I see the admin caved in by allowing this information on freevpfree.
Kind of tough for him to defend himself after he chose to ban me from
the so-called free speech forum. I assume he thinks this recitfies
that action. Hardly. However, it does demonstrate he knew he was
wrong. Now if only he takes a little time to look in a mirror, we
won't have to go any further.
This only demonstrates that I will rebut any inaccurate
allegations by you, and that Winpoker isn't the appropriate
place to do it.
One piece of advice, Tom. All you have to do is make one RULE ...
(The administrator decides what is appropriate behavior). Then, if
you don't like a note then publicly respond to that note immediately
and state it violates this one rule. That will take care of 99.9% of
the problems. No secrecy ... no personal emails ... no problem. The
problem with the current rules is interpretation. I followed a strict
interpretation of rules and you didn't. But even if you think you did
you can't deny that people may interpret them differently. This opens
up a can of worms and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has disagreed
with you. That should tell you something.
I'll address your "Tom" usage later in this response.
Your suggested rule has always been a part of the posting
guidelines, but it is accompanied by general and specific
parameters which clearly define what is acceptable and what
isn't.
Second piece of advice. Get some modern software. You can create
multiple topics. This allows any topics that might get edgy to be
isolated from the rest of the forums. It also allows you to kill the
threads or lock them. This level of support almost eliminates the
need to ban anyone. Makes the job much easier. Here's one free
product.
You can thank me later.
Can this software be used with Yahoo Groups? If so, I'll
certainly look into it.
> 1. Polite, objective, impersonal disagreement with other members
> or their posts is fine on vpFREE.
No problem. I always followed these rules.
You are incorrect, as you have confirmed in your response to
several of my points..
> 2. Ridiculing or belittling other members or their posts isn't
> allowed.
The vpfree policy as stated was to respond to the message and not
attack the poster.
It appears that you have a misconception about the vpFREE posting
guidelines, which don't allow ridiculing or belittling the messenger
OR THE MESSAGE. You have violated this rule many times.
I always directed my criticism to the message. If
a message was ridiculous then I indicated as such.
You have just confirmed your rules violations. Disagree with or
correct a message all you like, but ridiculing or belittling
another member or their post (no matter how much they deserve it)
is a rules violation, as spelled out in the posting guidelines.
Interestingly,
others have also responded in an identical manner. This will always
be the case in forums with adult participation.
When others did it, they were also violating the rules, and I
agree that it's going to happen from time to time.
> 3. I decided to revoke the posting privileges of a few habitual
> ridiculers and belittlers, rather than continually correcting
> their disruptive behavior.
This is where I disagreed with the administrator. He kept this action
secretive. He clearly did not want his actions held up to close
scrutiny. I think that speaks volumes. Keep in mind, I never did this
on vpfree as I thought that would be disruptive.
I don't have a problem with publicly explaining my actions, but
I normally keep disciplinary actions confidential unless a
disciplined member requests otherwise.
> 4. "mroejacks" had a long history of ridiculing and belittling
> Bob Dancer and his posts.
That is a lie.
You are incorrect, as you have confirmed in your response to
several of my points.
I called out Bob Dancer on many of his "ridiculing and
belittling" posts and several members agreed with my comments.
However, it is interesting that after Bob made "ridiculing and
belittling" posts about me, nothing was said or done.
Any / all rules violations by Bob Dancer were handled publicly or
privately in accordance with the rules at the time.
A double
standard no doubt, but one that showed without a doubt that the
Vpfree Adminstrator has some kind of personal vendetta against me. I
think his actions here also make that pretty obvious.
I try to maintain a non-disruptive environment on vpFREE and
attempt to enforce all rules equally and fairly. I always
considered you a very valuable member of vpFREE in most respects,
and have made that very clear publicly and privately. However,
anyone who refuses to observe the posting guidelines can't be a
member in good standing.
> 5. After "mroejacks" made a ridiculing and belittling post about
> Bob Dancer (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/85793),
> I sent him a private email to put him on notice that those type of
> posts wouldn't be tolerated in the future.
I followed VPfree rules exactly and criticized the MESSAGE. That is
perfectly clear. I even tried to educate him a little as other
members had mentioned the ego problem and notes like the one I
responded to were the reason.
You violated the rules by belittling and ridiculing him and his
posts - as you have just confirmed.
Note that the admin did not send me
the "private email" until weeks after this note and ONLY after I
commented on his handling of banning other members. As I said before,
this makes it clear he did not find the post "ridiculing and
belittling" until later on. It's really kind of hilarious to see the
admin attempting to defend this behavior when it was clear as a bell
exactly what he was doing.
As I have told you previously, you went on my email notification
list as soon as I read your post, and my private email to you had
nothing to do with our FREEvpFREE exchanges. I didn't contact you
sooner because I was deciding what action to take with you, and
others, and I was also occupied in taking care of other matters.
The delay didn't change the nature of your violation.
> 6. Subsequent posts by "mroejacks" on FREEvpFREE indicated that
> he didn't intend to observe the rules, so I told him that his
> posting privileges on all vpFREE forums would be revoked if he
> didn't agree to comply with the rules.
No reference to such a post??? That's because there was none. This
is another lie.
See FREEvpFREE message #5243 on 15 MAR and FREEvpFREE
message #5278 on 18 MAR, and you never agreed to observe the rules
in any of your posts.
I stated many times that I followed the rules as
written and would continue to do so. I also pointed out several times
on freevpfree the admins attempts to twist the rules in whatever
manner he chose. It was amazing. I had clearly criticized a paragraph
in a note and even used the words "paragraph" and "analogy" to make
it clear I was responding only to the message. The admin claimed this
was a personal attack (weeks later). Like I said, amazing.
You did not follow the rules when you were ridiculing and
belittling another member and his posts.
> 7. He wouldn't agree to comply with the rules and instead responded
> that effective immediately he would no longer post on vpFREE
> until I apologized to him for my "childish behavior".
I agreed to comply to the rules by making a post the next day (as
stated in the vpfree rules and as I previously mentioned).
You never agreed to comply with the posting rules, either privately
or publicly.
Now, I will not post on vpfree until I receive an apology. However,
note that the admin banned me from the so-called free speech forum,
freeVPfree. The reason was obvious. He did not want his lies and
actions documented for others to see. This followed the pattern he
established earlier with his secretive bannings.
Your posting privileges were revoked after you had already posted
your views on FREEvpFREE. I have always responded to requests for
information on my actions, unless it was about a confidential matter.
> 8. Members who intentionally disregard the rules aren't allowed
> to post on any vpFREE forum.
Yes they are. Last time I checked Bob Dancer is still posting.
Any / all rules violations by Bob Dancer were handled publicly or
privately in accordance with the rules at the time.
And, I was banned even though I never disregarded the rules.
Your posting privileges were revoked because you wouldn't agree
to comply with the vpFREE posting guidelines in the future.
Note this careful use of "any vpfree forums" so the admin can keep
people from airing their side of the story on the so-called free
speech forum. This is no accident. There never has been nor ever will
be a free speech forum associated with vpfree. Yup, another lie.
FREEvpFREE is vpFREE's free speech forum. It is available to
all vpFREE members in good standing and is unrestricted except
that vulgarity and raunchiness aren't allowed.
> 9. I revoked the posting privileges for "mroejacks" on all vpFREE
> forums.
And the reason is BEYOND obvious.
The reason is very simple. Your posting privileges were revoked
on all vpFREE forums because you refused to agree to comply with
the vpFREE posting guidelines in the future.
> 10. I'm sorry to air this dirty laundry on the Winpoker forum, but I
> felt it was necessary to post a reply to the "insult" comment. I don't
> intend to respond any further on Winpoker.
No, you're not sorry. You jumped right in to add more lies to your
ever growing list.
You are incorrect. I was sorry and I didn't lie.
You also lie every time you post as vpfae and have
been lying ever since you claimed to bring in a new administrator.
Just another notch in that secretive belt.
vpFae is not the current vpFREE administrator, and my name isn't
Tom.
I really had no intent on bringing this up on this forum. All I
intended to do is provide the reason I wasn't posting this
information on vpfree. That reason still holds. However, I am not
going to let Tom jump in and continue to spread these lies. That's
not in my nature.
You haven't come up with any lies yet.
vpFREE Administrator
···
On 11 Sep 2008 at 21:08, rgmustain wrote:
> vpFREE Administrator wrote on Winpoker: