, was it just that one Woolworths or was we banned from all of them?" Very Happy

Be you well, good friend!
SammDickens & melonkali
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 02:08 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

...Lesser of two evils, my ass.

Well, like I said, I don't know all the particulars - I was just relating what I could see from my perspective as honestly as possible. It sounds like there's a lot to which I'm not privy and perhaps the particulars do make any 'happy ending' impossible.

In any case, I hope you don't blame a guy for tryin. Too many good people floatin' about to let stuff fester - if it at all can be avoided. I hope everything gets back on an even keel soon.

Thanks
sozobe
 
  4  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 02:14 pm
@SammDickens,
From what Robert has said, I understand that:

1.) He planned to have the groups function up and running before importing Philosophy Forum. That would have meant that the Philforumers could have continued to function in a way very close to what they were used to, while also choosing (or not choosing) to venture out into A2K in general.

but

2.) His hand was forced by a hack of Philosophy Forum, due to problems (vulnerabilities) in the vBulletin software, which meant that he did the import before the groups feature was ready,

but

3.) He is working hard on that and hopes to have the group function ready for Philforumers ASAP (I don't know what timescale though, yet). Once the group function is ready, then people who enjoyed the Old Ways of Philforum can go ahead and do that on A2K. While also having the option to participate on A2K in general, if they so desire.

I expect much more detail will come out about that, I just know that not everyone has had a chance to read all that Robert has said on this subject and wanted to summarize/ paraphrase (I may well have some details wrong).
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 02:16 pm
@SammDickens,
SammDickens wrote:
I believe that we outcasts have the right to miss the features of our old home that we so enjoyed which do not happen at this time to be available at able2know--although some of them may be here but hard to find for us newbies. I am one of those who is anxious to return to an appearance of our old home even if it is an imperfect copy, but I also think able2know has many wonderful features for us here and I don't doubt that you plan to grow this home for your members as it continues to serve us.


Well Samm the people involved knew I was working hard to restore the philforum as it's own forum as a group, they pretended to work with me (even volunteering to lead this group on able2know) while at the same time trying to do the "brain drain" to their better "business model".

In a short time, there will be a separate forum here with all the philforum members already in it and run by the former administrator jgweed autonomously, they are trying to pull philforum members (and a2k ones too, why not?) to their own one not to keep the community together but to have members in their new project.


Quote:
I think you would be willing to have us discuss the new site on one or more philosophy threads here in order to get the word out to anyone interested in philosophy discussions.


I made that offer if they would stop the PM spam, it was refused and the spam continued, it's off the table now. Their site won't be allowed to be promoted here at all and I will make sure their forum, administrators and spamming participants are added to spam blacklists that track forum spammers and forums that spam so that other site administrators know what kind of new neighbors we have.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 02:29 pm
@Khethil,
No worries. This too, like a kidney stone, shall pass.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 02:32 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Their site won't be allowed to be promoted here at all


damn, i really wanted to see what a professional site looked like and how one was run Wink
Ticomaya
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 03:09 pm
@djjd62,
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9194/spitc.gif
Pepijn Sweep
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 03:27 pm
@Ticomaya,
Drunk Mr. Green Drunk
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  10  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2010 07:43 am
@sometime sun,
Well this is great here in it. Like I said before I was getting bored with the old forum, I was just seeing the same old stuff but I've had great times there, it's just run it's course. Here there are new people and loads to read, I like new ande change is good. Here's to Robert for providing us a great place and an outlet for me to thrash out my demons in a nice fashion. Cheers! And Justin mines white no sugar please. For what it's worth I think Robert was right to ban the spammers, it was a stupid thing to do and showed a distinct lack of respect.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Philforum Focus Group - Discussion by jgweed
Top o' the Mornin' to Ya! - Question by Transcend
The new amalgamated philosophy forum. - Discussion by Soul Brother
Richard Grant - Question by Spock1111
Lily says goodbye - Question by Lily
 
  1. Forums
  2. » PhilForum check in
  3. » Page 34
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 02:51:31