yourdesigns
|
posted on September 25, 2002 06:32:46 PM new
Not like it is an earth shattering announcement, but I thought people here would like to know. Since Jamie implies that none of us (at other places) has posting privileges here.
He might have been banned, but we haven't.
'nuff said! 
|
limm
|
posted on September 26, 2002 11:10:08 AM new
Well, I think a blind man could have seen that one coming. I've never encountered a business owner who was apparently more determined to alienate his potential customers. *shrug*
|
tooltimes
|
posted on September 26, 2002 08:53:16 PM new
I'm sticking to my earlier prediction on APie
tooltimes
posted on September 7, 2002 02:48:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's start a pool on when the site disappears completely. I'll take the 02/01/03 square. [ Feb 1st, 2003 ]
|
kenzy
|
posted on September 26, 2002 11:15:38 PM new
yourdesigns--
Ah. So, Jamie's banned on AW, too?
|
kodiheglin
|
posted on September 27, 2002 01:29:28 AM new
YD!
We miss you bub, come home.
Kodi
Hi Kenzy!
|
stonecold613
|
posted on September 27, 2002 04:37:44 AM new
No Jamie isn't banned here. He just rarely posts. That last couple that I seen were in the AW round table boards. Not that I care, just an observation.
|
canvid13
|
posted on September 27, 2002 04:54:17 AM new
I'm here.
I just don't reply to the same old boring attacks.
I don't take the bait that easily.
But I will say this.
I wouldn't bet on AP closing anytime soon.
As for banning. I think it simply came down to Patty not being able to deal with the fact that she is allowing potentially illegal acts on her board. She put herself in a position and cut off her own neck.
Do you really think that some of the posts there would be tolerated on AW?
I've taken worse. Sticks and stones people. I don't take any of these flames personally.
Thanks,
Jamie
|
RB
|
posted on September 27, 2002 06:01:12 AM new
Hi Jamie ...
For what it's worth, I have asked the owner of the Moo to remove AuctionPie from their listings. Although I may not agree with your concept or business plan, I don't think it is fair to allow others to insult you there and not allow you to respond.
Rob
|
canvid13
|
posted on September 27, 2002 06:58:06 AM new
Thanks Rob.
I asked Patty to do that over a week ago.
I suggested (yes quite loudly) that if she was going to allow the sort of attacks that she is allowing that the forum be shut down.
I also PM'd her when I stopped responding to said attacks, that there were other places for them on her own site (the mad cow forum)
Instead of keeping her own board clean she allowed the attacks to grow and didn't even respond to my emails and PMB's.
She allowed bully tactics to affect her board. By banning me they got their way and will do so again any time they don't want a message to come out or be shared.
And yes, not all messages are wonderful.
It's sad.
But then, what do you expect of a cow?
I'm doomed if I reply to these sorts of attacks and doomed if I don't as others actually believe the lies and mistruths.
Pretty ugly either way.
That's why I don't post on many boards and will stick to baypie for the most part.
What you survive makes you stronger and some people learn from there mistakes.
I know I try to.
Jamie
|
kiara
|
posted on September 27, 2002 08:56:56 AM new
|
yourdesigns
|
posted on September 27, 2002 09:07:24 AM new
Jamie:
You need to get a clue. Other sites have tried the same thing you are trying and failed. You have no right to request any forum to be removed just because you want to censor free speech. We have all been through this garbage before, INCLUDING BUZZ. GT tried the same thing, and guess what? There is still a Bidbay/Bidway forum there.
I don't see you asked Ross's board to cease and desist and they TRULY get nasty on your rear. If there has been any defamation it has been done for YEARS on Ross's board towards you. The stuff at Moo is harmless in comparison to Ross's board or even some of the stuff on OTWA. They are posting the truth on Moo and you can't handle it. They are voicing their opinion and you can't handle they are allowed to do so, because it makes opposition to your sites GROW.
It is your own fault you were banned from the Moo, and just because they don't respond the way OTWA would (like banning not only you BUT the mention of your name) it doesn't give you any more rights. If you said the stuff you said there, right here at AW, you would be suspended in a heartbeat.
Nice try buddy, but we aren't buying it anymore.
|
robnzak
|
posted on September 27, 2002 09:57:50 AM new
...As for banning. I think it simply came down to Patty not being able to deal with the fact that she is allowing potentially illegal acts on her board. She put herself in a position and cut off her own neck...
nope...you were banned for Threatening Patty. You have only yourself to blame for being booted.
Rob
(hi YD)
robnzak - 1st editions
[ edited by robnzak on Sep 27, 2002 09:59 AM ]
|
RB
|
posted on September 27, 2002 10:08:59 AM new
Barring any personalities or bad business plans, I find it very interesting that Jamie has demanded that Patty remove his forum (he is the "CEO" of AP and should have that right) and Patty refuses to do it.
Very interesting ...
|
tooltimes
|
posted on September 27, 2002 10:21:24 AM new
I gave A Pie 5 months to survive with my poll selection. Five months is a long time and can drain a person's finances and dishearten their ego too.
Patty has the ability to extract some revenge by leaving the AP board up and allowing any slamming. She did the same thing with Auction Diner a while back.
Running the Moo is just like her earlier job of being a sysop on her own BBS, you get to be God over your very own universe.
|
yourdesigns
|
posted on September 27, 2002 10:33:37 AM new
tooltimes:
Please, you people are just ridiculous to defend Jamie in this mess. Look at the crap he has started here for goodness sake!
Just because a forum rep was stupid to get themselves suspended doesn't mean a site should have the right to demand the closure of the forum. It was his own fault. Just take a look at Ross's board sometime and you will see Jamie LOVES the controversy. He is just sniffing because unlike at OTWA when he was banned, Moo didn't BAN all discussions of AP. So he didn't have to worry about opinions being made without his "defense".
An auction site doesn't like the way the conversations are going so they demand the forum be closed?
Now, you can't say Patty is being biased or "god". She has put it up to a vote of the membership of Mootropolis. Should the membership have the right to vote on the issue? Or are people not allowed their own opinions. She also states she will honor the decision. Sound pretty damn fair to me.
|
tooltimes
|
posted on September 27, 2002 11:34:16 AM new
I'm not defending Jaime. He does have a bit of an acidic personality when riled and he's always being riled.
Isn't it better to sit back and watch from afar the probable collapse of Jaime's dream site. To constantly attack him on message boards will not hasten the probable demise of his site. Let him have his dream while it lasts and if it fails then maybe he will finally realise that it was a currently unworkable dream.
When we were little kids all the kids in my neighborhood were always making moon rockets and other impossible stuff. Our parents never haranged us for being foolish but instead wished us luck and success with our endeavours.
Good luck Jaime with the moon rocket, er, I mean subscription based auction site.
|
kodiheglin
|
posted on September 27, 2002 12:23:17 PM new
Jamie I feel it is pretty unfair of you to continually bash Patty over what was really a problem that only followed you to the Moo, and did not start there. I got sick and tired of all the crap too, but you never did stop responding. I cannot imagine getting up every morning and cruising various auction chat boards looking for flames. And then flaming back! I was more than willing to offer you moral support to overcome the negativity, but you just don't seem to have that desire in you.
Continuously bashing Patty and calling her a cow in "that" tone, isn't making you any friends either. Maybe just the opposite.
Kodi
|
RB
|
posted on September 27, 2002 12:30:49 PM new
Can't see the forest for the trees eh
I am not defending Jamie. I don't agree with his business plan and I have taken a strong dislike to his internet etiquette.
I can simply ignore him ...
I am arguing against censorship. I do not believe anyone should have the right to provide a public forum where an individual or group can be insulted and not be given the opportunity to respond.
This issue, in my mind, is much larger than Jamie, AuctionPie or Mootropolis.
But, I have given up my argument about this over there. I am outnumbered by others who are having difficulty seeing that forest. I can only hope that some of these folks are placed into a similar position someday.
|
canvid13
|
posted on September 27, 2002 01:47:44 PM new
I'm glad some of you can actually see the issue.
Kodi, I did stop responding.
When I saw an offensive post I hit the report link and emailed Patty a very polite reason why the post in question violated her own cg's.
Not only did she do nothing about very polite concerns from a site owner, but actually posted in the forum and supported someone who was flaming in the AP forum as opposed to the MCF.
That's the issue. I spent days trying to not deal with the issue on the board. She chose not to and then banned me after I posted publicly that she was in fact not responding to more civil requests for help.
If you look at the post that she claims I was threatening her in you will see quite clearly that I was in fact not threatening her.
Just because someone doesn't like someone it doesn't make a good action bad and vice versa.
The truth is the truth no matter who states it.
And that I find on most boards is a big problem.
Some people can do things and some can't. Some break CG's and get away with it and others get slapped for not even breaking a CG.
In my opinion if I had a forum on baypie for The Moo for example and people were attacking it the way AP was in the AP forum I woulde've acted, but this is me.
If Patty had requested the forum be closed for the same reasons I had requested I would've honored her request.
I had no problem with AP being discussed in other forums, but for the type of attacks that were occuring to be allowed to by the site owner is pretty unprofessional. And to create a situation where it is still allowed and the site owner not be able to clarify or contest outright lies is even less professional and outright contemptable.
It's the exact opposite message we should be conveying in our industry.
Just my opinion though.
Jamie
|
RadarLove
|
posted on September 27, 2002 02:38:11 PM new
To condone the flaming of an individual in allowing it to persist when said individual is prohibited from posting a response is irresponsible and unprofessional.
Is the site, or the site owner being attacked, and is there a difference? It is the individuals credibility that will be further damaged in either case.
It doesn't matter what the individual is guilty of, he should not be blindfolded and gagged when he's being pummeled with stones.
RL
|
RB
|
posted on September 27, 2002 03:27:27 PM new
RL ... that's the point I am trying to make. Only a coward would kick a guy when he can't kick back.
But, my friend, you and I are in the minority 
|
tooltimes
|
posted on September 27, 2002 03:41:29 PM new
If the sticking point is that the site allows bashing of the booted person then aren't all message boards that allow bashing of political or famous personages guilty of the same thing? Those people can't easily respond either and almost all do not even know they are being bashed at the site.
|
canvid13
|
posted on September 27, 2002 04:29:39 PM new
Tooltimes that analogy (with all due respect. I am not flaming you) is not correct.
Famous personages do have the option to reply.
When I challenged Meg Whitman to a debate she had the option to respond and accept or decline (Henry Gomez, VP Communications replied)
Also, in light of the attacks being directed at myself and AP/BP/CP it was very much one sided for Patty to expel me.
It's certainly not a super precedent.
Owner is attacked. Responds, things get heated, requests help from the moderator, gets booted.
And yes, I know things were colorfully said and that tempers flared, but it certainly didn't warrant Patty's reaction in my opinion.
That being said it is her board and she can do as she pleases.
She just can't complain or take the high ground on this one.
All she had to do was spank anyone who flamed in a certain manner in the AP forum and redirect them to the MCF.
That's all that was required.
If she had done that early, especially after I pleaded with her to do so things would not have escalated.
From my experiance far too many people only look at the end of an arguement instead of the beginning.
So yes, I do take responsibility for my share of what happened, but there was also the people flaming away and the person who chose to allow them to do so.
Jamie
|
yourdesigns
|
posted on September 27, 2002 04:52:08 PM new
You folks can't see the trees or the forest even. The point isn't with Mootropolis or Patty. What about Ross's board there Jamie? Why aren't you asking or DEMANDING that Ross cease and desist? It has been around for years, and you join right in the mess. Folks HERE should take a look at how "jamie" acts:
http://pub9.ezboard.com/fross98289ross
I don't even have to quote as there are just too many bad ones from Jamie.
My understanding Jamie is you asked Mootropolis to CENSOR the members there because you didn't agree with their opinions. I read it right in your own posts. When Mootropolis said "no" you took it personally with Patty. You also take posts that are directed at your website as personal attacks. You need to learn separation of business and personal issues.
Also it is Jamie's FAULT that he was banned from Mootropolis. Moo did not ban Jamie just for the hell of it. Moo didn't ban Jamie just so he couldn't respond. He was suspended for attacking Mootropolis with threats. I also saw repeated violations he did himself. No site should have to put up with that, and AW NOR OTWA would put up with it. Crystal over OTWA only put up with Jamie for so long and then banned him. People still talk about him (even though the subject is really banned) and he made comments on his own Clutterpie.com by cutting, pasting and linking to the threads. He insulted people from afar, and ones that were not members of his site.
They didn't want to register because WHY give your enemy your information or join his site?
Let's face it, this AP war was mild in comparison to Bidbay or the current ongoing and never-ending Bidville Wars. Jamie would like people to think that he is worth it.
I also suggest that people read some of the pro and con arguments of the banning and forum closure over at Moo. Zoomeister and others make very good points and I don't want to repeat them as they are rather extensive.
Jamie made a mistake, and now wants the rules changed for him. That is not right. No one is a "coward" and discussion of the site continues. I don't see many "jamie" discussions going on at Moo, just ones that discuss the joke that is AuctionPie... the WEBSITE not the person.
|
canvid13
|
posted on September 27, 2002 05:17:36 PM new
"My understanding Jamie is you asked Mootropolis to CENSOR the members there because you didn't agree with their opinions."
First off YD, there were posts made which I felt violated the Moo's CG's. I posted this at first.
Then I stopped fighting people like you and simply hit the link to Patty whenever I saw a post that was offensive, rude, combative, insulting, and possible illegal.
Your bringing mistruths to AW does not change what happened.
And Btw, I believe last time I was there your account was closed at the moo as well?
Sour grapes?
|
yourdesigns
|
posted on September 27, 2002 08:01:47 PM new
Jamie:
You felt they violated the UA, doesn't make it so. That is merely your opinion and you are not the one to make that decision.
There are no "illegal" posts. If someone is defaming another that is a civil action, not a criminal act. Unless they threaten you, like you did to Patty, then it could be grounds for criminal action. You are fighting a board that has been in it's fair share of fights.
I am not LYING again Jamie. You are wearing that response rather thin. There is only one liar here.
I am sorry, but my account is not closed at Mootropolis. Care to check that again? 
LOL!
|
limm
|
posted on September 27, 2002 08:15:27 PM new
"She just can't complain or take the high ground on this one."
Interestingly, and in significant contrast, Patty hasn't "complained" at all. And she doesn't have to "take" the high ground. By her actions in comparison to yours, she has already shown that she owns it.
|
yourdesigns
|
posted on September 27, 2002 08:18:57 PM new
Very well put, Limm. Excellent short post and extremely truthful.
|
tooltimes
|
posted on September 27, 2002 08:37:53 PM new
I'm glad I don't go to Mootropolis if that's the heavy reading over there.
[ edited by tooltimes on Sep 27, 2002 08:42 PM ]
|
kenzy
|
posted on September 28, 2002 10:09:10 AM new
tooltimes--
The "heavy reading" has calmed down considerably after Jamie's banishment from The Moo. I've seen celebrities with groupies, but never before have I witnessed someone with their own flaming entourage.
I don't know what (or even who) to believe... I just want no part of it.
(waving a friendly *hello* to YD)
|
