Where is TotO?

[Gryzor]

@dragon : I would tend to agree, but for three reasons: first, a warning for something that was rather offline is not quite fitting; second, in my opinion what he did out of the blue was very, very bad; and third, this is a side-effect of what we had to decide after living with TFM for so long: warnings seem to do very little. After all, come on, a few days of banning is not exactly a death sentence...


@ASiC :


"from banning a member like TotO...": it's not a permaban, and I don't think we should really distinguish between users and how much they're worth when dealing with issues.


"to making this thing public" : would it be better to ban him and pretend this never happened? For the sake of transparency and because people had already started talking, it was really the only option.


"we cannot listen to the other party's view" : we can't hold an open court, really. What's more, what TotO did precisely robbed Bryce of his ability and right to respond, by doing it privately. Nonetheless, I did give TotO the opportunity to reply through me if he so wished, and he declined. But again: it's not a permaban. He could come back and reply all he wanted.

[SOS]

"to making this thing public" : would it be better to ban him and pretend this never happened? For the sake of transparency and because people had already started talking, it was really the only option.

For me it sounds like someone to put on the pillory.

The only option? How about "the ban has reasons, which are private"?

[Gryzor]

Heh, well,imagine what kind of shitstorm would take place if we said that


Not a practical option really, and not very communal, not sharing the reasons.

[ASiC]

@Gryzor


A permaban is still a ban and can upset people to the point they will feel unwelcome and never bother to return afterwards 


I'm not questioning your decision to ban TotO or anyone for that matter. In the end of the day, it's not democracy here, we are all guest!


People started to ask questions, sure, but you could easily reply something like "he had his reasons" and leave it there.
TotO has a well-known website and he can bitch about it there if he wishes


I was a little "upset" (can't find of a better word right now!) that there is an entire post describing an event without both people affected be able to have their saying. Yes, if you take it public, be prepared for an open court situation!


OK, the fact that TotO refused to defend his side sounds a bit dodgy but, oh well, drama sells I reckon

[Bryce]

Hi all,
   as I was the person who instigated TotOs ban I think more needs to be said. What TotO did was extremely unethical. Instead of questioning the technical and financial details of my project in the open forum as is normally done he went behind my back and sent e-mails to interested parties criticising my project and telling them that there are alternative solutions that cost a fraction of the price. Ignoring the fact that this is completely incorrect, it's not the type of behaviour that we condone in this community. I still find this behaviour abhorent, however, I can understand that people feel that TotO contributes majorly to this community and many feel that he has been denied the oportunity to defend his behaviour.
Although I doubt TotO and I will ever be best friends as we have very different views as to what defines a good product, I also don't want to make new enemies (I have enough already), so I have requested that this ban be removed with immediate effect. This will give TotO the oportunity to defend and justify his actions and possibly bring some harmony back to the community. I also believe that TotOs departure from the community would be a great loss for all, but not at the cost of undermining the projects of others.

Bryce.

[SOS]

This will give TotO the oportunity to defend and justify his Actions

So like in an arena or in a court - in public?     

[Bryce]

It's a completely normal technical/financial discussion about a piece of hardware. Why shouldn't this be discussed in public?

Bryce.

[Gryzor]

Well make up your minds people... private or public?


But I agree, since this was what should have taken place to begin with - it's a technical discussion that can and should have been laid out for all to see.

[1024MAK]

I see no reason why a discussion of the details of a product/device where the designer is happy to discuss and describe it should be private.

If this product/device was an item produced by a person / company that had no dealings with this community, and one of the members here was reviewing it, I would want the review to be open and honest about the production/device.

Sometimes I build bespoke items for people. If they want to know the details, of course I tell them. Including anything and everything about it. But, most don't want to know that level of detail.

As to the correct way to deal with poor or bad behaviour, well the members should respect the administrators and moderators. In most cases, the administrators don't make public all information. The administrators and moderators try to keep a forum like this a welcoming and friendly place with open discussion for all well behaved members. So if a member is misbehaving, they try to encourage that member to stop the bad behaviour.

Now, can we get back to talking about the computers please...

Mark

[robcfg]

I think the discussion should be public as the matter affects everyone here.

In this case, it's not a passive hardware we're talking about, which may be done at a lower price, but a psu hardware which potentially can destroy our machines and thus requires better components with a higher price.

Honestly, my wife got her clothes burned because of a cheap mobile phone charger that exploded near her. She got no harm but could have been a disaster. So no more cheap adapters for me.

I think TotO is a great guy and his hardware is very nice and affordable, so I cannot understand all the fuss.

Bryce has already explained the technical details behind his product and he's in no way forcing anyone to buy it.

I'd really like TotO to come back and that we all be wiser so that a situation like this doesn't happen again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1024MAK]

Yes, I agree, it would be good if TotO returns.

It's not good to have all this division.

Mark

[SOS]

It's a completely normal technical/financial discussion about a piece of hardware. Why shouldn't this be discussed in public?

I see no reason why a discussion of the details of a product/device where the designer is happy to discuss and describe it should be private.

Do you think, the main character of this diskussion is a technical one?
Is this thread focused on computers? (see the Subject of this thread)

[1024MAK]

Do you think, the main character of this diskussion is a technical one?
Is this thread focused on computers? (see the Subject of this thread)

No. But before it went bad (prior to this thread), the discussion should have been technical.
Now it's about rights and wrongs and what people have done, and what members want, or don't want. But the damage is done  .

Mark

[SOS]

But the damage is done  .

This is why IMHO such a discussion must never be in public.

