WHT and its rules suck

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

I tried to post this on WHT, and it was immediately deleted. I also received a warning message. Apparently, their fragile egos can't handle any public criticism of their heavy handed censorship. What a joke. WHT can kiss my ass.

I'm glad to be here where it seems the mods take a much more level headed approach to things. It was actually this thread that sold me on the good humor and nature of HD mods.

This is just my opinion from what I've experienced by my interaction with WHT's mods. I emailed a banned registrar (WHT won't let me use its name) to ask what warranted their ban.

I posted my email inquiry to that company, and I posted their response to help shed light on what happened. My post and later the entire thread was deleted by WHT's mods.

They cite this:

The moderator who issued this reminder has this message for you:
=======================================
Participants may not post on behalf of any banned member in any public manner. This includes all forums, private messages, signatures, and e-mail features.

If you even mention the name of the banned company they will send you this warning:

The moderator who issued this reminder has this message for you:
=======================================
Service providers which are censored here (name appears as ****) are censored for a reason. Surely you can understand that changing their name in order to bypass that censor would be soemthing that would not be allowed here. Since the host in question is censored here, there's no point in keeping the thread active. Please contact the Helpdesk if you have any questions.

So be forewarned. The mods here seem to have taken an overzealous super paranoid approach to any previously banned users or companies. You are not even permitted to utter a banned company's name, which I think is absurd and far too heavy handed.

This will all probably be deleted since I'm betting the mods can't handle any objective criticism of their actions. <----I was right!

 

[Blue]

Not sure what the problem is. You broke WHT rules.
What would you expect the response to be from moderators?

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

The banned company I referenced above was NameSilo. As soon as you post a banned company name, WHT stars it out like "********". Things are just plain absurd over there.

Here's another message they instantly deleted. I had to use "NS" for Namesilo because their system would censor out the name.

I emailed NS to ask what their side of the story was since I can't find any non speculative reasons on WHT as to why they are banned.

Me:
Hi,
What's the issue with NS and WHT? They seem to ban and censor any discussion about your company with no explanation. It's rumored that you guys must have spammed them with fake reviews or something.

NS:
There are many other posts about our company and a lot of damage has been done to our credibility and reputation since people can only speculate on the reasons for the banning of our entire company name. We hope that WHT users will contact them to request lifting the censorship since, after nearly 2 years, they do not seem to have any motivation to do so on their own despite repeated assurances from us that nobody from our company will do anything even remotely close to violating their terms. This is all very foreign to us and we have never been even accused of this type of activity by any other web site ever.

Just to note, I have no affiliation of any kind with NameSilo, and I have no domains registered with them. I read a few possitive reviews on other sites and wanted to solicit some opinions about their service. That's when this big s***storm happened with WHT censoring everything.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Not sure what the problem is. You broke WHT rules.
What would you expect the response to be from moderators?

I guess my point is, their rules are too onerous. Simply put, WHT and their rules SUCK!

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

I should also point out that I wasn't banned from WHT, just warned, but I simply have no desire to participate in a forum like their's.

 

[Blue]

The rules are no different here.
A banned company will not be able to post name or URL.
Transmitting information as a surrogate for that company and attempting to subvert forum filters is also against the rules here.

I hope you wouldn't expect a different result on this forum.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

The rules are no different here.
A banned company will not be able to post name or URL.
Transmitting information as a surrogate for that company and attempting to subvert forum filters is also against the rules here.

I hope you wouldn't expect a different result on this forum.

I can understand banning a user due to spamming or whatever. What's the point in censoring all discussion about the former user's company by users in good standing?

Someone might say, "Yeah company X really sucked" or maybe, "I think company X's ban was unwarranted". What's wrong with those discussions? I guess I don't understand what you are trying to protect by starring out their names.

If it's discovered another user is really an emissary for the banned company, then they should be warned or banned after that infraction. Why institute a blanket policy and censor all discussion?

 

[Blue]

Because a company censorship is not taken likely.
It is only the result of repeat violations and a likelyhood of further violations.
It's far easier to censor the use of the company name than it is to try and sort out every shill.

 

[easyhostmedia]

what do you think would happen on WHT or even here if the discussions were not censored.

you mentioned a BANNED company on a WHT thread, so they removed the posts and warned you, whats wrong with that

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

It's far easier to censor the use of the company name than it is to try and sort out every shill.

Yeah it's probably easier, but I think proactive moderation can be effective too without having to censor discussion by non-shill users.

I do have to give HD a :thumbup: for allowing the existence of this thread. Disregarding the NS issues, WHT would have deleted it long ago.

WHT:
The moderator who issued this reminder has this message for you:
=======================================
If you'd like to complain about a specific moderation action, you need to use the helpdesk. We can't discuss that in public, so will not leave complaints like this up either.

:rolleyes2

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

what do you think would happen on WHT or even here if the discussions were not censored.

you mentioned a BANNED company on a WHT thread, so they removed the posts and warned you, whats wrong with that

I think proactive moderation can be effective too without having to censor discussion by non-shill users.

 

[easyhostmedia]

I think proactive moderation can be effective too without having to censor discussion by non-shill users.

they wont know you are a non-shill user, you broke their rules and they took action like any forum would.

 

[Artashes]

While HostingDiscussion does take a more liberal approach to moderation and issuing of infractions and warnings, we had to censor a number of companies before due to spam, on more than one occasion, too.

However, I would probably not have issued an infraction/warning to a curious member who is clearly not a shill for a censored company. I'd address the thread and close it after, but won't be hiding a thread, unless the violation by a censored company was too aggressive. I wouldn't like members trying to go around the censorship filter to name the company (if they do so intensively, that's another case), so we'd censor the name in a couple of different ways if we have to (with or without domain extension, or both). If someone keeps posting and ignoring the decisions/requests of administrators and moderators, then action is taken. If the user has a long history, I'd first try to send a personal message. If the correction is not made, then, well, a warning/infraction is in order. Luckily, I've never had to go there. People are reasonable enough to side and respect our decisions.

Mind you, this kind of personal attention takes time and is only possible on a forum that is not as busy as WHT. Perhaps we won't have much time dealing with each case efficiently if we grow to the level of WHT, who knows...

The moment company URL gets censored, the damage is already done to the reputation of the company for not following the rules, whatever they may be. We can't control what people post, so whatever is posted after (in a round-about way) won't be beneficial to anyone regardless.

 

[easyhostmedia]

the way i read the OPs posts was that WHT removed her post (not hiding the thread) and warned her as she continued to create other posts on the same subject.

so i dont think WHT did anything wrong as the OP kept breaking their rules

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

the way i read the OPs posts was that WHT removed her his post (not hiding the thread) and warned her him as she he continued to create other posts on the same subject.

so i dont think WHT did anything wrong as the OP kept breaking their rules

I guess I initially broke their rules by using "Name [space] Silo", but other posts in the thread did the same so I thought it was cosier. I got warned, so then I used the initials "NS" thinking it was fine when referring to the company. Seriously, using NS is not posting the company name.

After using "NS" they warned me again and deleted the entire thread. Like I said, their approach is overly aggressive. After all that, I decided to try to find a better forum.

 

[easyhostmedia]

I guess I initially broke their rules by using "Name [space] Silo", but other posts in the thread did the same so I thought it was cosier. I got warned, so then I used the initials "NS" thinking it was fine when referring to the company. Seriously, using NS is not posting the company name.

After using "NS" they warned me again and deleted the entire thread. Like I said, their approach is overly aggressive. After all that, I decided to try to find a better forum.

using NS still implies the company name as the posts were the same topic with the same style of information, so you broke their rules, they took action, so you come on other forums complaining that WHT took actions against you for breaking their forum rules

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

using NS still implies the company name as the posts were the same topic with the same style of information, so you broke their rules, they took action, so you come on other forums complaining that WHT took actions against you for breaking their forum rules

A better approach would have been to lock the thread and tell people to move on and not discuss the banned company vs. warning everyone and deleting the entire discussion.

 

[HostOX]

I ain't even reading anymore, I won't defend those ass holes.

WHT Needs a slap in the face, and writing that on here will also get them mad at me if they read it.

But hey, do I give a crap, noooooooo, WHT need putting in their place, they are a joke.
Honestly, they are childish morons and I know many who can back it up.

Power hungry.

 

[easyhostmedia]

I ain't even reading anymore, I won't defend those ass holes.

WHT Needs a slap in the face, and writing that on here will also get them mad at me if they read it.

But hey, do I give a crap, noooooooo, WHT need putting in their place, they are a joke.
Honestly, they are childish morons and I know many who can back it up.

Power hungry.

this is true, but when you break the rules on any forum the mods will always take action according to their procedures, coming onto other forums admitting you broke their rules and because of this they removed your posts is pointless and childish

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

this is true, but when you break the rules on any forum the mods will always take action according to their procedures, coming onto other forums admitting you broke their rules and because of this they removed your posts is pointless and childish

I think the greater point Paul0130 and I are trying to convey is that WHT and their rules suck, which why I chose to end my participation with them.

Oh, I also rolled through a stop sign today. I'm such a rule breaker. :rolleyes2