The porn dude
Montreal Escorts

Board/Moderation comitee

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lawless

New Member
Dec 15, 2003
661
0
0
Travelling
Visit site
SA,
Never forget that our hobby is not seaching MERB or any other boards!
"True Merbite" or "true Hobbyist"?
Why do you have to be talking against other boards.
FZ is simply doing his job of protecting his business and I command him for that!
No need to be badmouthing anyone else!
IMHO at least!
 
M

Mod 2

And I started this thread to talk about a possible comitee....

Hummm. Did some of us get a bit side-tracked? :)
 

MotJuste

New Member
Aug 2, 2003
72
0
0
Visit site
The Rule of What?

(Sorry to keep this thread side-tracked, but the other one appears to have been deleted. You've been doing a good job Mod2, unlike the regime which prevailed before you started.)

I have to admit that when I first saw the text of the famous PM from SL, my immediate thought was that this might be covered by some policy of the Board. However, after reviewing the posted rules and guidelines, I found that there was nothing specifically applying to the use of PMs that would have prohibited this alleged misdeed. Furthermore, after reading all the pronouncements of Fred Zed on the issue, all I see invoked are nebulous general references to "rules of your ISP", "the rules of your webhost", and "the rules of the internet". So, it was thus on the basis of these supposed violations (only suspected in some cases) that Fred Zed arbitrarily proceeded, on the pretext of a "security breach", to ban or suspend a number of members and to access someone's PMs (notwithstanding a supposed policy on privacy -- I say "supposed" because while none is posted, there apparently exists an "exception" justifying the Administrator accessing PMs).

In keeping with the principle of the Rule of Law, we are constantly exhorted on this Board to respect the posted rules and guidelines. We would have accepted them when we became members. However, even if it was only Fred Zed who determined what are those rules and guidelines, it is necessary that they be made known, and not improvised along the way after the fact, as we have witnessed from this recent incident. In effect we have the Rule of Fred, not the Rule of Law.

The main point of this post is to underline how this incident exposes the uneasy co-existence within the Board of two separate realities -- on the one hand, the community that has been created through the online interaction of those who engage in essentially altruistic acts of sharing information, and on the other hand, and the commercial self-interest of the owner of the Board. The community would not exist if the infrastructure was not provided by someone. By the same token, the creation of the Board was a business decision, and its size and participatory success financially benefits the owner.

So, what happens when something on the Board threatens the commercial interests of the owner. Although the Board is described as essentially self-regulatory, some here apparently would accept that the owner of the Board can basically do whatever he wants in reaction. I disagree, especially if no published Board policy or any Canadian law was violated. If the transgressions were otherwise deemed to be unethical or unacceptable, then let the perpetrators be reproached in the same way that shills and proxys are usually dealt with here -- exposed, reproached, ostracized, and then if they persist, ultimately ignored. If it is believed that the acts were so "reprehensible", then in the better judgment of each member, the message would have backfired. I have more faith in individual members to decide for themselves, than in the Administrator, if this incident is demonstrative of a proper exercise of his discretion, not to mention what I see as a disappointing choice of words in announcing how he intended to deal with the situation.

I make no comment on whether any of the banned members should return, except to say that, based on the above, they were improperly and arbitrarily treated. Members come and go, and it appears unlikely they would come back in any event. However, I personally see nothing prohibiting or wrong with the owner or manager of another review board being a member here, provided that such status or involvement is known or declared. Accordingly, I had always scrutinized anything posted by Tom in light of his business interests, but nonetheless appreciated some of his insights. For the same reason, I would have preferred that Cool Amadeus continued to post, even after being outed as Pierre, and I was more suspicious of the supposed information sources and motives of the accuser in that matter.

Of greater concern though is the invasion of the privacy of the PMs because of a supposed breach of security. Security of what? Apparently only of the commercial interests of the owner of the Board. What is undeniable at least is that the integrity of the content of PMs which were received, read and stored in members' in-boxes was subsequently tampered with by the Administrator, even if it was only as a global "fix". Unlike other boards which have a specific policy about including advertising links at least in public posts, no such similar rule has been stipulated here for either posts or PMs. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the PM in question could be labelled as "spam" if it was (at least in my case) transmitted as a PM between persons who had previously communicated in this manner about questions and business arising from the discussion threads.

So, if it is to be the Rule of Fred, then let it be clearly stated as such, and then we can all make our own decisions accordingly.
 

JeanMarc

New Member
Oct 12, 2004
7
0
0
Montreal
Visit site
The best Summation

MotJuste

That is about the best post I read in a long time. You summed it up perfectly when you say.
"In effect we have the Rule of Fred, not the Rule of Law."
"Of greater concern though is the invasion of the privacy of the PMs because of a supposed breach of security."
Another excellent point, actually Tom never sent a single spam or PM in regards to his board. Does any member have evidence of a PM from him. What solid evidence was there to evade his PMs?

The list goes on and on as to Fred's poor judgement.

MotJuste again I can't say how perfect a summation you made.

Maybe the question should be is do we forgive Fred.

IMHO Fred has some re deeming to do here.
 

Fred Zed

Administrator
Mar 11, 2003
1,758
302
83
UP ABOVE SMILING
JeanMarc said:
Fred where are you?

You have some explaining to do.
JeanMarc I am working on the MERB upgrade at this time, and I have 3 other sites to look after, MERB is not my only project.

I am not sure what explanation is needed. Whether the rules are posted or not is irrelevant. For one thing we don't allow promotion from non-advertisers here whether it's done via Pm or on on the public forums. If you doubt that spamming is a serious violation of internet rules check with your ISP. If you have a website check with your Webhost.
Most Webhosts have the rules posted under their TOS. Spamming of the kind that SL can get the website hosting account account cancelled. Most of them them have the rules clearly posted under their TOS.
Ofcourse there was every justification to delete Tom's account. PMs in Tom & SL's accounts clearly prove they were working on this together. Several people reported that they received not one but two PMs from SL.

Well, here is two individuals that did something that was clearly wrong, they were caught with their pants down down and site admin deleted their accounts ? Does it follow that your Pms are unsafe - ofcourse not
 

JeanMarc

New Member
Oct 12, 2004
7
0
0
Montreal
Visit site
I don't belive you, send me a copy of one one these PMs of Tom's to prove once and for all of his envolvement. You say his pants was got down and he says he never ever talked about sending out pms to members with SL. I'll present your proof at the party with Tom's okay. The way things look Tom over the years have proved his credibilty. You have to come clean here Fred or less you word means nothing.
 

metoo4

I am me, too!
Mar 27, 2004
2,183
2
0
If only I knew...
A board like this is a business. How often did you see a GM car salesman doing business in a Ford dealer? My guess is he would be shown the door quite fast... SL didn't work fort FZ but same apply as a customer: try posting yourself at your friendly GM dealer and redirect customers to the nearest Ford dealer... I don't think so... SL might have selected to talk to a few members and ask them via email to visit his board, if the email was obtained without the "help" of MERB, it would have been ok. Maybe he could heven had purchased publicity on MERB? Escorts do publicity for others escorts on their site so, why would MERB do any different?
FZ had no choice to ban SL not because SL started a new board, not because it was SL but because SL's new board was started by using MERB client base. If SL would have been working for FZ, he could have been charged with a lawsuit! It says how "nice" (NOT!!) SL's action against MERB was... As everybody (almost) I had brushes with SL but they always got resolved in an intelligent fashon, without becoming a war so, I will miss the guy. I might even go see that new board! Question now is: that new board will have the same users as this one (because of how it was publicised) so, will it contain anything different? To me, it's only diluting the sources of information and will only make reading and info gathering harder.
Some might think it's a sad day, some might think it's a great day but it will definetly not kill this board.
 
Last edited:

Fred Zed

Administrator
Mar 11, 2003
1,758
302
83
UP ABOVE SMILING
metoo4 said:
A board like this is a business. How often did you see a GM car salesman doing business in a Ford dealer? My guess is he would be shown the door quite fast... .
Some very good points. I don't understand why some individuals can't seem to understand the obvious. Regarding your GM/Ford analogy I would like to add that Ford would probably not accept a GM billboard advertisement on the grounds of their manufacturing plant or vice versa .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Toronto Escorts