Congratulations to IIDB admin and II BOD

[Christina]

There's not much way to know who got them besides those of us who posted it on RnR. I bet a lot of people think that they are the only ones that got it along with Sarpedon.

[Never]

Well, I have to say I appreciate you all sharing so that this lowly iidb mod can get the jist of what the BOD is telling users, at least 2nd or 3rd hand.

And Alcyonian a M@L - who knew. Well, there it is on the Forum Leader list. Huh.

[Hazy Daisy]

For the record, I didn't get one (yet).

I think it's interesting that David B hasn't received one. I think you fairly well matched him in terms of civility with your dissent, did you not, Christina?

I'd like to give them credit for knowing what a bad move sending one to David B (ToM's Chosen one - sorry, David!) would be, but considering how clueless they've been overall, it's hard to do that.

[Christina]

I've been civil at times, but just as often sarcastic and rude about their abilities and performance as a board. It's a bit of a catch 22. I only post there right now about the drama, and if I don't post about that at all so that I don't get banned then I'll be totally bored if I'm not bored, I'm banned.

[Hazy Daisy]

How long do you have to respond to the OAN?

[Christina]

It didn't specify a time frame. From what some of the mods have implied, this was a version that Rob paraphrased from a much harsher statement. I'm sure he meant well, but I don't know wtf it actually means. Some of the people that got it haven't posted more than once or twice about it but it doesn't appear to have gone out to everyone that signed the petition list. No one knows what the selection criteria were to choose us.

[Octavia]

I didn't get one either. Give it time - but I would like to see the person who thinks that they have the gall to send it my way.

And I don't think that the BoD will shut down IIDB. Given the magic $10,000, that would be outright fraud, no interpretations needed. I can't see them going to the trouble of sending it all back, myself.

[Christina]

If they shut it down now they would have to return the donations or be liable for fraud. I don't think that they want it shut down, I think that they want everyone who comes just for the lower forums to be gone, and for it to be a place for serious discussion where community means nodding politely in passing.

And talking about your lunch, of course.

[Anon]

They've banned Spenser, presumably for the following post he made about two hours ago (not sure what forum, but it didn't last long there before disappearing):

Originally Posted by Spenser

Why can't you stop being such complete fucking ignoramuses and instead of attempting to stifle dissent try listening for a change. I thought the whole point of being a free thinker is an open mind?

You may not miss me much but you are losing some incredibly valuable posters who want nothing more than for IIDB to be a place a value in their lives again, instead of just pretending like using the words "moving forward" actually mean anything.

Dissent is what unites so many of us against religion and yet you treat people as if your opinion is dogma and those that disagree can burn in hell.

I doubt you really believe this board is heading in the direction you wish or you wouldn't be so frightened of posts and leaks and go around deleting them and banning people with out so much as a warning. It is like you know you are wrong and you just refuse to admit it.

It probably irks the shit out of you that ToM's power-mad PM is sitting on RnR for the world to see and criticize without fear of moderation and yet that PM is nothing more than truth, (Unless you care to claim Nialler made it up)

Why not at least try to make things right instead of hoping that merely suggesting that you are heading in that direction is going to get you anywhere.

[Gurdur]

Well, it's more than that: it is very clear that II BOD are now on the warpath and insisting that IIDB serve II BOD's own purposes in all things -- including banning those critical of II BOD.

In view of the charity/fraud thing, yes, it seems impossible for them to simply close down IIDB -- but it's still possible to close down a lot of the forums and ban a lot of the users.

In other news: the Announcements forum is not actually set not to be viewed by guests, but instead the forum is set not to show in the forum index, meaning that if you know the URL, you can still go view the Announcements forum even of you are only a guest.

Here is the URL for the Announcements forum.

However, the QP&C forum is still definitely off-view to guests, as you can see (as a guest) by checking the QP&C direct URL for yourself.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Anon

They've banned Spenser, presumably for the following post he made about two hours ago (not sure what forum, but it didn't last long there before disappearing):

Link:

Originally Posted by Aquavita as admin, on IIDB, as the Ban Notice

spenser for useless complaining/spam

[Christina]

I wonder how long it will take to put 'useless complaining' on the list of infraction types to choose from. It can mean any negative comment at all since all of our complaints are seen as useless.

[SwordOfTruth]

Originally Posted by Octavia

I didn't get one either. Give it time - but I would like to see the person who thinks that they have the gall to send it my way.

And I don't think that the BoD will shut down IIDB. Given the magic $10,000, that would be outright fraud, no interpretations needed. I can't see them going to the trouble of sending it all back, myself.

I think Gurdur hit the nail on the head earlier. They won't commit outright fraud. They'll bleed it for a year. It'll be open at least until October 31, 2008 before they choose to shut things down.

Keeping it open, and keeping it the same with the same people are 2 different things.

If IIDB were nothing more than SecWeb feedback, and at the most 1 or 2 tightly integrated forums to go with that whose sole purpose for existing would be to support the SecWeb, I don't think that would count as fraud, either, and I think it'd be more inline with the intent of the BoD.

[azidhak]

I myself got the "friendly" "request" from Mediancat and it was certainly surprising as I don't count myself as a prolific poster (just look at my posting history here* ;)) I told him I respectfully had to decline.
Haakon
* Ok I'll try to post more in non IIDB threads, I promise.

[Christina]

I agree with Alethias - as long as they maintain an internet presence that allows any form of discussion they're fine. It's certainly not ethical by any standards, but it isn't fraud. If they had announced the desired changes, made them and then launched the fundraiser I would have no ethical complaints at all but of course I wouldn't have donated. To initiate it as soon as they got over 90% of the funds by banning the fundraiser and beginning a crackdown is reprehensible.

[Hazy Daisy]

Ha, good luck with that, azidhak.

Christina, I'm curious what makes you certain this is an OAN. (Sorry if the answer's really obvious to you -- it isn't to me.)

[Gurdur]

The people so far who have said that they have received the aforementioned warning:

1. azidhak
2. carin
3. Big D
4. Christina
5. Cynical Chick (a.k.a. links zwo drei vier)
6. epepke
7. hecaterin
8. His Noodly Appendage (a.k.a. jbc)
9. Hotpoint
10. jastity
11. Matt (the medic)
12. Norseman
13. Pavlov's Dog
14. Sarpedon
15. sonofsyd
16. Uncool

I think it's OK to post that here, though if anyone of those people objects, I will remove their name. There doesn't seem much rhyme nor reason as to who got such a warning and who didn't despite making criticisms of II BOD / TOM on IIDB; it seems almsot randomly picked from the lists of critics. Behaviour doesn't seem much of a factor since at least 2 of the list displayed no bad behaviour or even repetitive criticisms.
___________________________
___________________________

This list will now be updated in this new post here , to make life easier for me (couple of other lists in that post too).

[Christina]

I'm fairly sure that it's an OAN because it was from an administrator and it asked for a reply and that's what OAN's are, except that I've never heard of sending out mass generic ones that are purposely vague. The other thing is that they are spot-banning people the moment they post something that the board doesn't like. They banned blackbeard right after they banned spenser - this time for 'useless ranting' and neither of them even got the PM.

[azidhak]

Sarpedon also got this Gurdur. In fact according to Matt, he was on top of the mailinglist. Although I didn't see any other names.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by azidhak

Sarpedon also got this Gurdur. In fact according to Matt, he was on top of the mailinglist. Although I didn't see any other names.

Thanks, list edited in my post above to reflect that.

[Hazy Daisy]

That is really a strange list. What criteria could they possibly be using?

Unless it's being compiled by the new admin, AquaVita, who is entirely clueless as to the details of the October meltdown and subsequent events, but who nevertheless accepts the IIDB's version of said events.

[Christina]

Pavlov's Dog got one too.

ETA: Jubilex just quit.

[hecaterin]

Yes, I got it, I'm fine with that being public. I'm cajela over there. I've posted almost nothing since the end of October, so I'm quite bemused as to why.

I have no idea what an OAN looks like, since the worst warning I ever got was a minor copyright thing. I'm assuming it's not one, since it doesn't say that it is, and asks for a response to the BoD.

[jastity]

I got one too. I thought I'd been very polite about it all, I was surprised. I sent a response in which I showed concern for Rob's level of stress, and talked about the value of open discussion and feedback. Oh and I talked about how accountability and openness relate to bureaucrats in the workplace.

[Christina]

I'm surprised that so many essentially polite people got them. I wonder how many of us there are in all.

ETA:
You an add CC/Links to the list