Vote For Coop Network Members

Who is the guilty party? Is it a 'veteran' here, is this the FIRA story? If it is, then he/she should be banned.

 

I don't understand what you mean.

 

Actually, Shawn reviews each site when they input ads, which is when he caught this, I doubt he will forget the URL's anytime soon.

Not really sure why you would say something like this here, or how it is two eyes for an eye. Pretty funny.

 

This is an edit to add that I totally misunderstood the facts of this situation when I made the original post that follows. The facts as I now understand them definitely indicate cheating.

I am new to the web and have a lot to learn. However, I can't see that this situation is a lot different than what Umbertide is saying. Was there a rule that he broke, or was he maximizing his position under the rules that existed. There is seldom complete fairness in the perception of all parties to a complex arrangement.

For example, when Shawn changed the vb3 weight computations, I dropped from several thousand to about 700. My site is relatively new and has not been extensively indexed by Google. Yet I am showing thousands of the Coop ads every day. Is this fair? I would argue no, but I also see the argument that it is fair.

My point is that if there was no rule against the use of both domain expressions, the party is guilty of pushing the envelope beyond what I would consider fair. I just think that their is a distinction between "cheating" and "fair"

This is just my humble opinion, feel free to disagree.

Roger

 

Roger,

I would agree if the domain in question was his to exploit.

Unfortunatly, the guy tried to use someone elses site to gain benefit from the rest of us.

That is just not on... (The rest of the matter can be found here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=4427&page=1 )

 

Can someone explain in dummies terms what happened, did these folks highjack SEROUNDTABLE.COM (Barry's Site) to use as the URL for their account?

 

No, they just pretended to own it...

 

That is the same thing as highjacking the domain (well that is what I meant).

If they did that to Barry they should be banned, also they tried to fool Shawn and hurt Barry and his reputation.

I first thought SEroundtable.com did the wrong here, so some folks will think bad of Barry for what these guys did.

That is not good.

 

At first I though it was Barry in the wrong too, but if you read the thread I mentioned above, you'll get the whole situation explained...

Basically, they exploited the fact the he was showing the ads on his site, then signed up as http://seroundtable.com (while he was signed up as http://www.seroundtable.com

They tried to fool all of us, not just shawn.

basically they were taking advantage of the fact that SEroundtable.com is a high traffic, high PR site and tried to turn that to their own advantage by faking (Well, trying ot anyway) that it was theirs.

 

It is total BS. I would rather error on the side of caution on this one. It was a major attempt to pull a fast one. The circumstatial evidence linking the two parties in question is strong enough, IMHO, to ban them.

 

But hold on, im not denying the link. But I am saying it's nothing to do with me so why am I being penalised?

 

Can you say Barry? Can you say SEroundtable?

Did you or did you not use this guy's URL, simple question, who put his URL on your sign up form?

 

Thanks for the link, SEbasic.

I TOTALLY misunderstood the situation. This is definitely cheating. The only question in my mind is Fira the perpetrator or just an accessory after the fact. He if he is the actual cheat, then I don't think he should be back in. If he is guilty of keeping silent, then I am in favor of letting him back in with heavly reduced weight for a period of time.

Roger

 

I did not.

Not me. - This is nothing to do with my accounts.

It's not as simple as that, I suppose im guilty of not thinking, I'm not privvy to everything going on everywhere . I never anticipated being in the position of having MY accounts deleted!

 

RTH, read this whole thread, then you will see what the situation is.

Fira, sorry I feel the way I do, but that is the way it is. I have been involved in ecommerce on the web since 1997. In my time I have come across "one or two" people who are trying to scam me or one of my sites. I don't know you and I don't know the guy who works at your company who used a virtually identical email address and the same password you use to sign up for the offending account....oh yeah, and the same IP. Worst case, you guys planned this whole thing including the attempted cover up in the event Shawn caught you guys (like he did). Best case, you guys work at the same company, use the same network connection, same passwords (????), almost identical email addresses, and at least one person you work with is a scammer.

Too many coincidences.
Don't need the links from your site(s) that badly.
Don't like being scammed.
Don't like how this smells.

My 2 cents.

 

It comes down to the ability to be able to trust. Once burned, twice shy, and all that... I suggest recouping your losses from the person who allegedly burned you. But personally, I need to be able to put my trust in the coop network and its participants, and - right or wrong - I just can't do that with you, Fira. Of course, in the end, it will come down to a decision made by Digitalpoint (rightly so, of course), but my vote is still that you don't get back in.

 

Actually Dazzlindonna, I have to agree with you.

Too many ambiguities to retain confidence.
This is after all a community, not a logic parade.

I must (contrary to my original post) defer to the 'confidence factor' and vote for removal.

Either way, I hope Shawn puts this to bed soon

 

The poll says it all - dito