WHT and its rules suck

[kunnusingh]

They did noting wrong with you, they give me some infraction but instead of posting in public I try to follow their rule..

:smash: I love WHT

I also love HD because of I am addicted..

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

They did noting wrong with you, they give me some infraction but instead of posting in public I try to follow their rule..

:smash: I love WHT

I also love HD because of I am addicted..

They can't handle public criticism of their rules; of course most authoritarian dictatorships can't. :rolleyes2

 

[SenseiSteve]

They can't handle public criticism of their rules; of course most authoritarian dictatorships can't. :rolleyes2

WHT is hardly an "authoritarian dictatorship" as you say. They need to moderate their forum just as every other forum has to moderate theirs to keep some form of order.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

WHT is hardly an "authoritarian dictatorship" as you say. They need to moderate their forum just as every other forum has to moderate theirs to keep some form of order.

So tell me, how does public criticism of their rules destroy order?

I personally manage a forum and don't delete criticism about me or my mods. The only rules are no name calling or cursing. Users can complain all day long about those rules; I don't delete their posts -- I engage them.

 

[SenseiSteve]

So tell me, how does public criticism of their rules destroy order?

I personally manage a forum and don't delete criticism about me or my mods. The only rules are no name calling or cursing. Users can complain all day long about those rules; I don't delete their posts -- I engage them.

So if you personally manage a forum, then you know moderation is a must. I manage two forums myself, but you know as well as I that owners of forums each have their own unique set of rules and guidelines. If you select to tolerate criticism of your rules and that works for you, then all good and well. Other forums are fully within their rights to run their forums as they choose, without being put in a category of dictatorships.

 

[Blue]

They can't handle public criticism of their rules; of course most authoritarian dictatorships can't. :rolleyes2

Here we go again.
Did someone force you to use WHT?
How much did you pay for that privilege? Nothing?
What was your purpose there?
Did you advertise a product? How much did it cost you?

Your comment is an embarrassment.
Read a little history and find out what an authoritarian dictatorship really is and try not to look foolish when invoking the term in the future.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

WHT should be free and is free to run their forum however they so choose. I'm simply saying I don't think it's a great way to run a forum. I don't agree with their heavy handed mods, and I don't agree with their rules, which forbid public discussion of, well, their rules.

If their mods and rules are so great, they should at least be able to withstand public criticism.

"authoritarian dictatorships" = colorful hyperbole. Please try not to take things too literally.

 

[easyhostmedia]

I don't agree with their rules

I bet you are like most people that sign up on forums etc. that think the rules dont apply to you so i wont read them before i sign up.

you signed up to WHT, therefore 100% accepted their rules, which on here you admitted you broke them on more than 1 occasion and you think that WHT are in the wrong (suck) for restricting you for breaking their rules.

If you do not agree with their rules then why did you sign up on their forum?

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

I bet you are like most people that sign up on forums etc. that think the rules dont apply to you so i wont read them before i sign up.

you signed up to WHT, therefore 100% accepted their rules, which on here you admitted you broke them on more than 1 occasion and you think that WHT are in the wrong (suck) for restricting you for breaking their rules.

If you do not agree with their rules then why did you sign up on their forum?

This is all true. I probably should have read how bad their rules were before accepting them -- my fault. I don't like their rules so I choose not to use their forum.

It's not only the rules though; it's also the way they handle their enforcement. Their mods are arrogant and express no diplomacy whatsoever -- two characteristics that make for bad mods. :twocents:

 

[SenseiSteve]

This is all true. I probably should have read how bad their rules were before accepting them -- my fault. I don't like their rules so I choose not to use their forum.

It's not only the rules though; it's also the way they handle their enforcement. Their mods are arrogant and express no diplomacy whatsoever -- two characteristics that make for bad mods. :twocents:

You didn't thoroughly read their rules, or didn't understand what you were reading - then broke those rules and now want to complain in this community about your treatment there?