To put someone on the public-pillory (Looks like for me) -right or wrong- is IMHO simply a maximization of damage (and how do they personal feel - oh no, that's ok or??)

[GFXOR]

@Bryce : Your hardware was presented on this forum : ok. But what Toto seemed to do was only to give advices privately to some friends, what he can do. I know him very well and I usually trust his knowledge in HW.

Whatever he thinks about your product, whatever the quality of your produc : what I can understand in this forum is that this problem DOES NOT concern the forum. So the banishment is unfair, is far as I can understand the problem (english is a bit hard to me). This BAN is insulting.

You can consider that the chinese product has not the quality requested, or you can regret that Toto gives advices by mail to the people he knows, there is no problem about the forum.

I might have another reaction if he paid a 30 seconds campaign on the TV to insult the lovely Amstrad CPC. But that never happened.

But what I know is that you never can say anything wrong about a project on a CPC forum. It seems to be a hiden rule. So if he didn't like your HW, he might just have kept silent (I guess).

The BAN is an overreaction. You should maybe have open a thread about the chinese product to compare it instead of the BAN...

[Overflow]

I concur with GFXOR.


Now with my own words - I'll be short.


About the ban. PM/mails contents are private matter. Should not lead to a ban from public forum. I do like this behaviour: we/I don't write anything bad (or whatever) about a project or someone publicly - while we/I may write so privately.


About this post. See previous rule - is this a pillory? this post should not be public. It damages not only both sides - there are now some global damages.   

[Gryzor]

No and no.


Nothing is private if it harms a member of the scene. This was not a private discussion between two members, it was a libelous act. And in order to counteract this libelous act, public action had to be taken. The alternative would be to 'hack' into his PMs and see who was contacted, then contact those members privately. Not the best solution.


And no, it's not a pillory. It's a public discussion of what happened, and why. If we apply this definition to all such public discussions then we cannot talk about something bad that a member does, ever.

[SOS]

And no, it's not a pillory. It's a public discussion of what happened, and why.

For me it's look like a public pillory or an open court.

If we apply this definition to all such public discussions then we cannot talk about something bad that a member does, ever.

I think, this is the main problem, where the views goes apart.
I think it must the same like in a business-company where two persons (ok, e. g. five/six/.. when the PM-User are considered) have a problem.
Does the Company-Leader diskuss this in public with the whole staff? In Germany this is not common and strange too.

[keith56]

I for one think the existence this thread is justified, I just received my X-mem with plans to develop software to take advantage of it, and was wondering why the CentPourCent store seemed to be down, so knowing what has happened makes it's closure understandable.

I don't want to comment on this particular case, but in general, I would hope that anyone contributed to the community would be given a second chance if they had done things that caused others concern.

I've got wound up and said and done things I've regretted later, I'm pretty sure we all do.

[Gryzor]

@SOS : Ah, it may be a cultural thing. I do see what you mean; however I have an MBA and a number of advanced seminars on workplace ethics/psychology and administration over the years and, let me tell you, not once have I heard that things should be kept private when discipline is involved. Not that it happens that way usually, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't. Besides, one of the basic tenets of (western, at least) justice is that it be public.


@keith56 : absolutely agree, and that's why the ban was temporary anyhow. Now the pillory podium is open for TotO to reply, too.

[ASiC]

@SOS @Gryzor


It's not a cultural thing, it's damage control 101.


The event has taken place, first step is to minimise the bad impact it may have and confine it's effect to the least possible number of people.
When you take internal matters to public it's like starting up a domino effect where you loose all means of control to make things right again.
Mainly because emotion will take over and logic won't be able to overcome it.


More people involved= more drama will kick in= stupid crap will be said= FUBAR situation...

[GFXOR]

@Gryzor : You punish first, and then listen to the explanations ?

I do the contrary...

[Gryzor]

@ASiC : He mentioned Germany, that's why I mentioned culture.


But I agree, it *is* damage control. If you let things fester under covers the damage will be greater, and experience even here proves this. If we had kept it under wraps, then all sorts of (justified) negative reactions would take place; conversely, nothing really bad has happened up to now with going public.


Not to mention, there *had* to be a public answer to what TotO claimed.


@GFXOR : I see your point, but when rules are broken in a forum this is how it goes. TotO performed an act of defamation, hence a (rather mild) 'punishment'. No explanation is needed from his part.

[Bryce]

@Bryce : Your hardware was presented on this forum : ok. But what Toto seemed to do was only to give advices privately to some friends, what he can do.

If that had been the case it would be slightly different, but the people he contacted were both people who had ordered one of my devices. Coincidence? If they really were friends having a friendly chat, why did they feel the need for it to be reported?

As I have said before. If he really thought that the $1 Chinese device was in any way comparable to my 5VCPC, then a simple "Why is this any different to a $1 Chinese device?" in the appropriate thread would have been the right thing to do. It would have given me the chance to explain the differences in an open discussion. He didn't do this, he took a very different path and chose to make direct comments to interested parties in an area where I didn't have the opportunity to counter his incorrect claims.

Bryce.

[robcfg]

As an administrator of a forum, if you do anything privately, users will always think that you are doing something shady on their back, so I think bringing the issue to the light was the right thing to do.

While I don't doubt of TotO's good intentions, the way he did it was wrong.

It's not that there's a silent rule to not criticize any hardware development, it's that if you don't do it in the public thread, you're backstabbing the developer without a chance to defend himself.

To make a mistake is quite common, but we learn from them. So let's learn from this and keep the CPC love coming!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk