lancehoch wrote:peanutsdad wrote:while i agree with you about this being a private site and lack being in charge and all that, that's not the point of this. While i tend to believe that you have seen the evidence, and that lack would not act maliciously, that is how it looks because of the way he posted this and the way it's being portrayed here in the forum. He does not need to post trade secrets or anything like that, there are ways around that, for gawd sakes, he runs the site, i'm pretty sure he knows how to post the evidence with out posting trade secrets. All i said was that posting the evidence would squelch all the talk about him lying about the evidence, it's a simple solution. as simple as that.....
The thing is, the only evidence of her posting is the posting of "trade secrets". I have only seen the "redacted" version of the evidence. But I do believe lack. I know there is not much I can say to convince anyone, but I will try.
What does lack have to gain from lying about this? He lost one of his best employees/volunteers. And now he claims that she is trying to trash the site that he created. If he is telling the truth, she should be banned, does anyone disagree? If he is telling the truth, and she was distributing information then the site would have been in ruins if he did not act. If he is lying, then people will revolt, and the site will go to hell. Clearly he was put in a tough place, but it was not his doing. The actions of one person forced his hand. If this was your site, given the situation of wicked no longer being a mod and threatening to pull the site down 'bit' by 'bit', would you have acted any differently? I doubt it.
EDIT: Damnit fuzzy, you beat me to it.
I agree with you, and while i was not trying to raise the "wicked" flag, but more just trying to be the voice of reason, i can see how my comments were taken the latter... I agree with you and fuzzy actually, and lack for that matter, and hope that the site does continue, completely and fruitfully......