So now comes a question of policy and of ethics.

Let me start off by saying that I love WHT, and that it's free and open. But there's been lots of private rumbling in the past that iNet Interactive, the company, tells the moderators at the top to show partiality (in other words, bias) toward paying advertisers whenever a question arises of ethics or rules violations. Clearly Chris's account is disabled and should stay that way. But I've yet to hear about any cases where an entire company is banned from WHT for their management missteps - the hiring of Chris Gotzmann being an obvious one on the part of OC3 networks. There was no cry to ban AlphaRed from these forums for hiring Chris, even after the owner blatantly lied about it on this forum to cover it up. Consider this to be such a cry for the ouster of OC3 and any of their brands from this forum.

Will the moderators and the parent company iNet Interactive do what's right and start banning companies who hire known scammers? Am I being unreasonable?

Is WHT going to disable and ban all of PR from posting and being mentioned here?

Good call! :agree:

... Am I being unreasonable?I believe so.

First you start spouting off conspiracy theories involving mine and my staff's actions. I won't even address those.

But to suggest that a company that unwittingly hires an employee with a less-than-savory past should be banned from participation on WHT is so far left that it can't be right.

I'm just going to step away from here a bit and you can have your way with all your theories spouted as truths.

Ridiculous!

First you start spouting off conspiracy theories involving mine and my staff's actions.

If it's true then it's not a theory. What if those "rumblings" came from your staff?

But to suggest that a company that unwittingly hires an employee with a less-than-savory past should be banned from participation on WHT is so far left that it can't be right.

You're entitled to your opinion. But I see the good, bad, and ugly from where I sit. And I can tell you that so much of the bad is unenforceable, it would be nice if you guys would clamp down on that which is. And the fact that you haven't already done this to AlphaRed is absolutely disgusting.

I'm just going to step away from here a bit and you can have your way with all your theories spouted as truths.

What I've said is based on things that've been told to me by _authorative sources_. Again, you're entitled to your opinion.

no offense; but you are now arguing with Software; who can ban you at any time, so I'd watch your tone with SWR :P

no offense; but you are now arguing with Software; who can ban you at any time, so I'd watch your tone with SWR :P

I don't really see anything wrong with tical's tone. He's just stating his opinion.

no offense; but you are now arguing with Software; who can ban you at any time, so I'd watch your tone with SWR :P

adults don't ban people for asking questions. that's for kiddie hosts to do on their pseudoimportant webhost forums that nobody reads.

If it's true then it's not a theory. What if those "rumblings" came from your staff?



You're entitled to your opinion. But I see the good, bad, and ugly from where I sit. And I can tell you that so much of the bad is unenforceable, it would be nice if you guys would clamp down on that which is. And the fact that you haven't already done this to AlphaRed is absolutely disgusting.



What I've said is based on things that've been told to me by _authorative sources_. Again, you're entitled to your opinion.

I considered sending this via a PM but I guess I should just post it.

In general, I have a lot of respect for you from some pre sales conversations I had with you last year as well as your post on the board and general feedback about your busienss.

However, I am going to call "shenanigans" on your posts regarding Inet and the volunteers that help on this board. I have never ever had Inet "suggest" moderation in any way shape or form and I highly (very very highly) doubt that any one else has. It just doesn't happen and I am inclined to call you a liar about your suggestion. If I have read your posts incorrectly, I apologize. There are real conspiracies going on, I suggest that you stay focussed on those and stop bringing doubt on the valid points you make by going just a bit too far and suggesting nonsense.

But there's been lots of private rumbling in the past that iNet Interactive, the company, tells the moderators at the top to show partiality (in other words, bias) toward paying advertisers whenever a question arises of ethics or rules violations.Well you can stuff the private rumblings.

First, many/most of the moderators surf WHT using a special skin that contains no advertising whatsoever (except for stickies, but that's part of the community). I couldn't name a company that has banners on WHT outside of the occasional thread about an advertiser brought up in the Feedback forum. I couldn't show favoritism if I wanted to, because I wouldn't know who to favor. I would have to receive some pretty specific instructions to pull off what you've suggested, and on that topic...

Second, the day iNet or anyone tells me to handle a member differently because he or she spends X dollars on advertising is the day I quit my position. As long as my title is green, you can be certain no one instructed me to moderate in one manner or another based on a member's status as an advertiser.

Anything you hear otherwise is false, and is either based on bad information or is being said maliciously. Period.

Well you can stuff the private rumblings.

First, many/most of the moderators surf WHT using a special skin that contains no advertising whatsoever (except for stickies, but that's part of the community). I couldn't name a company that has banners on WHT outside of the occasional thread about an advertiser brought up in the Feedback forum. I couldn't show favoritism if I wanted to, because I wouldn't know who to favor. I would have to receive some pretty specific instructions to pull off what you've suggested, and on that topic...

Second, the day iNet or anyone tells me to handle a member differently because he or she spends X dollars on advertising is the day I quit my position. As long as my title is green, you can be certain no one instructed me to moderate in one manner or another based on a member's status as an advertiser.

Anything you hear otherwise is false, and is either based on bad information or is being said maliciously. Period.

...you guys don't have ads? I hate you! (I will luv you again if you share the skin wif me :))

Anyways, to further on the iNet subject of showing favoritism, that would also mean that they would be inclined to "not" ban Premium Members, but wait a minute! There ARE premium members that get banned! Sure, it's not as much money as an advertising contract, but its still money that we've paid to iNet.

It just doesn't happen and I am inclined to call you a liar about your suggestion.

What I've suggested is that authorative sources have espoused to me in private communication (no, I'm not going to show you) that favoritism is shown to advertisers. To call me a liar is to suggest that no such communication exists. Which is fine I suppose.

There are also people here who have not yet accepted that Alex == Chris. They, like you, are entitled to their opinion - however foolish that may be.

What I've suggested is that authorative sources have espoused to me in private communication (no, I'm not going to show you) that favoritism is shown to advertisers. To call me a liar is to suggest that no such communication exists. Which is fine I suppose.You are not a liar - your sources are.

Or there's a conspiracy way above my head to which I'm not privy. Somehow, I don't think that's possible or likely.

We will have people claim favoratism because an advertiser wasn't moderated the way that member thought moderation should be done, but that has nothing to do with them being advertisers. It has everything to do with whatever the individual circumstances were for the particular incident. But people will make the faulty leap in logic, and then they're parade it as a fact or a truth. It is neither.

Please share what you've been told with me privately. I'd like to get to the bottom of it for my own curiosity!

We will have people claim favoratism because an advertiser wasn't moderated the way that member thought moderation should be done, but that has nothing to do with them being advertisers. It has everything to do with whatever the individual circumstances were for the particular incident. But people will make the faulty leap in logic, and then they're parade it as a fact or a truth. It is neither.

Bingo!! We have a winner.... :D

Now back to the topic at hand....

Sirius

What I've suggested is that authorative sourcesDefine "authoritative sources", please.

If by that you're suggesting it was a staff member (seems that way from here), I'd love to know, since I've never once been approached or even heard a whisper of playing favorites, for *any* reason. I've personally alerted/warned advertisers (premium members, etc), and never once had it questioned, reversed or removed unless it was issued in error (it happens).

You are not a liar - your sources are.

I'm not so sure I like the word "liar" in this case. But at least we're getting closer.

We will have people claim favoratism because an advertiser wasn't moderated the way that member thought moderation should be done, but that has nothing to do with them being advertisers.

Understood. Definitely not the case here, but I can see how that's an issue with some.

I think the broader point here is that the consensus of the WHT populous (participating in this thread) is that the owner of OC3 knowingly hired Chris Gotzmann. My assertion continues to be that anything in connection with Chris or the other owner of PacificRack, including the parent company OC3 Networks, should be banned from WHT. It's the only fair thing to do. It shows that WHT is not a place where you can bring your scandalous behavior and get away with it. Yes, I have no doubt that as long as Chris is alive and still interested in hosting, he will resurface in one way or another. But the people at the top of WHT and iNet Interactive have the opportunity to do the right thing here. Otherwise, there isn't anything to dissuade others from becoming another Chris Gotzmann. And why shouldn't they? WHT provides a free and open platform, where it's possible to scam hundreds of people and run off with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars. That's money that some of us use to eat with.

So go ahead, you at the top, sit by idly and allow this to repeat itself. That is exactly what I predict will happen. If there's any lesson here, it's that you'll need to do a better job of covering your tracks if you wish to do the same thing as Chris did.

I think the broader point here is that the consensus of the WHT populous (participating in this thread) is that the owner of OC3 knowingly hired Chris Gotzmann.We still have some due process and due diligence to do before conclusions get drawn too quickly. As you've seen, the AFerrier username is disabled, and as is the case with any disabled user name, we encourage the member to contact the help desk to discuss the nature of the ban, which in this case is a substantial discussion indeed. But banning an entire company from WHT is something that's not taken lightly. At this point, we don't know what was on purpose or by accident, or what was or wasn't known by whom at any given time. People in this thread have some very strong suspicions, and they're not without merit, but it set a bad precedent to turn threads like this into a lynch mob. Let's let more information come out first, or at least give the opportunity for information to be presented. It's only been a couple days, and I imagine this is a very sensitive topic for PR/OC3 to just jump in, especially when so many people have already decided what is or isn't absolutely true already.

You would be grateful WHT didn't jump the gun and quickly ban colo4jax.com if a lengthy thread appeared questioning your business ethics, right? Let's give a degree of respect to all parties involved and due process, please.

Let's give a degree of respect to all parties involved and due process, please.

Respectfully, two days is plenty of time for due process. I venture to say that any consideration by the WHT mods after today or tomorrow serves no legitimate purpose.

As for your "lynch mob" remark, I was equally vigorous in calling for the removal of AlphaRed from this forum after its owner was caught lying repeatedly to the WHT populous. If that's not a good justification for putting forth the notion that maybe advertisers do in fact (as my sources contend) gain some special treatment on WHT, I don't know what else is. It is my position that any time you have lying and cheating at the very top of any company, the whole company is compromised. James McCreary should've been banned, and so should AlphaRed. But _nothing happened_. In this case you have the other partner in PacificRack furthering the conspiracy to conceal Chris's identity as purported in his own words on the GFY forum. It's clear cut, no further deliberation is necessary, and it's time to do the needful.

Respectfully, two days is plenty of time for due process. I venture to say that any consideration by the WHT mods after today or tomorrow serves no legitimate purpose.

That is your opinion.

As for your "lynch mob" remark, I was equally vigorous in calling for the removal of AlphaRed from this forum after its owner was caught lying repeatedly to the WHT populous.

They were.

If that's not a good justification for putting forth the notion that maybe advertisers do in fact (as my sources contend) gain some special treatment on WHT, I don't know what else is.

Again, your opinion and is based purely in fantasty. Moderation has not, is not and will never be based on advertising here. I've been a mod here for a few years now and I have never, EVER had any of my moderating actions overturned, or been told to tone down my moderating, due to an advertisers status. Again, your assumptions are way off mark.

It is my position that any time you have lying and cheating at the very top of any company, the whole company is compromised.

I agree.

James McCreary should've been banned, and so should AlphaRed. But _nothing happened_.

You are incorrect... much like your suspicion of advertisers getting special treatment, your assumption of inaction is based purely in fantasy.

In this case you have the other partner in PacificRack furthering the conspiracy to conceal Chris's identity as purported in his own words on the GFY forum. It's clear cut, no further deliberation is necessary, and it's time to do the needful.

You're right... to hell with research and making sure we have our FACTS straight, we'll just start banning everyone when tical thinks we've got enough evidence to do so. I've got to tell you, some folks wont be happy, but this will sure make our jobs easier.

Sirius

That is your opinion.

Certainly I don't know what goes on "behind the curtain". But what's already been presented is fairly compelling. Maybe I'm just biased because I've known about Chris/PacificRack for the last 11 months and already accepted it as fact.

You are incorrect... much like your suspicion of advertisers getting special treatment,

So asking questions is incorrect now. Right.

your assumption of inaction is based purely in fantasy.

Regardless of what action (if any) was taken, it was *not* banning James McCreary or AlphaRed from this forum. That's the premise of my argument. Do you have any proof that James/AR are banned? I have proof that they're not...

Certainly I don't know what goes on "behind the curtain". But what's already been presented is fairly compelling. Maybe I'm just biased because I've known about Chris/PacificRack for the last 11 months and already accepted it as fact.

You provided us with your suspicion... nothing more, nothing less. However right you think you were then, we cant act soley on things like that. You know that... to attempt to portray otherwise is crazy.

So asking questions is incorrect now. Right.

Asking questions is great... making accusations of bias and inaction, when you have little understanding of the facts, isnt. If you're questions were an attempt to enlighten ones self, then that's great, but that wasnt the agenda at hand and you know that.

Regardless of what action (if any) was taken, it was *not* banning James McCreary or AlphaRed from this forum. That's the premise of my argument. Do you have any proof that James/AR are banned? I have proof that they're not...

Again, you dont know what you're talking about. You've made yet another assumption of our inaction, because someone isnt banned right this very moment.

I dont know of many folks who have stayed banned from here forever. Second chances are a good thing.

Sirius

You provided us with your suspicion... nothing more, nothing less. However right you think you were then, we cant act soley on things like that. You know that... to attempt to portray otherwise is crazy.



Asking questions is great... making accusations of bias and inaction, when you have little understanding of the facts, isnt. If you're questions were an attempt to enlighten ones self, then that's great, but that wasnt the agenda at hand and you know that.



Again, you dont know what you're talking about. You've made yet another assumption of our inaction, because someone isnt banned right this very moment.

I dont know of many folks who have stayed banned from here forever. Second chances are a good thing.

Sirius
I agree we should just give scammers a second chance so that they can scam people again. :rolleyes:

If that's not a good justification for putting forth the notion that maybe advertisers do in fact (as my sources contend) gain some special treatment on WHT, I don't know what else is.

Unless you're willing to divulge the source and evidence, it would be appreciated if you'd stop spreading this FUD. Baseless accusations aren't necessary simply because we're not meeting your expectations of due process.

I agree we should just give scammers a second chance so that they can scam people again. :rolleyes:

I think you might want to read my post again...

I dont know of many folks who have stayed banned from here forever. Second chances are a good thing.

Sirius

Unless you're willing to divulge the source and evidence, it would be appreciated if you'd stop spreading this FUD. Baseless accusations aren't necessary simply because we're not meeting your expectations of due process.

He's not going to give his sources, especially if they are moderators just because of the FEAR that is around here to speak up and say what has to be said without a leader striking you down!

I know of 2 moderators who disagree with how scammers are handled on this forum, and they ironically enough agree to an extent with my party line ideology. Will I ever give up their names? Never. I just wish they would stand up like Boon tried too (unrelated issue / thread) without fear of reprisal. :rolleyes:

You provided us with your suspicion...

No sir, I provided you with an account of communications I've received that I know to be somewhat authorative. The fact that I did so should indicate that I believe a possibility exists, again, having no knowledge of what goes on "behind the curtain".

You all do have my curiosity up though, as to why everyone is so vigorously defending that notion. If the premise of preferrential treatment is right, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if not taken to extremes. iNet is in business to make a profit, right?

However right you think you were then, we cant act soley on things like that. You know that... to attempt to portray otherwise is crazy.

You're absolutely right - I didn't expect that Chris would get tossed on my remarks alone in the absence of any hard evidence, and I've done nothing that should lead you to believe otherwise. What I did expect is that the people at the top would begin to look at him more closely and start _asking questions_.

Asking questions is great... making accusations of bias and inaction, when you have little understanding of the facts, isnt.

I can't recall making accusations of bias. Like a news reporter, I'm merely reporting on what I've been told. You're entitled to dismiss it as nonsense, but the more vigorously you come out in defense of it, the more accentuated the big question mark becomes.

Again, you dont know what you're talking about. You've made yet another assumption of our inaction, because someone isnt banned right this very moment.

Indeed I have; forgive me if I don't spend every waking hour following the fate of Chris, James and AlphaRed on WHT. Theoretically it's possible that James/AR could've already been banned for some period of time without my knowledge. But my underlying premise is that it should be permanent.

I dont know of many folks who have stayed banned from here forever. Second chances are a good thing.

What you're purporting is that wilful and deliberate deception by executives will only carry consequences for a period of time. And while I respect the sovereignty of iNet and the people at the top to give "second chances", the real world doesn't usually work that way.

No sir, I provided you with an account of communications I've received that I know to be somewhat authorative. The fact that I did so should indicate that I believe a possibility exists, again, having no knowledge of what goes on "behind the curtain".

You all do have my curiosity up though, as to why everyone is so vigorously defending that notion. If the premise of preferrential treatment is right, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if not taken to extremes. iNet is in business to make a profit, right?



You're absolutely right - I didn't expect that Chris would get tossed on my remarks alone in the absence of any hard evidence, and I've done nothing that should lead you to believe otherwise. What I did expect is that the people at the top would begin to look at him more closely and start _asking questions_.



I can't recall making accusations of bias. Like a news reporter, I'm merely reporting on what I've been told. You're entitled to dismiss it as nonsense, but the more vigorously you come out in defense of it, the more accentuated the big question mark becomes.



Indeed I have; forgive me if I don't spend every waking hour following the fate of Chris, James and AlphaRed on WHT. Theoretically it's possible that James/AR could've already been banned for some period of time without my knowledge. But my underlying premise is that it should be permanent.



What you're purporting is that wilful and deliberate deception by executives will only carry consequences for a period of time. And while I respect the sovereignty of iNet and the people at the top to give "second chances", the real world doesn't usually work that way.

I stopped responding to you before because I was hoping you were just mistaken and read a comment made to you wrong. I hate being wrong about people but I now see that you truly believe in this fantasy world. The reason that we as mods are all responding like this is because it is just so far from the culture of our moderation that I honestly believe that you are lying.

There I have called you a liar twice. The reason that I am doing this because I don't believe you have ever received any comment from any moderator, liason or guide that said that we are directed to moderate in any way related to advertisers, premiums etc. I have no idea who advertises here or who doesn't and could not care less.

As I said before to myself "he seems like a good guy he has to just be mistaken" but at this point, I can only believe that you are raising these "suggestions" for your own agenda. It is complete BS.

You are hearing from long time mods so as a relatively new mod let me tell you that there is no way that I would ever remain a mod with any suggestion to moderate this way or that. Anyone that belives in your wacky conspiracy theory also must believe 911 didn't happen, in unicorns and nee mac feegle.

What if those "rumblings" came from your staff?Which staff? Of course you won't name anyone --- because it isn't true.
If it's true then it's not a theory.See above.

You're entitled to your opinion.Thank you. But what if I stated my opinion as fact. Am I still entitled?

But I see the good, bad, and ugly from where I sit. And I can tell you that so much of the bad is unenforceable, it would be nice if you guys would clamp down on that which is. And the fact that you haven't already done this to AlphaRed is absolutely disgusting.See the bit about opinions above from both of us.

What I've said is based on things that've been told to me by _authorative sources_.Again. I challenge you to publicly disclose those "authoritative sources". If you fear public disclosure, privately is always an option.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion.I don't believe that my statement of you misinforming our readers is an opinion. But thanks anyways.

Which staff? Of course you won't name anyone --- because it isn't true.

I believe I already stated that I won't name my source. *checks* Yep, I did. I think the more you all (staff) talk this to death, the more people are going to be scratching their heads and wondering why everyone is getting so emotional.

I believe I already stated that I won't name my source. *checks* Yep, I did. I think the more you all (staff) talk this to death, the more people are going to be scratching their heads and wondering why everyone is getting so emotional.

Ok so it is OK for you to come over here, slap down some *stuff*; and not provide evidence, and think for even a second that people will believe it? Ha!

Ok so it is OK for you to come over here, slap down some *stuff*; and not provide evidence, and think for even a second that people will believe it? Ha!

Is it ok? Yes, as far as I know it is. I didn't say it because I thought it would necessarily be believed. I said it because it's true. I'm fully accustomed to saying and doing things that aren't perceived by everyone as being right; this is no different.

I know
You know absolutely nothing. Just more lies from someone wanting some spotlight.

No sir, I provided you with an account of communications I've received that I know to be somewhat authorative. The fact that I did so should indicate that I believe a possibility exists, again, having no knowledge of what goes on "behind the curtain". I've received authoritative information that you are a scammer. Wonder why WHT refuses to ban you based on it.

I've received authoritative information that you are a scammer. Wonder why WHT refuses to ban you based on it.

You are WHT; if it's true then why don't you?

(I'm going to assume for the moment that this is sarcasm, as we've done nothing of the sort.)

He's not going to give his sources

It's because he has no "sources". The claim has no basis in fact, and his claim of not giving up the source is a convenient dodge, nothing more.

No sir, I provided you with an account of communications I've received that I know to be somewhat authorative.

"somewhat authorative[sic]"?
From being very sure and convinced, this sounds like backpedaling. Was it actual current staff that corresponded directly with you, or someone's opinion of something someone might have alluded to when referencing some action by some staff member...or something like that?

wondering why everyone is getting so emotional.

Because you're calling us dishonest and corrupt? Not too hard to fathom that...or is this yet another little dig to raise some doubts? That's the way I see it.

Really. If I call you a liar and a cheat and having no ethical character, I suppose you'd just let it stand.

Yep, I would, because it's laughable.

Well, sir. I call you a liar. You're a bold liar and I won't have your continued attacks against the great staff that keep WHT humming. It might be all fun and games to you. But they take pride in their unbiased moderation of this community.

I haven't attacked your staff; you obviously need to re-read my remarks. All of them. Again, if you found no validity in my reporting, the thing to do is laugh it off as being dumb and unfounded. I already told you it was going to be unfounded with any sort of evidence, yet you continue to harp on it. The more you do so, the more people are going to wonder why.

If all you have left to say in this thread is in regards to my staff or myself, I suggest you leave now.

I've thought about that; clearly this line of discussion about bias should've been over some 15 or 20 hours ago. Aside from further rebuttals with no real substantive value, the only thing of any relevance I can see myself contributing would be a fact-based account of my experience with Chris Gotzmann as a customer of mine, circa December 2005, and the scamming activities he undertook using our services which led to his immediate termination. Of course that has little substantive value also.

Am I being unreasonable?

From most of your other replies in this thread, I'd say you were.

On the topic of Scammers.

What would be the benefit of pushing scammers underground when we can keep them alive and totally in view on WHT where prospective scammed victims can gain foreknowledge about certain individuals & their dubious practises beforehand, thus saving them the hassle scammers could cause them.

As for having a go at SWR and Bear as well as the WHT Mods in general, although I find it quite funny, it's totally uncalled for.

SWR or Bear....corrupt and dishonest? LMAO...not on your Nellie... I've not met any fairer people on here than the gruesome twosome. :)

As Crissic mentioned above...without proof the outlook is futile.

owm

It doesn't ring true to me. I know, as a host it doesn't matter to me what someone is paying - if the rules are being broken. I seriously doubt the mods have the slightest care if someone is an advertiser or not when determining how to run this board.

I seriously doubt the mods have the slightest care if someone is an advertiser or not when determining how to run this board.

Exactly. Not to mention the advertisers don't pay the Moderating Team. They pay iNet.

I seriously doubt the mods have the slightest care if someone is an advertiser or not when determining how to run this board.

Alas....Yet another conspiracy theory. :D

I'm actually waiting patiently for Aussie Bob to stumble across this thread to hear his view on it all.

OWM

Ok so it is OK for you to come over here, slap down some *stuff*; and not provide evidence, and think for even a second that people will believe it? Ha!
For once I agree with you:D

I have never read such a ridiculous topic in my life!!!!

I am a premiun member and I received a warning for violating the signature rules by SoftwareRevue (SWR), as I am a Premium Member and am paying $$ to them each year, should I not be able to get away with it? (The OP's logic not mine). Perhaps I should complain to iNet that SWR did not show me favouritism.

Fine your not happy that they have not banned everyone on your say so, thats your problem.

As for your "sources" the more you refuse to divulge the sources the more everyone is going to think your lying!!!

I've heard people talk about "their" sources literally hundreds of times over the years and of the numerous occassions that the sources have been made known they turn out to be as factually valid as most of them 9/11 videos that are doing the rounds. :stickout:

In other words...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then sure be jesus it'll be a horse. :D

As for warnings lol....I've had a few because I've attacked more people than George W Bush...:blush: and let's just say I can count them in pages rather than individually....so it must follow that I've been treated more than fairly on this board.

OWM

I am a premiun member and I received a warning for violating the signature rules by SoftwareRevue (SWR), as I am a Premium Member and am paying $$ to them each year, should I not be able to get away with it? (The OP's logic not mine). Perhaps I should complain to iNet that SWR did not show me favouritism.

I was thinking maybe I should buy some advertisement space hahahahaha :stickout:

I've heard people talk about "their" sources literally hundreds of times over the years and of the numerous occassions that the sources have been made known they turn out to be as factually valid as most of them 9/11 videos that are doing the rounds. :stickout:

In other words...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then sure be jesus it'll be a horse. :D

As for warnings lol....I've had a few because I've attacked more people than George W Bush...:blush: and let's just say I can count them in pages rather than individually....so it must follow that I've been treated more than fairly on this board.

OWM

3 pages without a shred of evidence from the OP? Wow.

Tical: you either should name your so-called sources (and allow them to be disciplined as appropriate) or accept the fact that nobody with any sense would believe you, and just shut up. As it stands, all I see is someone who is backpeddling faster than a wh*re who has just been caught cheating.

I have no position on the claim that WHT Moderators treat advertisers better than normal members, as I have seen no proof that sways me either way.

But, I think how some of the moderators have responded to the members who have said they believe this has been unacceptable, and honestly, quite rude. I would've thought as a moderator who believes this to not be true, you would've stated that you believe such a claim isn't true, NOT called members liars and claimed that they are just trying to get attention.

Everyone has a right to express their opinion, whether true or not. Let people believe what they want to believe.

... Everyone has a right to express their opinion, whether true or not. Let people believe what they want to believe.
Problem is, the OP didn't state it as an opinion.

I'm sorry, someone calling this staff corrupt just doesn't sit well with me.

If they wish to have that opinion, that's fine. But when they present it as fact, I am going to call them on it.

The staff will ban scammers after the fact. They will wait for the problem to be a emergency.
You seem to know a lot for a new member :eek:
I have no position on the claim that WHT Moderators treat advertisers better than normal members, as I have seen no proof that sways me either way.

Have a word with the many advertisers who have been warned and/or banned. ;)

You seem to know a lot for a new member :eek:

Have a word with the many advertisers who have been warned and/or banned. ;)
possibly too much sine my posts is gone.

The best way to get action is the bottom line. If we all email our hosts asking them not to advertise on WHT until they change policies we would get action. Anyone want to head this effort?

I myself pay companies that advertise here.

I think hosters would be in favor of this since scamming creates alot of cost that get passed down to us.

lol. This is by far one of the funniest threads I've read in my years here at WHT.

It amazes me how some folks can misunderstand the difference between fact and opinion. I can only wish all my opinions were facts. (But the world would be much less fun.)

Anyway... I'm curious to see at what point this thread gets closed down. Surely there can only be so many circles a thread can spin. :)

possibly too much sine my posts is gone.If you wish to discuss why something you posted was moderated, please open a helpdesk ticket.

until they change policies we would get action.

What policy is it you feel needs changing?

I can assure you that INET does not tell mods to give special treatment to anyone. WHT treats everyone fairly, and it's about as simple as that. We like to keep WHT as open as possible, and moderate only what needs to be moderated. Mods are not paid, they do this on their own time. So there is no financial incentive to show bias. This is not a dictatorship. Like bear said, if there is anything that you don't like, you are more than welcome to open a helpdesk ticket.

-Steven

If we all email our hosts asking them not to advertise on WHT until they change policies we would get action. Anyone want to head this effort?


"We" When did Mr 2 posts suddenly be a spokesman for WHT members? :stickout:

Just for the record...if anyone did email their host not to advertise on WHT due to policies and whatever else for that matter I'm pretty sure your mail would either not be read or that the host reading it would urinate himself profusely with laughter.

That's got to be the dumbest suggestion I've heard so far this year....so far so that you even ask someone else to "head this effort"

If WHT or any part of WHT upsets some people so badly....the answer's quite easy....don't visit it but do the rest of the people who are happy with the place a favour and stop trying to lead some 1/2 ars*d minority revolution to hopelessly try and change something that apparently the vast majority of members are happy with.

OWM

It's quite apparent the conspiracy theory is just that.

Let's just put this thread and this particular theory to bed now.

Thread Closed. :wht: