WHT not supporting long time member

[Aussie Bob]

Hi everyone. :wave:

Most of you know me from around the traps. Be that WHT or elsewhere. Most of you would agree that I'm a fair and reasonably balanced chap with a slightly twisted sense of humor and a hard work ethic. :smash:

Ok, so far so good. :thankyou:

My following comments are not condoning the deplorable and disgraceful acts of Gen-T. As a father of 2 daughters, I can tell you they made my blood boil. I am trying to detach myself from such emotions with this post, as I just want to make some clarifications on some statements made, for the sake of the public record and those darned google bots.

WHT supports child molesters.

I would disagree with that statement. It's factually untrue.

There was a thread on WHT in which an admitted child molester tried to apoloigze to a member for his acts . . .

No act of child molestation was committed. I understand that legal steps have been taken that will bring Gen-T to account with his actions, in regards to making a sexual threat against a minor. It's obvious Gen-T knows the girls are young, and made threats accrodingly. Gen-T will face the consequences of his actions, and feel the full force of the law, and that will most probably involve serving a jail sentence.

SWR, SoftwareReview it seems was the one who did the deleting and the one who suspended my account at WHT for speaking the truth.

The problem was your "truth" was an accusation that WHT supports child molestors, by the removal of a thread posted by Gen-T, that was getting ugly with a capital U. You're attacking them with the pretext of a false accusation. They do not support child molestors, by the removal of Gen-T's apology thread, and the subsequent removal of the string of other threads that followed.

IMO, Gen-T's apology thread should have been closed after the first post, and left at that. There was nothing to be gained from the volitile discussion that followed. It was quickly turning into a real flamefest, and emotions were boiling over.

Gen-T, a member and Moderator of WHT . . .

Gen-T has never been a moderator on WHT. He was only a Community Guide. Only Community Liaisons and Community Leaders are moderators.

What I'm trying to say, is I believe it's not accurate to claim that WHT support child molestors, or that they are protecting Gen-T in any way, by the removal of those threads. WHT mods cannot really ban someone for actions performed outside of WHT. That's a slippery slope indeed.

 

[ANMMark]

I doubt they are debating anything. They stick up for their own. This is why SWR chose to remove the thread.

They're brilliant for allowing the bashing of the innocent, as long as it's not a WHT staff member, who actually deserves it.

When a WHT staff member steps out of line, you had better keep it to yourself, because what will typically end up happening is you get banned for pushing the issue.

They are of course free to do or say anything to you, that they wish. This, unfortunately, became so, after many of them were placed on iNet's payroll, rather than remaining volunteer. Robert Marsh didn't pay mods, and wouldn't have stood for this. He has been known to remove mod rights without question, when he knew his mods were wrong.

It's just too bad that iNet, and WHT see more importance in the dollar, than in someone's well-being. I have found that since the iNet takeover of WHT, WHT has lost it's sense of community, it's sense of almost a big family, and it's ethics. This just adds to everything.

 

[inogenius]

While it's apparently that you have some kind of pre-conceived notions on the issue, and some WHT staff members, I can assure you it is being debated, and many options are being weighed. I would kindly suggest that you just drop your apparent attack at WHT, and view the issue with an open mind. It's clear that Gen-T did something totally out of line here, but what does WHT have to do with it? The only way WHT is involved is because Gen-T posted an apology there. In no other way did WHT have anything to do with what happened.

It's awful that this happened, but you need to direct your attention to the proper authorities, and that's not WHT, Dennis, Jan, or iNet. It is clearly Gen-T's ISP and the police.

 

[Immortal9]

I doubt they are debating anything. They stick up for their own. This is why SWR chose to remove the thread.

We can only guess, Mark why Dennis removed the thread. But, WHT has been a huge beast for over 5 years now? So, I would imagine there isn't a first incident of something of the like happening. If you do something the first time, and its done correctly you must do it for all of the others. Its really a "understood rule" among administrators/mods, and each thread of the like is dealt with the same matter. No matter who the postee is.

Vito, I believe I already expressed my concern in private with you.

 

[ANMMark]

Well, I'm not wrong, as far as my personal experiences are concerned. Maybe according to your experiences, that may sound inaccurate. However, when I first heard about Gen-T doing this, I was also floored and couldn't bring myself to completely accept it, because he has never given me that impression, when I have personally communicated with him on various levels.

Everyone's experiences, perception, and realities are different, thus there is no way you can "assure" me that my statement was wrong.

 

[Aussie Bob]

I doubt they are debating anything. They stick up for their own. This is why SWR chose to remove the thread.

I can guarantee you that no WHT mod considers Gen-T as "their own". They have no motive for coming to his defence, if they decided to.

. . . This, unfortunately, became so, after many of them were placed on iNet's payroll, rather than remaining volunteer.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? I would be really interested in knowing if some of the WHT Leaders do actually get paid.

 

[Blue]

How are you able to "guarantee" this Bob?

 

[Immortal9]

Well, I'm not wrong, as far as my personal experiences are concerned.

We may seem correct to one, and wrong to another. Each has their own opinion which makes the situation only even more difficult for the administration.

Maybe according to your experiences, that may sound inaccurate. However, when I first heard about Gen-T doing this, I was also floored and couldn't bring myself to completely accept it, because he has never given me that impression, when I have personally communicated with him on various levels.

I've saw what happened previous with Gen-T, and I know he was capable of doing it again. It's not my place to judge him, as I've never met the guy personally other then saw his posts and his "drunken rage" beforehand. And now - this time.

Everyone's experiences, perception, and realities are different, thus there is no way you can "assure" me that my statement was wrong.

Which is why I'm quite glad I'm not the one who has to make the decision. But, whatever they do, is supported by me.

 

[inogenius]

How are you able to "guarantee" this Bob?

Let's look at the bigger issue. What would make you think that they do want to support Gen-T?

 

[Senad]

Let's look at the bigger issue. What would make you think that they do want to support Gen-T?

The same reason perhaps that makes me think that they support Unmetered Ads perhaps althought their rules clearly state they are against them? I mean with that example could you not agree that is a double standard of sorts of WHT/INets part? And once one double standard is set I think it can be safe to assume that there MIGHT...JUUUUST might be another double standard of sorts correct?

 

[Aussie Bob]

How are you able to "guarantee" this Bob?

Well, "guarantee" is probably not the right word there. I can't speak for all the dozens of WHT mods, but from my understanding, there's no coverup with the WHT leadership trying to defend Gen-T as "their own". There are other factors involved.

 

[inogenius]

The same reason perhaps that makes me think that they support Unmetered Ads perhaps althought their rules clearly state they are against them? I mean with that example could you not agree that is a double standard of sorts of WHT/INets part? And once one double standard is set I think it can be safe to assume that there MIGHT...JUUUUST might be another double standard of sorts correct?

I'm not going to get into a debate on the WHT rules, and their specific meaning as this is an entirely different issue. However as far as I know, WHT only had banned unlimited advertisements, not unmetered. Now depending on your definition you may consider them one in the same, but that's depending on YOUR definition, not WHT's definition which is what they go by.

What happened between Vito, and Gen-T is an issue of entirely different standards, and one that no rule could cover, or that anyone could expect.

 

[Senad]

I'm not going to get into a debate on the WHT rules, and their specific meaning as this is an entirely different issue. However as far as I know, WHT only had banned unlimited advertisements, not unmetered. Now depending on your definition you may consider them one in the same, but that's depending on YOUR definition, not WHT's definition which is what they go by.

Actually unmetered advertisments are not allowed to be posted in their advertisement area and yet they allow them in banner ads? Sounds like a double standard to me if I ever did see one .

 

[ANMMark]

Do you have any evidence to back that up? I would be really interested in knowing if some of the WHT Leaders do actually get paid.

I no longer have the evidence in my posession, but I have received numerous email newsletters from iNet, speaking about various mods being placed on the iNet payroll, and as I remember, not just WHT.

 

[inogenius]

Actually unmetered advertisments are not allowed to be posted in their advertisement area and yet they allow them in banner ads? Sounds like a double standard to me if I ever did see one .

I do recall unlimited advertisements being banned, but not unmetered. I did just double check the rules to see if I was wrong, and they have been modified in August, so it's possible that they did remove that portion. I don't know though, I never touched that area of the market.

However like I said, this is an entirely different issue.

 

[Immortal9]

I no longer have the evidence in my posession, but I have received numerous email newsletters from iNet, speaking about various mods being placed on the iNet payroll, and as I remember, not just WHT.

Email spoofing is quite common these days. iNET would never do such a thing, even if it did indeed exist.

 

[inogenius]

I no longer have the evidence in my posession, but I have received numerous email newsletters from iNet, speaking about various mods being placed on the iNet payroll, and as I remember, not just WHT.

If the WHT mods are paid (as far as I know, they're aren't, but I don't care if they are) change one's judgement? WHT advertisers have been banned before so clearly there isn't a conflict of interest between the two.

 

[Senad]

I do recall unlimited advertisements being banned, but not unmetered. I did just double check the rules to see if I was wrong, and they have been modified in August, so it's possible that they did remove that portion. I don't know though, I never touched that area of the market.

However like I said, this is an entirely different issue.

While you might see it as a different issue the entire point I brought this up was to show that WHT does hold double standards for its own rules and that one could hence assume they MIGHT hold a double standard for the people upon WHT. Like Aussie Bob for example, I think he's an awesome guy who brings a lot to any community he joins, but if there was a problem I wouldn't doubt them backing Aussie Bob up to some point or being more lenient with him upon his punishment (unlike some new guy who would receive much harsher punishment). Although this is most likely not going to happen as Aussie Bob has proven himself a good community member and a gentlemen it's just an example. Don't take offense Aussie Bob I'm still a fan :laugh:.

 

[Senad]

It took some searching but I found it:

No unlimited space or unlimited bandwidth offers. This includes un-metered bandwidth offers not clearly advertising a bandwidth cap. Posting such offers will lead to your post being removed and your account being suspended.

http://webhostingtalk.com/announcement.php?f=4&a=51

YET we see unmetered advertisement ads all over the place at WHT . So it's safe to assume that they DO have some sort of double standards...whether it be money...ads... or people...

 

[ANMMark]

I do believe the purpose of this thread, as well as the thread at WHT was to bring Gen-T actions out in the open.

If WHT's motives for removing the thread were based on keeping the thread clean, then I still don't think I could go along with that. It could have simply been closed, and his apology left as it was.

I agree that it is important to keep the forum clean, but not remove the evidence all together, as though the issue never occurred. Tim posted his thread on his own behalf. No one forced him to do so. His post not only provided evidence against him, but may have actually pulled other out into the open, that he may have contacted and done the same thing to. I'm not sure what WHT's reasons were, but to pretend it never happened, and to stop people from communicating about it at all, as though it didn't happen, is in my view the same as WHT supporting his actions. Quite possibly they didn't portray their acceptance of his actions on purpose, but that is certainly the way it has been perceived.

My question, which is at the root of the topic of this post is....

If they're not support his actions or trying to "protect" him, then why do WHT mods allow threads to be started, and continued until they fade away on their own, bashing and slandering other members? For example, I was a target of this precise exercise.

Members were allowed to hijack the thread, call me every name in the book, and they got away with it. When I spoke to Dennis about it, and explained the situation, he basically responded calling me a liar, and telling me how I was a ripoff artist, etc. Imagine how that felt, knowing that I was being as straight forward and honest as I could be. They allowed the thread to continue, and continued to allow the two members in question to hijack the thread (one of which did not receive a logo because they openly requested and wanted me to rip another designer's work, and had their nerver to call me unethical).

Yes, I have some bitterness about that, as they allowed people to attack my personal character, without any basis, and then Dennis himself turned around and attacked me.

Personally, yes...it adds fuel to a fire that I already have burning.

This topic is primarily about Tim and his actions, but it's also about WHT's actions.

I full understand that WHT has no authority over legal matters, but they do have authority about what they allow, and what they do not allow. While they are supposed to treat every like case the same, they don't, and that's what this all boils down to. I think a lot of this based on that common knowledge as well.

If they deleted ALL bashing threads, etc then this one would have been seen as "Oh yeah, I knew they would", but when so many people see it happening that they don't take the same action, it would definately lead one to believe that there is something behind the fact that they chose to remove "this one"