If the BOD on MOFIB would allow political dissent to stand unmolested then there would be no reason to pursue the discussion elsewhere. Unfortunately, they made the decision from pretty much the first day to delete posts and threads as a means to keep the membership from discussing the issues at hand. RDO has been more than incredible in allowing the political dissenters to have a place to post their thoughts where they can stand for all to read. (Thanks!)
What's Going on at MOFIB?
- Thread starter Ret_Talbot
- Start date
- Location
- Waterford, MI
Just a side note... I saw a commercial for a series that HBO is doing on "Free Speech". I think it starts next Monday.
- Location
- Duluth, MN
naesco":26a7alqv said:
Naesco, the short of why we have to post here is because basically we can't have these conversations where they belong (on MOFIB). I founded MOFIB in the spirit of open communication (aka. free speech), and now there's currently a policy of total censorship of "political commentary" @ MOFIB (Again, outlined and quoted from the leadership in earlier posts). I suspect that if you post in praise of the sitting BOD though, they'll gladly let that commentary stand
I'm grateful to the folks at RDO for putting up with this discussion and documentation here.
FWIW,
Matt
- Location
- Duluth, MN
"Gripe Time". Yes, because we all need more disappointing revelations in our lives....
I received this question from a relatively new MOFIB member today. We had been talking about Harelquin Filefish breeding, and he asked this:
That's the second time a MOFIB member has referred to MOFIB as "dead" in the last 24 hours. Seriously.
I frankly did not have any GOOD answer to offer this individual. It should alarm ANY MOFIB member, including the seated BOD, that members, both new and old, are referring to MOFIB as "dead". If we had access to the data, we could probably correlate this dieoff remarkably closely to the end of March. Who's been in charge since the end of March?
BOD members and BOD advisors, I think it's high time you admit to your mistakes and accept responsibility for them and step down. MOFIB and it's members have suffered more than enough at your hands, and there's been more than enough time to show that your policies are what is harming MOFIB. But, since you guys still have the collective delusions that you're helping to grown the organization, I'll put it to the voters who sit here in reality. So to the precious few MOFIB members who still have the right to vote, be sure you vote for the right BOD candidates who will take the necessary steps to get MOFIB back on track. It doesn't work unless they all get in. Don't send 3 candidates into a buzzsaw by letting the wrong candidates be elected.
FWIW,
Matt
I received this question from a relatively new MOFIB member today. We had been talking about Harelquin Filefish breeding, and he asked this:
That's the second time a MOFIB member has referred to MOFIB as "dead" in the last 24 hours. Seriously.
I frankly did not have any GOOD answer to offer this individual. It should alarm ANY MOFIB member, including the seated BOD, that members, both new and old, are referring to MOFIB as "dead". If we had access to the data, we could probably correlate this dieoff remarkably closely to the end of March. Who's been in charge since the end of March?
BOD members and BOD advisors, I think it's high time you admit to your mistakes and accept responsibility for them and step down. MOFIB and it's members have suffered more than enough at your hands, and there's been more than enough time to show that your policies are what is harming MOFIB. But, since you guys still have the collective delusions that you're helping to grown the organization, I'll put it to the voters who sit here in reality. So to the precious few MOFIB members who still have the right to vote, be sure you vote for the right BOD candidates who will take the necessary steps to get MOFIB back on track. It doesn't work unless they all get in. Don't send 3 candidates into a buzzsaw by letting the wrong candidates be elected.
FWIW,
Matt
I want to thank everyone that has nominated me for MOFIB BOD and has contacted me publicly or privately asking me to actually run.
I find myself unsure of what to do. Besides time constraints, which are really neither here nor there, I am not sure how I feel about working with the sitting BOD, and I feel awkward about running in an attempt to oust them. I feel very strange about how the organization has functioned over the last few months and how they have shut down discussion about the election - I should be posting about this on MOFIB but I can't.
Any advice? I am very confused.
I find myself unsure of what to do. Besides time constraints, which are really neither here nor there, I am not sure how I feel about working with the sitting BOD, and I feel awkward about running in an attempt to oust them. I feel very strange about how the organization has functioned over the last few months and how they have shut down discussion about the election - I should be posting about this on MOFIB but I can't.
Any advice? I am very confused.
I'm with you, Thales. I feel the call of duty to the community to accept the nomination but I'm very nonplussed about the possibility of trying to move anything forward with John and Luis. The question becomes, Will there actually be a solid majority of dissenters so anything can actually be changed? And, if some drastic changes don't happen, is the frustration of watching things go down the toilet worth the time and effort of the work that'll be involved? I'm leaning toward accepting the nomination with an almost forlorn hope of trying to recapture some of the magic that the community once held. If it still goes down the tubes, I can at least tell myself that I tried.
Thales, Ummfish,
I really hope you both accept, get elected and can help turn this around. I have not given up on MOFIB yet, but it is close.
I hope to be able lend my support with breeding and helping when the time comes. Even though 1200+- members and myself are considered worthless by the sitting board.
I really hope you both accept, get elected and can help turn this around. I have not given up on MOFIB yet, but it is close.
I hope to be able lend my support with breeding and helping when the time comes. Even though 1200+- members and myself are considered worthless by the sitting board.
GreshamH":3hr7b1gg said:naesco":3hr7b1gg said:
One second you say this thread shouldn't be here, the very next post you offer advice on it? Which is it Wayne, does this thread now meet your approval?
Thales, you know my opinion
Let me make this simple for you Gresham.
1. I questioned the use of this board to air MOFIB linen.
2. Posters politely answered and I accept their answers.
3. Thales is in a conundrum which we all experience sometimes and asked for advice.
4. I gave Thales good advice.
Wayne
- Location
- Duluth, MN
Two more nominees have shown up on the nominee thread today.
Now, I included that last line because it's important to note that it is 100% invalid (all you have to do is look through the past threads to see that the list stopped at 15 prior, and that these new nominees only showed up today). For the record, that "Last edited" tag is control by software / database. It is NOT something Rook is updating.
As promised, commentary on the nominees (again, we don't know who has even accepted their nominations yet).
#16. DO NOT VOTE FOR Tina Lauth (Lady Baboon) - I have no personal axe to grind with Tina, other than that she is John Lauth's (BaboonScience's) wife. Tina contributed tirelessly and freely as the leader of the translator committee. Sadly, SPK never gave them the software features he promised, which limited their ability to do their job (and then the main contingent of German members go sidetracked in setting up their own German Language sites). My reason for Tina being on my "do not vote" list is very easily two-fold. #1. She won't vote out her husband. #2. Her presence in essence doubles up John Lauth's say in the organization - it is beyond foolish to think that she would vote against her own husband. Her presence on the BOD in conjunction with John would simply be John having 2 votes in my opinion. I don't believe John Lauth has even one IOTA of right to be on the Board at this point, and voters should not reward his efforts to seize control by giving him even more influence over the organization through his wife. I am not saying that Tina can't and won't think for herself, but I would think it's pretty safe to assume she fully supported John's actions of withholding corporate property, illegally removing me from the BOD, and stealing the MOFIB website from the corporate servers. So yeah, NO WAY should Lady Baboon receive a member's vote.
#17. AOMONT is a DEFINITE YES if he choses to accept his nomination. He displayed STRONG leadership as the president of the group overviews committee (leadership which was ultimately DERAILED by the John Lauth & Luis Magnasco on the BOD). Anderson is one of those people who's been very reluctant to accept positions of power - a general hallmark of a person that will use it judiciously and for the best of the organization, not himself.
Ultimately,for any MOFIB members following this thread, we still don't know who has and has not accepted their nominations. The moment I know who my 4 picks are for who should be elected, I will post that information here. Voting in a block gives us the greatest chance of seeing real change in MOFIB. So please stay tuned.
Now, I included that last line because it's important to note that it is 100% invalid (all you have to do is look through the past threads to see that the list stopped at 15 prior, and that these new nominees only showed up today). For the record, that "Last edited" tag is control by software / database. It is NOT something Rook is updating.
As promised, commentary on the nominees (again, we don't know who has even accepted their nominations yet).
#16. DO NOT VOTE FOR Tina Lauth (Lady Baboon) - I have no personal axe to grind with Tina, other than that she is John Lauth's (BaboonScience's) wife. Tina contributed tirelessly and freely as the leader of the translator committee. Sadly, SPK never gave them the software features he promised, which limited their ability to do their job (and then the main contingent of German members go sidetracked in setting up their own German Language sites). My reason for Tina being on my "do not vote" list is very easily two-fold. #1. She won't vote out her husband. #2. Her presence in essence doubles up John Lauth's say in the organization - it is beyond foolish to think that she would vote against her own husband. Her presence on the BOD in conjunction with John would simply be John having 2 votes in my opinion. I don't believe John Lauth has even one IOTA of right to be on the Board at this point, and voters should not reward his efforts to seize control by giving him even more influence over the organization through his wife. I am not saying that Tina can't and won't think for herself, but I would think it's pretty safe to assume she fully supported John's actions of withholding corporate property, illegally removing me from the BOD, and stealing the MOFIB website from the corporate servers. So yeah, NO WAY should Lady Baboon receive a member's vote.
#17. AOMONT is a DEFINITE YES if he choses to accept his nomination. He displayed STRONG leadership as the president of the group overviews committee (leadership which was ultimately DERAILED by the John Lauth & Luis Magnasco on the BOD). Anderson is one of those people who's been very reluctant to accept positions of power - a general hallmark of a person that will use it judiciously and for the best of the organization, not himself.
Ultimately,for any MOFIB members following this thread, we still don't know who has and has not accepted their nominations. The moment I know who my 4 picks are for who should be elected, I will post that information here. Voting in a block gives us the greatest chance of seeing real change in MOFIB. So please stay tuned.
mwp":ecfoi823 said:
The Committee has verified both of the above nominations and both nominations are valid proposed nominations and in accordance with the rules set forth by the BOD.
The "last edited" issue: I am not editing that directly; on behalf of the committee, I asked that a moderator edit the thread to add those two nominees. That current list is an accurate reflection of all proposed nominees.
We are begining to contact proposed nominees to seek their acceptance or decline of the nomination. All accepted nominees will be annouced at the same time on June 28th.
At this point, I have complete confidence in the election process and that the election will result in an accurate reflection of the will of the Voting Members and in accordance with the rules so prescribed. Should anything change my opinion, I will not certify the results; period.
I have refrained from commenting in this thread, but given how Matt is vilifying certain people who might wish to accept their nomination i feel it is prudent.
Thales and Um fish, you wonder if you should accept the nomination, personally i suggest if you feel you have something to offer and you can help improve MOFIB then please do accept, I would hope that these 4 new positions have a broad range of individuals, I think that anyone and everyone can make a posative impact on the place. You both obviously dont agree with parts of the process and some things that have happened, but none the less it has given you a chance to be elected, up until now this has never happened. If you are both thinking about it then make sure your intentions are true to yourself, not others.
As to the rest of the nominees, I think they all bring certain things to the position that are valuable, I think any of them would make a good BOD. I hope that people can see through the rubish of the past and choose people they truly value. I think anyone who accepts the nomination has to do it for the right reasons, and needs to have some things they wish to see MOFIB do and directions for its future.
I hope so peace can bestowed on the elections and that we get a fair and legitimate vote.
I wish you all good luck with your decisions, and even though we not see eye to eye that we could all work together and build a better MOFIB and get all these problems behind us.
Christian
Thales and Um fish, you wonder if you should accept the nomination, personally i suggest if you feel you have something to offer and you can help improve MOFIB then please do accept, I would hope that these 4 new positions have a broad range of individuals, I think that anyone and everyone can make a posative impact on the place. You both obviously dont agree with parts of the process and some things that have happened, but none the less it has given you a chance to be elected, up until now this has never happened. If you are both thinking about it then make sure your intentions are true to yourself, not others.
As to the rest of the nominees, I think they all bring certain things to the position that are valuable, I think any of them would make a good BOD. I hope that people can see through the rubish of the past and choose people they truly value. I think anyone who accepts the nomination has to do it for the right reasons, and needs to have some things they wish to see MOFIB do and directions for its future.
I hope so peace can bestowed on the elections and that we get a fair and legitimate vote.
I wish you all good luck with your decisions, and even though we not see eye to eye that we could all work together and build a better MOFIB and get all these problems behind us.
Christian
I like my board of director counterparts have refrained from posting here and many of the other forums as it is not in the best interest of MOFIB nor these forums. We further felt is disrespectful to spill MOFIB business over the entire web.
However, I feel a statement must be made for many who have been following the drama here to at least provide a glimmer of the other side of this story and admonish this so-called do not vote for hit list.
First, I want to assure all parties that what is occurring on MOFIB is legal, according to the Bylaws in effect governing MOFIB and in MOFIB's best interest. Should anyone disagree, I suggest you consult an attorney at your own expense. MOFIB's Bylaws are almost entirely untouched by the new Board of Directors even though they were poorly drafted by their author. The current board has chosen to correct them only after a full body of directors are available to do it correctly and in accordance with members wishes. To have a proper election the "voting members" had to be clearly defined. This is a requirement by law. The way the previous description of the membership was drafted members essentially had NO vote. Ironically those who are currently railing against the current elections actually stipulated that all nominees could be substituted at will in the previous version. Any member of MOFIB that signed up before the revision of the bylaws legally had no expectation of a vote to begin with.
The reality is the sitting board have ACTUALLY revised the bylaws to be more inclusive. Furthermore the sitting board are providing a vote for four new board members, knowing this would make it possible for the new members to vote them out. IF the current MOFIB BOD is so entrenching, so villainous, so exclusive, why would we put ourselves at a disadvantage? Because we trust the membership to make the right decisions and feel the new board members will be qualified to do what is really best for MOFIB.
We, the MOFB BOD have appointed an outside committee, encompassing folks who have even criticized us in multiple forums in the past, to provide members with an impartial group whom they could trust to assure the membership a fair election. After all we are all just trying to do what's best for MOFIB.
What disturbs me is that this forum is filled with threats, slander and posts telling people to vote for someone else. This undermines the process of a fair election. There are but a limited few here who have proven there is no satiation for their complaints and anger. These same few are now creating hit lists and slandering good people in an attempt to prevent their nomination acceptance or members from voting for them. This is nothing short of terrorism, that is why it has been removed from MOFIB's forums. This poison serves no purpose but to influence votes and provide the few with a means of rigging an election. They're even so bold as to suggest block voting their will to people. Very poor form.
I trust the MOFIB membership has the faculties to see through this. I have been very disappointed to see friends of many years here lambasting good people trying to do good the best way they can, just to get their way. Anyone who questions or disagrees with their complaints are immediately intimidated. It is shameful.
I would like everyone who is following these events to please realize there are always three sides to each story and should you be in a position to vote for the new board members on MOFIB vote for a candidate who's statement and experience will provide MOFIB the best and balanced board. To cast your vote simply because of someones poisonous slander would truly be a waste.
MOFIB has a bright future should these elections actually reflect the memberships will. Help MOFIB by voting with your opinion and not because someone added them to a list. If not this drama will never end and will ultimately truly be MOFIB's undoing. Please vote your conscience.
To the Reefs.org folks I thank you for allowing me to post here and not assuming a position on this topic, you provide a beautiful forum and I apologize MOFIB has spilled onto your threads.
Mark Vera
MOFIB President
However, I feel a statement must be made for many who have been following the drama here to at least provide a glimmer of the other side of this story and admonish this so-called do not vote for hit list.
First, I want to assure all parties that what is occurring on MOFIB is legal, according to the Bylaws in effect governing MOFIB and in MOFIB's best interest. Should anyone disagree, I suggest you consult an attorney at your own expense. MOFIB's Bylaws are almost entirely untouched by the new Board of Directors even though they were poorly drafted by their author. The current board has chosen to correct them only after a full body of directors are available to do it correctly and in accordance with members wishes. To have a proper election the "voting members" had to be clearly defined. This is a requirement by law. The way the previous description of the membership was drafted members essentially had NO vote. Ironically those who are currently railing against the current elections actually stipulated that all nominees could be substituted at will in the previous version. Any member of MOFIB that signed up before the revision of the bylaws legally had no expectation of a vote to begin with.
The reality is the sitting board have ACTUALLY revised the bylaws to be more inclusive. Furthermore the sitting board are providing a vote for four new board members, knowing this would make it possible for the new members to vote them out. IF the current MOFIB BOD is so entrenching, so villainous, so exclusive, why would we put ourselves at a disadvantage? Because we trust the membership to make the right decisions and feel the new board members will be qualified to do what is really best for MOFIB.
We, the MOFB BOD have appointed an outside committee, encompassing folks who have even criticized us in multiple forums in the past, to provide members with an impartial group whom they could trust to assure the membership a fair election. After all we are all just trying to do what's best for MOFIB.
What disturbs me is that this forum is filled with threats, slander and posts telling people to vote for someone else. This undermines the process of a fair election. There are but a limited few here who have proven there is no satiation for their complaints and anger. These same few are now creating hit lists and slandering good people in an attempt to prevent their nomination acceptance or members from voting for them. This is nothing short of terrorism, that is why it has been removed from MOFIB's forums. This poison serves no purpose but to influence votes and provide the few with a means of rigging an election. They're even so bold as to suggest block voting their will to people. Very poor form.
I trust the MOFIB membership has the faculties to see through this. I have been very disappointed to see friends of many years here lambasting good people trying to do good the best way they can, just to get their way. Anyone who questions or disagrees with their complaints are immediately intimidated. It is shameful.
I would like everyone who is following these events to please realize there are always three sides to each story and should you be in a position to vote for the new board members on MOFIB vote for a candidate who's statement and experience will provide MOFIB the best and balanced board. To cast your vote simply because of someones poisonous slander would truly be a waste.
MOFIB has a bright future should these elections actually reflect the memberships will. Help MOFIB by voting with your opinion and not because someone added them to a list. If not this drama will never end and will ultimately truly be MOFIB's undoing. Please vote your conscience.
To the Reefs.org folks I thank you for allowing me to post here and not assuming a position on this topic, you provide a beautiful forum and I apologize MOFIB has spilled onto your threads.
Mark Vera
MOFIB President
Clownfish75":30s0qo9g said:
I dont think you should be allowed to comment. You remove other peoples comments on MOFIB, you should have yours removed here so you know how it feels :mrgreen:
But your censoring comments from anyone that doesn't think your just doing a swell job. And you've also changed the voting status of about 1200 members. So the anyone and everyone is not true.
This would be nice but it is yet to be seen.
No offense, Mark, but that is a problem entirely of the board of directors' making. If you wanted conversations to occur at MOFIB then you should have let peoples' posts stand unmolested. As it is, _your_ policies are the reason that the discussion was carried over here. Any time you want to change your policies to allow members to carry on full and unhindered discussions about MOFIB business at MOFIB, you let us know.
Also, I'm not sure I understand how endorsements and discussion about who you think will make a good director undermine the "fair election" process. In fact, I think stifling discussion at MOFIB and deleting posts discussing the election undermine the fair election process. I would tell you this at MOFIB, but I'm not allowed to talk about the election there. :roll:
Mark,
I am sorry, but with my conversation with you via email and your actions on MOFIB's site, you have no credibility with me. The rest of the board is in the same boat. Your actions(and the boards, mods) speak louder than your plea here. How can you even pretend to have fair elections when you change who can vote before an election? You may think the election is legal and fair but how could you even think they are right, proper and more inclusive. Lets see, 1600 or so members that are able to vote, say 25% are non existent due to moving on and such, so now we have 1200 but only 400 or so, are elegible to vote. I really am not sure how you define more inclusive.
There really is no reason for me to express my views at MOFIB since the mods and bod disagree with my posts and they delete them. I nominate somebody, I am told I am not eligible to nominate, I respond, My responses are deleted along with a few days worth of posts.
How can I believe in you, the board, the mods or the site at this time??? Oh thats right, I am supposed to have patience and go back to breeding...let the big boys solve everything and don't worry my pretty little bald head about it. (I use pretty rather loosely there)
I am sorry, but with my conversation with you via email and your actions on MOFIB's site, you have no credibility with me. The rest of the board is in the same boat. Your actions(and the boards, mods) speak louder than your plea here. How can you even pretend to have fair elections when you change who can vote before an election? You may think the election is legal and fair but how could you even think they are right, proper and more inclusive. Lets see, 1600 or so members that are able to vote, say 25% are non existent due to moving on and such, so now we have 1200 but only 400 or so, are elegible to vote. I really am not sure how you define more inclusive.
There really is no reason for me to express my views at MOFIB since the mods and bod disagree with my posts and they delete them. I nominate somebody, I am told I am not eligible to nominate, I respond, My responses are deleted along with a few days worth of posts.
How can I believe in you, the board, the mods or the site at this time??? Oh thats right, I am supposed to have patience and go back to breeding...let the big boys solve everything and don't worry my pretty little bald head about it. (I use pretty rather loosely there)
- Location
- Duluth, MN
I think the past few posts can stand on their own and don't need a point-by-point response. Well, maybe they do, because apparently I've done the following:
#1. Slander - Technically, in writing it is not slander, but libel, and it all falls under defamation. And for defamation to happen, it requires me to lie. Of course, Mr Vera has shown he is all to willing too allow me to quote board meeting minutes, then change them, and call me a liar. And of course, he's allowed as a BOD member to call me a liar, but I'm not allowed to do the same, in kind. Anyone who's read through this 12+ pages know I quote what people have written and I quote items like the bylaws, board minutes, forum posts, whatever other rules the MOFIB BOD wants to throw around. I don't pull my arguments out of thin air. I'll stand by my words. I have not defamed anyone. If something is an OPINION, that does not constitute slander either Mr. Vera.
#2. Written the Original Bylaws - Mark implies, but never states, that I wrote the bylaws. Sadly, no, I did not write the original bylaws. The original bylaws were written by John Lauth (BaboonScience). Anyone who wants to take umbrance with the original author of the bylaws needs to take their problems up with "Dr. John". We all discussed them, we all recognized they were imperfect, but we all signed them together, and we all understood the full intent that ALL registered website members were to be voting members. I have clearly outlined that fact many times over, including providing the original bylaws as evidence. I may have have outlined that here...who knows...maybe it's in one of the myriad of removed threads and posts that were originally posted at MOFIB.
I will further state that no one can easily Fact Check Mr. Vera's claims that the MOFIB bylaws were "barely touched", as the original bylaws are no longer anywhere on MOFIB's site. Mark Vera is in personal posession of copies of the originally signed bylaws, so he knows the truth just as well as I do. Mr. Vera, who is all about doing things "by the book", perhaps needs to look into the state laws that govern how bylaws are to be properly amended.
Where Mr. Vera reveals the BOD's "true colors" is where he has now equated my public statements of who I feel MOFIB members should and should not vote for to a "hitlist". And then refers to my actions as "nothing short of terrorism".
Apparently, it is Mark Vera's stance that MOFIB cannot have a fair election unless dissent is not allowed to occur. Has Mr. Vera never heard a campaign ad? Has he never heard of a political party? Has he never heard of endorsements from labor unions, businesses, fellow politicians and influential community members.
Being the main founder of MOFIB (or "primary cofounder if you prefer a more exact description) and the largest single contributor in a myriad of measures, I'm more than entitled to a say in this process. Seeing that I was clearly illegally removed from the organization (Mark the state law is quoted quite visibly and clearly earlier in this thread - do your homework), and seeing that I chose to save MOFIB by resigning so that Mr. Vera could have a CHANCE at maybe steering MOFIB in the right direction, I believe no one is better qualified to to speak to the direction and future of the organization, and no one has sacrificed more in an attempt to keep MOFIB on track. Mr. Vera has been a member of MOFIB for 3 months (joined March 20th, 2009). I'm the first freakin' member of the organization (Feb 17, 2007). Mr. Vera has 174 posts in total, of which 110 are public. Of those 110 public comments, over half are restricted explicity to the BOD Elections forum. For comparison - I have 6338 public posts for comparison, and the software can't even calculate which threads and forums I'm most active in! Unlike Mr. Vera, I have worked with just about everyone who's ever been involved with MOFIB, including all those supports who never post and are not even members of the site. It certainly seems to me that one of us is more than qualified to speak about the entire course of MOFIB, the vision it was founded under, and how the members of the sitting BOD have virtually destroyed the community that made MOFIB special.
Mr. Vera, I gave you my fully cooperation, my trust, my patience and my support. By all means, look back in this thread...you were given a blank slate just like everyone else. In turn, I watched you use that to only server the sitting BOD's interests. With the small actions and statements and omissions and lies, you erroded that trust. You committed several clerical mistakes, and did not seek to correct them, but instead to cover them up or just 'forget about them". With no respect, I think I'm qualified to say "put a sock in it".
Perhaps Mr. Vera would be more comfortable in a country other than the United States, because clearly he is not in favor of free speech & the right to assemble, because apparently if individual people come together and suggest a course of action and how to vote, that constitutes "vote rigging". The only people who have the potential to rig the vote are the people who come up with the rules & control the voting software. Me and other disenfranchised members here can't rig the election. YOU CAN.
I guess I can sum it up pretty succinctly. Why have Mr. Vera and Mr. Hoffman sat silently all this time, only to come here to Reefs.org now? Is it because apparently, silencing political debate on MOFIB wasn't enough to ensure the election that THEY envision? Is it because they are now legitimately concerned that the potential results of this election will have them out of MOFIB in short order? For someone as legally and politically savy as Mr. Vera presents himself here, it certainly seems like an act of desperation to come here only days before the election, spilling his own "poison" here. Maybe the dissent is starting to finally crack holes in the BOD's reinforced cone of political silence?
Of course, I'll put it to you all the same way Mr. Vera does. Judge for yourself. If you really want to have fun, read through this thread twice. One time, put all your trust in the BOD. The other time, put all your trust in the comments of members who AREN'T part of the BOD. And then make the call.
#1. Slander - Technically, in writing it is not slander, but libel, and it all falls under defamation. And for defamation to happen, it requires me to lie. Of course, Mr Vera has shown he is all to willing too allow me to quote board meeting minutes, then change them, and call me a liar. And of course, he's allowed as a BOD member to call me a liar, but I'm not allowed to do the same, in kind. Anyone who's read through this 12+ pages know I quote what people have written and I quote items like the bylaws, board minutes, forum posts, whatever other rules the MOFIB BOD wants to throw around. I don't pull my arguments out of thin air. I'll stand by my words. I have not defamed anyone. If something is an OPINION, that does not constitute slander either Mr. Vera.
#2. Written the Original Bylaws - Mark implies, but never states, that I wrote the bylaws. Sadly, no, I did not write the original bylaws. The original bylaws were written by John Lauth (BaboonScience). Anyone who wants to take umbrance with the original author of the bylaws needs to take their problems up with "Dr. John". We all discussed them, we all recognized they were imperfect, but we all signed them together, and we all understood the full intent that ALL registered website members were to be voting members. I have clearly outlined that fact many times over, including providing the original bylaws as evidence. I may have have outlined that here...who knows...maybe it's in one of the myriad of removed threads and posts that were originally posted at MOFIB.
I will further state that no one can easily Fact Check Mr. Vera's claims that the MOFIB bylaws were "barely touched", as the original bylaws are no longer anywhere on MOFIB's site. Mark Vera is in personal posession of copies of the originally signed bylaws, so he knows the truth just as well as I do. Mr. Vera, who is all about doing things "by the book", perhaps needs to look into the state laws that govern how bylaws are to be properly amended.
Where Mr. Vera reveals the BOD's "true colors" is where he has now equated my public statements of who I feel MOFIB members should and should not vote for to a "hitlist". And then refers to my actions as "nothing short of terrorism".
Apparently, it is Mark Vera's stance that MOFIB cannot have a fair election unless dissent is not allowed to occur. Has Mr. Vera never heard a campaign ad? Has he never heard of a political party? Has he never heard of endorsements from labor unions, businesses, fellow politicians and influential community members.
Being the main founder of MOFIB (or "primary cofounder if you prefer a more exact description) and the largest single contributor in a myriad of measures, I'm more than entitled to a say in this process. Seeing that I was clearly illegally removed from the organization (Mark the state law is quoted quite visibly and clearly earlier in this thread - do your homework), and seeing that I chose to save MOFIB by resigning so that Mr. Vera could have a CHANCE at maybe steering MOFIB in the right direction, I believe no one is better qualified to to speak to the direction and future of the organization, and no one has sacrificed more in an attempt to keep MOFIB on track. Mr. Vera has been a member of MOFIB for 3 months (joined March 20th, 2009). I'm the first freakin' member of the organization (Feb 17, 2007). Mr. Vera has 174 posts in total, of which 110 are public. Of those 110 public comments, over half are restricted explicity to the BOD Elections forum. For comparison - I have 6338 public posts for comparison, and the software can't even calculate which threads and forums I'm most active in! Unlike Mr. Vera, I have worked with just about everyone who's ever been involved with MOFIB, including all those supports who never post and are not even members of the site. It certainly seems to me that one of us is more than qualified to speak about the entire course of MOFIB, the vision it was founded under, and how the members of the sitting BOD have virtually destroyed the community that made MOFIB special.
Mr. Vera, I gave you my fully cooperation, my trust, my patience and my support. By all means, look back in this thread...you were given a blank slate just like everyone else. In turn, I watched you use that to only server the sitting BOD's interests. With the small actions and statements and omissions and lies, you erroded that trust. You committed several clerical mistakes, and did not seek to correct them, but instead to cover them up or just 'forget about them". With no respect, I think I'm qualified to say "put a sock in it".
Perhaps Mr. Vera would be more comfortable in a country other than the United States, because clearly he is not in favor of free speech & the right to assemble, because apparently if individual people come together and suggest a course of action and how to vote, that constitutes "vote rigging". The only people who have the potential to rig the vote are the people who come up with the rules & control the voting software. Me and other disenfranchised members here can't rig the election. YOU CAN.
I guess I can sum it up pretty succinctly. Why have Mr. Vera and Mr. Hoffman sat silently all this time, only to come here to Reefs.org now? Is it because apparently, silencing political debate on MOFIB wasn't enough to ensure the election that THEY envision? Is it because they are now legitimately concerned that the potential results of this election will have them out of MOFIB in short order? For someone as legally and politically savy as Mr. Vera presents himself here, it certainly seems like an act of desperation to come here only days before the election, spilling his own "poison" here. Maybe the dissent is starting to finally crack holes in the BOD's reinforced cone of political silence?
Of course, I'll put it to you all the same way Mr. Vera does. Judge for yourself. If you really want to have fun, read through this thread twice. One time, put all your trust in the BOD. The other time, put all your trust in the comments of members who AREN'T part of the BOD. And then make the call.
Actually, there is a thread in the works Andy. I thought you were aware of it. While even I think some removals of posts may have been too "Knee Jerk" for lack of a better term, members can't expect to slander people and call it free speech. Forming a hit list and TELLING people not to vote for someone is not acceptable. We have even seen our own political campaigning in the United States being cleaned up since this type of behavior benefits no one. A discussion of who you like and dislike will always be a allowed, but show me how these are fair statements:
This vote is not a forum to grind old axes. If someone is competent then why would you rail against them. Because you don't like who they married?
Again, Matt is absolutely entitled to his opinion. Yet here Spawner is slandered, in effect saying his friendship with John makes him a bad board member. What next Johns mail man?
So anyone who has tried to help in the last three months is now exempt from a vote. More alarming Matt compares her to a criminal. Again, slander.
They've caused incredible harm to MOFIB, and I believe they do so because they feel they are not getting what they feel entitled to. Both of these members are responsible for abusing the moderator powers, and they play an active role in the ongoing censorship of member posts - Where is the proof? Incredible Harm! Besides calling the kettle black this type of relentless hatred cannot be allowed to be snactioned by any board. Show me where the board slams members like this?
Again, calling actions illegal and inuendo
Again, libelous rhetoric
If someone wants to state they don't like a candidate because in their opinion they can't fulfill the responsibilities that's fine. Unsubstantiated, slander and opinions on unrelated attributes is wrong and unfair. Free speech is only free when it doesn't affect someones ability to speak or defames their character.
Show me where these statements help or contribute to the greater good. They only serve to discredit good people in the interest of ones opinion. That is why they are not allowed on MOFIB.
More importantly since the nominees haven't even had a chance to accept or decline the nomination this only serves to intimidate the potential candidates and limit their ability to defend themselves. Also for the record this thread was opened long before the MOFIB user agreement was being more aggressively enforced. What is the excuse for dragging reefs.org into the mess then?
Quite honestly the fact that you have no history on any of these boards and the fact that you have shown no personal interest in the well being of any of these organizations leaves me with a mutual opinion and unconcerned.
And for the record Matt I will not engage you as it serves no good. We are having fair and legal elections. I will always speak in any way I feel will benefit MOFIB and help serve it's goal. If you judge my decent as a breach of trust so be it, I am no ones shill, not even yours.
This vote is not a forum to grind old axes. If someone is competent then why would you rail against them. Because you don't like who they married?
Again, Matt is absolutely entitled to his opinion. Yet here Spawner is slandered, in effect saying his friendship with John makes him a bad board member. What next Johns mail man?
So anyone who has tried to help in the last three months is now exempt from a vote. More alarming Matt compares her to a criminal. Again, slander.
They've caused incredible harm to MOFIB, and I believe they do so because they feel they are not getting what they feel entitled to. Both of these members are responsible for abusing the moderator powers, and they play an active role in the ongoing censorship of member posts - Where is the proof? Incredible Harm! Besides calling the kettle black this type of relentless hatred cannot be allowed to be snactioned by any board. Show me where the board slams members like this?
Again, calling actions illegal and inuendo
Again, libelous rhetoric
If someone wants to state they don't like a candidate because in their opinion they can't fulfill the responsibilities that's fine. Unsubstantiated, slander and opinions on unrelated attributes is wrong and unfair. Free speech is only free when it doesn't affect someones ability to speak or defames their character.
Show me where these statements help or contribute to the greater good. They only serve to discredit good people in the interest of ones opinion. That is why they are not allowed on MOFIB.
More importantly since the nominees haven't even had a chance to accept or decline the nomination this only serves to intimidate the potential candidates and limit their ability to defend themselves. Also for the record this thread was opened long before the MOFIB user agreement was being more aggressively enforced. What is the excuse for dragging reefs.org into the mess then?
Quite honestly the fact that you have no history on any of these boards and the fact that you have shown no personal interest in the well being of any of these organizations leaves me with a mutual opinion and unconcerned.
And for the record Matt I will not engage you as it serves no good. We are having fair and legal elections. I will always speak in any way I feel will benefit MOFIB and help serve it's goal. If you judge my decent as a breach of trust so be it, I am no ones shill, not even yours.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