You know yourself that moderators have to deal with a lot of spam and questionable threads and posts.

With the amount of traffic WHT generates, I imagine their Mods have little time or desire to be diplomatic with members who break their rules and then rant about the disciplinary actions they take.

Artashes is pretty tolerant here, but I would have banned you on my forums the second you complained about a rules infraction.

 

[Artashes]

I bet you are like most people that sign up on forums etc. that think the rules dont apply to you so i wont read them before i sign up.

I didn't get that tone from the posts.

People criticize things all the time. That is okay.

There is a difference between criticizing rules and having a rule that prohibits criticizing. I don't recall a rule that prohibits criticizing at WHT. We certainly do not have one here, but we do have a clause that prohibits harassment.

The problem for Mrs_Esterhouse came not because of criticizing a general rule, but because of repeatedly going around the censored name, avoiding the filters and then criticizing the decision-making of moderators. For any moderator having a member asking and pleading on behalf of a banned company would raise red flags about his/her association.

Having said that, I highly doubt that WHT would ban anyone for a healthy critique of a rule. But when someone intentionally acts up like mod decisions were not of any value would end up canned. They would here, too.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

I didn't get that tone from the posts.

That's right, I DO think the rules apply to me, but the rest of easyhostmedia's post is correct.

There is a difference between criticizing rules and having a rule that prohibits criticizing. I don't recall a rule that prohibits criticizing at WHT. We certainly do not have one here, but we do have a clause that prohibits harassment.

The rule I'm referring to on WHT is:

Public posts debating these rules and/or moderators' enforcement of such, will be removed without comment.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/rules.php

Having said that, I highly doubt that WHT would ban anyone for a healthy critique of a rule.

You can critique their rules by private message to the mods, but they will warn you and eventually ban you if a you repeatedly critique their rules publicly.

I am not banned on WHT. I just chose to end my participation with them.

 

[SenseiSteve]

I am not banned on WHT. I just chose to end my participation with them.

And yet you brought your spat with them to our community at HD expecting what?

 

[easyhostmedia]

And yet you brought your spat with them to our community at HD expecting what?

Exactly. I would also like to know what the OP hoped to achieve. the content of the OPs commets and the fact (post 15) openly admitting they broke WHT rules i dont think it would of been long for them to get banned on WHT anyway

 

[Artashes]

The rule I'm referring to on WHT is:

Public posts debating these rules and/or moderators' enforcement of such, will be removed without comment.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/rules.php

Oops. It has been a while since I've read those.

Now that you've reminded me the rule, it only reinforces their position even more. There is no magic to it, there is no special treatment or special stand - it is a rule that was simply followed through by the moderators correctly and without prejudice.

 

[easyhostmedia]

The banned company I referenced above was NameSilo. As soon as you post a banned company name, WHT stars it out like "********". Things are just plain absurd over there.

Here's another message they instantly deleted. I had to use "NS" for Namesilo because their system would censor out the name.


Just to note, I have no affiliation of any kind with NameSilo, and I have no domains registered with them. I read a few possitive reviews on other sites and wanted to solicit some opinions about their service. That's when this big s***storm happened with WHT censoring everything.

but at http://www.webhostingtalk.com/rules.php under
General Forum Rules:
These rules apply to all Forum categories.

You may not post words or URLs that are censored by adding spaces, dots, or substituting characters; or by any other means in an attempt to defeat any censors put in place by WebHostingTalk.

Public posts debating these rules and/or moderators' enforcement of such, will be removed without comment. We encourage feedback however and invite you to use our help desk if you have any questions or concerns.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Oops. It has been a while since I've read those.

Now that you've reminded me the rule, it only reinforces their position even more. There is no magic to it, there is no special treatment or special stand - it is a rule that was simply followed through by the moderators correctly and without prejudice.

The point is, WHT's rules suck.

 

[Artashes]

The point is, WHT's rules suck.

I think everyone's voice was heard, so I don't see a reason to continue this discussion.

Thread closed.