Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caruso
I think we should all be damn grateful that serious discussions are now taking place
I mean, screw Cardspike / Absolute Slots, the CAP ownership issue and the larger picture of monumental conflicts of interests which result in an unfair playing field for all.
Screw unfair terms in casino contracts that entitle casinos like Fortune Lounge to rob players and Grand Privé to rob affiliates.
Message board avatars: ahh, now that is where it's at.
Hugs and kisses to everyone,
Caruso (Love Bunny)
Look, I might have an account at the moment on the CAP website, and perhaps I should not use it at all. But I firmly believe I will not have that account at all if I use it to initiate threads that CAP views as controversial within their own forum. Others like Dominique need to do that. About the most I feel I can do there is explain the situation as I see it with respect to a topic that has been raised by others with the hope that it will either help make others aware of the issue or perhaps change the way CAP handles certain situations. There are some here who seem to think it is bad to help CAP improve at all. Personally, I'm willing to try to help those I think are on the wrong path move closer to the right path, even when that is not on the most important issues. But I do view the banning and avatar-changing issues as being of importance even though I would certainly agree there are many other important issues, and many issues which some might view as more important. But I'd also say the banning issue is more important than it might appear on the surface as compared with other issues because banning and censorship restrict the freedom to discuss other issues, and without those freedoms it is very difficult to make progress in the case of conflict.
In the forum on the CAP website started by Dominique about CAP banning practices Lou made the following statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
Daera you have continually expressed views which I would find non supportive of CAP and we havent banned you. We have 8100+ members who havent been banned. The only people who have been banned in months were Michael and Steven Corfman and I did that in response to the constant negativitiy I was seeing about CAP in their videos and on the message board and polls. I dont think that was uncalled for given the hostility.
In response I made the following statement to try to set the record straight and to expose some of the issues webmasters had complained about in the thread about CAP bannings here:
Quote:
Since I'm currently unbanned here (thank you Dom), I would like to respectfully disagree with this statement. At the time Steven and I were banned we had made no negative statements. We were banned after we acquired the APCW. At that point in time there were no negative videos, no negative polls, and no negative posts of any sort anytime at all in probably a year. In fact, it was in response to the banning that we took the first "negative poll" took place on the GPWA website - and that was one that questioned the banning practices of CAP. It struck a strong cord among affiliates, and an outcry against activities such as changing avatars in a way that was offensive to the person whose avatar was changed, editing posts to change their meaning, and in some cases making posts under a persons account when they had not made a post themselves.
Lou responded as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
Dom didnt unban you by the way I did as we discussed at the London meeting. Dom is a moderator not an admin. Can I ask your courtesy in not taking our hospitality for granted and going on the offensive here in our forums? I dont do that in yours and I would appreciate if you afforded me the same professional courtesy.
The message that I was treading a bit to close to the line was pretty clear there. So I responded as follows:
Quote:
I was not trying to go on the offensive, and I apologize if it came off that way. I was just trying to point out that the reason you gave for banning Steven and I was, in my opinion, inconsistent with the circumstances at the time. But I don't want to belabor that point since we are not banned now. I do want to point out that the types of rules Dom suggested in the initial post in this thread are good ones from my perspective because in my opinion we would not have been banned if such rules had been followed at the time.
Also, I would like to point out, because I just discovered it, that my avatar was evidently changed to a clown. I'd like to suggest that CAP adopt a new philosophy that it is not appropriate to make avatar changes like that as part of the banning process when bannings do occur.
Personally, I don't call this being best friends. I call it being friendly but firm. Lou responded as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
I apologize for the inside joke with the Avatar its tame compared to what I have gone though.
Please go to your user control and select one to your liking and I will not modify it again even if we do end up parting ways again. I apologize if my sense of humor offended you but I happen to like Larry Fine's work personally and he wasnt a clown.
I have PMed you. Please call me so we can avoid misunderstandings and please do not agitate threads that have calmed down or challenge our policies. I dont do that at your business and I feel it inappropriate and hostile behavior if you do that here. If you prefer to call Warren please do that. But lets stop the posts in this vein please.
Again peace was offered and discussed in London, let's stay on that path. No one benefits from this constant turmoil and I sincerely want us all to concentrate on expanding the industry and servicing the affiliate sector in a positive and professional manner. I hope you agree thats the best course to follow.
And then bonustreak chimed in as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonustreak
I have to say I find the avatar changing very unfair and distasteful. I am going to ask that the Admin please not do this anymore it is humiliating and degrading.
And then Lou replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
I agree it was inappropriate even if I thought it was just being funny. It will not be done again. You have my commitment.
And I closed out the exchange with the following post:
Quote:
Thanks professor, I really appreciate that. Not so much that the change to my avatar upset me personally, because I have a pretty good sense of humor about such things, but I know that has not always been the case with others.
So thank you very much for your commitment to a very positive step forward.
Now it seems some folks here are upset that I thanked to Lou very nicely for a commitment to a positive step forward. Personally, I believe in acknowledging forward movement in one area, even when I am not confident there will be forward movement in another area. And I think that is particularly true when I have exposed a whole truckload of negative issues that need to be addressed. Acknowledging positive steps, however big or small they might be, is, in my opinion, the right human thing to do.
Michael
