DIYers be careful

[Anonymous]

Randy,

Well said!

Why do you feel that we need to justify our decisions to you? The arrogance in that statement is astounding.

Because you want an apology, and you said Dr.Reef would agree with you if he had the facts you did. The arrogance of saying you have facts that make things clear, but aren't sharing, is astounding.

I am confused. Above you say we kept the reasons secret, and here you criticize the overtness of our decision. You either are inconsistent or need to buy a dictionary and look up "overtness".

It is very clear that he said your actions were overt, but your reasons were/are secret.

I didn't come over here as a moderator of RC. I came over here because I don't appreciate being called a nazi.

Actually, you did. You came over as a moderator of RC who didn't like being called a nazi. It says moderator in your sig, and you used the word 'we'.

I find your insults and name calling to be distasteful, out of line and think they cast an ugly shadow on you and the board you moderate.

RR

 

[randy holmes-farley]

but I felt (& still do) that they used their position as a potential source of revenue to arm twist a bit.

Let me dispell your worries along those lines. Most of the moderator comments in our discussion would not pass the profanity filters, and the possibility that our decisions were or are impacted by the fact that they might not, at some distant time in the future, ante up a small sponsorship fee, is just ridiculous.

 

[randy holmes-farley]

duplicate that I can't delete

 

[ErikS]

Most of the moderator comments in our discussion would not pass the profanity filters,

Okay, okay....UNCLE! I give up on the "arm twisting part", after all I can't argue with a statement this funny :lol:

I'm still sticking with "heavy handed though" :wink:

 

[esmithiii]

Randy-

I think that RC did the right thing when they removed the original post, the one with the plans, etc. What I don't understand is why RC closed, and then removed the thread that explained why the first thread was removed. The second thread included responses from Aquarium Currents and others that did not agree with the decision to remove the original thread.

Maybe you could explain why the second thread was closed (locked) and then removed? I am simply curious as to the reasoning. Please don't take this as criticism, just as a request for more information.

Ernie

 

[dizzy]

Randy, Brian,

I agree with Ernie. Why don't you just put the second thread back up and let it go for awhile.

MG

 

[Anemone]

Interesting discussion.

As has been pointed out, AC is not a sponsor (wow, if they were a sponsor, RC would get slammed for caving to a sponsor. They're not a sponsor, so RC gets slammed for caving to a potential sponsor...how exactly does one come out ahead in this issue and not be "spineless"?).

The discussion thread in the DIY area that was closed and had posts deleted was originally meant to be a "sticky" notification only. When it was realized that people were replying, it was closed and the comments removed. A discussion of the issue is ongoing in the vendors experience forum (appropriate, no?). Agu, a moderator at RC has specifically asked Ed at AC if RC could post the emails and PMs that went back and forth so that the membership could decide for themselves on the issue (since Ed is proclaiming complete innocence in the matter). So far, he hasn't responded.

As others have indicated, we've had more than a few differences concerning how it would be best to handle the matter. The crux of the matter was that RC did receive messages from Ed and his lawyer indicating that unless the DIY thread was removed, RC would be violating AC's patent. Whether RC "read anything into" those messages or not can really only be settled by letting all interested parties see the email/PM exchanges. We'll see if Ed agrees...if not, form your own opinions...

I don't like being referred to as "spineless" and a "nazi." Interboard bashing is counterproductive, and IMO, the two best boards on the 'net shouldn't stoop to it.

FWIW,
Kevin

 

[SPC]

Posted by Erik S:

Exactly, you might not be aware but I'm not accusing them of a criminal act so why do I need proof?

-Because you made a statement that accused certain persons of being unethical Eric, with apparenyly zero proof. Do you find yourself doing this often? Do you post something about someones character and not have any facts to back it up??

It's my opinion of the situation. If you'll both notice I put the term "sponsorship" in quotes, which when I posted it was used to denote an imprecise term. I am aware they are not a sponsor, but I felt (& still do) that they used their position as a potential source of revenue to arm twist a bit. Again, I am referring to the thread discussing the posts, not the DIY information.

-So then it is still your opinion that one of reasons that the moderators at RC closed this thread was to try and get AS to sponsor the board.?.

And yes, the disclaimer means just that, it's MY OPINION. Nothing more, nothing less.

-I didn't realize someone would use this as a blanket statement to free themselves from having any actual facts when they are accusing people of unethical practices :roll: .
Steve

 

[ErikS]

....

