Breeding tangent from cage safety thread

[salana]

MrsHauler, they were actually warned for breaking rules. stipma broke two rules--making a second account and calling people names--and tweety called people names.

We don't warn, demote, cage, or ban people without them actually breaking a rule. They were also informed by PM (stipma also in public) of the rule(s) they broke.

[Ly&Pigs]

MrsHauler,

I wasnt' talking about me, very clearly I was talking about stipma and tweety where they hadn't broken any rules of this forum yet had their account suspended.

I can point to what they've said or done and give the links to those specific rules if you want to get into this discussion.

These members are NOT banned, they are on moderated posts, if they post, we will make the decision to approve or deny those posts. You cannot tell me their posts are all being denied because the ones they have made so far and only a couple were made, have been approved. They haven't posted anything lately to either approve or deny.

You have stated:

The mods on at the time should have sent a private message, but sometimes things get crazy with multiple people working at the same time that things get missed and we try to make sure it doesn't happen. However we realize that we are human and have busy full lives and sometimes something distracts us and we forget.

Don't you think it's the same way for the staff here? Or do you think we all sit on this forum 24 hours a day waiting to approve posts from our moderated members?

It's really none of your business as to why we put them on moderated posts. But the retaliation your forum is showing to these members is utterly disgraceful. You and the rest of the compendium staff are making "ASSUMPTIONS" that they are only going to your forum to "cause trouble". We could have made the same assumptions about you all that came here, but we didn't. We gave you all a fair and even chance. Some showed that they could behave and some showed they could not. But before "condemning" people just because they are members of this forum based on your assumptions that they "might" cause problems is at the very least like putting an innocent person in jail because someone "thinks" that person committed some crime.

Have you ever heard of the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty"?

[jackie158]

Well thats ironic. I just checked my email and I had another email from stipma saying I have been reinstated. It also thanked me for character slashing her. I dont feel that I have slashed anyone's character here or in compendium. I have only spoke the truth. I have no desire to go to their forum anymore.

[CavySpirit]

I have seen the email Teresa sent to them stating that she didn't have a rule against it yet she essentially banned them.

It bugs me being misquoted. That statement was:

We did not have an explicit rule stated about this because it is ASSUMED that you participate on this forum with your own identity and all members, including administrators and staff know who they are addressing at any given point in time.

And UNTIL I know what happened, I reset the passwords to prevent any further possible security problems.

I have now heard from Stipma and she now has her new password. When I hear from TweetyPie, she'll get hers as well. Since she has not replied to me at all, I don't even know if I have the correct email address for her.

[jackie158]

I am saying sorry now to stipma now, because I just realized that on the 27th Stipma emailed saying I was reinstated. I must have over looked this email. And, I am sorry. I did not see it there before. However, I think it best that I stay away from that forum.
Sorry again.

[VoodooJoint]

Originally Posted by MrsHauler

Honestly jackie, it was a concern that you were coming over with the intention of causing problems. We can never tell what the true intentions are of people and since you were a member here first some mods decided to be proactive perhaps prematurely in your case and I believe your account has been reset as well.

I'm certain that as a reasonably person you find that a bit extreme. You have plenty of members that are both here and on the Comp. Punishing someone because they *might* do something is very harsh. At least one of your mods or admin is a bit out of control. I would expect T to call me out severely if I had taken it upon myself to restrict privileges of members before they did anything to deserve it. In fact I would expect something like that to cause my demotion back to mod or lower.

Originally Posted by MrsHauler

Susan, basically teresa's email stated that because a password was shared between two friends that the account pms have been deleted

I don't believe any PMs have been deleted. I may be wrong on this but I believe their PM priviledges have only been revoked until this mess can be sorted out.

Originally Posted by MrsHauler

it can only be assumed that they wanted to share pm's or post as each other. Teresa also said that she will only reinstate them when an explanation is given and they no longer have pm priviliges.

If they want to share PMs then there is a little button on the bottom of the PM that reads "forward". They can then forward their PMs to whoever they like. There is no need for friends to be sharing passwords. In fact it is a very stupid thing to do.

Originally Posted by MrsHauler

Teresa also got it wrong, stimpa logged in as tweety because tweety had to go out and didn't have time to copy and paste the pms she wanted to share. However since no posts were made by stipma under tweety's name and there was no rule in place that stated this couldn't be done it seems rather immature.

Still, one logged in as the other. I don't believe anyone ever emailed T or the other admin/mods with an explanation yet you know the story. If they had emailed T they would have gotten their new passwords.

It seemed most logical that they shared a password but we could not be certain. You say there is no rule about that, very true, but there are the rules of logical conduct. At any time Stipma or Tweety could have posted as the other. We do not allow members to have more then one user ID here and essentially that is what they were doing. We would have no certainty who we were speaking to.

What would happen if Stipma and Tweety had a disagreement and one decided to post some foul language on here in the other's name? The wrong person would get banned right?

This all could have been sorted out easily and privately if only they had been willing to speak to T about it through emails. Instead they acted rather like guilty children, scuffing their feet in the dirt and trying to distract her with accusations and questions.

[MrsHauler]

I would think that since you were able to figure out that one was in the other's account that if they had a disagreement and they posted something foul under the other's name that you could use your sleuthing abilities and figure that out.

I get the impression that Tweet would rather Teresa pounds salt than get her password back.

We have had issues regarding people logging in on other people's accounts. We don't change the password, we simply explain that they need to use their own account.

As for the disciplinary actions, that is a private matter.

[Susan9608]

I would think that since you were able to figure out that one was in the other's account that if they had a disagreement and they posted something foul under the other's name that you could use your sleuthing abilities and figure that out.

That really shouldn't have to be our jobs. People should use their own IDs - period.

We have had issues regarding people logging in on other people's accounts. We don't change the password, we simply explain that they need to use their own account.

That's fabulous for you. You all do quite a number of things differently on your forum. On *this* forum, it is unacceptable and dealt with in a different way.

I get the impression that Tweet would rather Teresa pounds salt than get her password back.

Then it's *her* choice to not be able to post anymore. It's been explained to her - and now to everyone else - what the problem was and what she needs to do to fix it. If she does not comply, then that's *her* decision.

[twofinepigs]

I realize this is an older thread, I kind of fell in here while reading about cage safety issues - but I am just compelled to highlight this:

Originally Posted by MrsHauler

Regarding the two deaths from breeding, yes but these were deaths that I had emotionally prepared myself for...

...as the most colossally selfish statement I have ever read on this forum. I just can't let it go unhighlighted. I think people should read it again and remember it, not just for whoever this individual is, but for anyone breeding at any time.

This statement paraphrases as, "I was fully aware of the risk of death, aware enough to "prepare" myself emotionally - meaning, I tried to think of things to make MYSELF feel better - but, KNOWING the risk, I still CHOSE to take the actions that led directly to the death of these animals."

I am simply stunned, today.