 

[hcs3]

eriks, (dr reef may want to pay attention also)

you might not be aware but I'm not accusing them of a criminal act so why do I need proof?

you need proof thanks to a term called "defamation."

defamation

\Def`a*ma"tion\, n. [OE. diffamacioun, F. diffamation. See Defame.] Act of injuring another's reputation by any slanderous communication, written or oral; the wrong of maliciously injuring the good name of another; slander; detraction; calumny; aspersion.

of course, if you state it is your opinion just prior to the statement, it is not defamation. however, you did not do that. you do, however, have a nifty little "catch all" in your signature line.

of course, RC mods can file a lawsuit against you, causing you to spend obsene amounts of money, just to find out if your "catch all" applies in this situation - or you can just remove or reword your comments.

henry

 

[SPC]

Posted by Eric S:

Unethical? Huh? Who said that? If RC did decide to do something at the behest of a sponsor it certainly wouldn't be unethical. I might find it annoying, but I certainly wouldn't call it unethical.

Please feel free to quote where I called it unethical.

-Oh I see, your accusations that RC is having their arm twisted by a "sponsor" was not meant as unethical :wink: , (BTW, you left the quotes off the sponsor above).
Do you believe that RC takes the "sponsors" side over the members of the board then?
Steve

 

[jamesw]

You know what? Things sure were a lot more fun on the internet when bulletin boards were for hobbyists to share information.

I'm guessing that by the time the day is through I will have a post from every single RC moderator here and then a bunch of private messages and emails from the exact same folks asking me to close the thread "for the good of the hobby." :roll:

I would really appreciate if everyone would just take a "time out" from this one - because I don't like the direction this is heading one bit.

I think the original point of the post is still very important (what is "fair" to post as DIY info) and I would like to see this discussion remain civil. So how about we drop the namecalling, threats of lawsuits, and inter-board rivalry for a while, ok? Thanks for your understanding.

James Wiseman

 

[ErikS]

........

In keeping with the Admin's wishes I've deleted all my comments since it appears everyone is more interested in my opinion than the issue.

I will close by saying -

1. I wouldn't ever condone nor encourage a patent violation
2. I would never consider RC's actions unethical

 

[SPC]

Posted by Erik S:

Do they? I have no idea.

-Hmmm, well this sure is alot different than where we started this discussion where you stated:

What I also find annoying is that they used their "sponsorship" to get the thread locked & deleted, makes them look even worse.

I will just presume that you have changed your mind about this part of the topic then.

You mean to say that you don't listen to your clients?

-Not if they wanted me to do anything unethical.

Steve

 

[Anemone]

I'm guessing that by the time the day is through I will have a post from every single RC moderator here and then a bunch of private messages and emails from the exact same folks asking me to close the thread "for the good of the hobby." :roll:

:roll: Thank you, but I can stand up for myself - you won't be receiving that PM or email from me.

Kevin

 

[jamesw]

Thanks Kev. I appreciate a level head in this thread.

Cheers
James Wiseman

 

[wombat1]

Interboard bashing is counterproductive, and IMO, the two best boards on the 'net shouldn't stoop to it.

Well said. We all like reefs, right?? I personally like both boards and have never had a problem at RC.

 

[Anonymous]

Because you want an apology, and you said Dr.Reef would agree with you if he had the facts you did. The arrogance of saying you have facts that make things clear, but aren't sharing, is astounding.

No, it is recognizing the fact that YOU have no rights to that information. Why should private correspondence be shared?

It is very clear that he said your actions were overt, but your reasons were/are secret.

A Clintonian excuse if I ever saw one.

Actually, you did. You came over as a moderator of RC who didn't like being called a nazi. It says moderator in your sig, and you used the word 'we'.

I have moderator in my signature because I don't want anyone to have the impression that I am pretending to be an unbiased party. Some of us have some ethics. Others need them.

I find your insults and name calling to be distasteful, out of line and think they cast an ugly shadow on you and the board you moderate.

I assume you see the same ugly shadow on this board, since obviously you must be horrified with the name calling ("nazis", "gutless lackey") practiced here.

BTW, you might check your facts before you post. There was no name calling in any of my posts. Sorry that once again the facts escape you.

Brian

 

[hcs3]

erik

this is too funny. you accuse RC of being gutless lackeys because we removed a few threads that may possibly violate patent laws.

however, now that the tables are turned on you, you quickly remove everyone of your posts on this thread after it is pointed out you may possibly have violated defamation laws.

thank you for demonstrating my point.

 

[esmithiii]

erik

this is too funny. you accuse RC of being gutless lackeys because we removed a few threads that may possibly violate patent laws.

however, now that the tables are turned on you, you quickly remove everyone of your posts on this thread after it is pointed out you may possibly have violated defamation laws.

thank you for demonstrating my point.

LMAOROTF!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: