opinion What is a "Struggle Session" and why we should avoid them at DNForum

[Biggie]

Temporary accounts to say some things anonymously, or not linked to his main account, which was the advanced reason of the ban of the account at NP which raised this topic, may be a valid use in my view. For example.
A private more relaxed account and a corporate more serious one could be another example. A "transaction" dedicated account and a more "discussion" oriented one, especially when you may have views which will quickly be labelled as "irrational thinking never seen before" may another one

Hi


having a temp account, in addition, just to say something anonymously, is like throwing a rock and then hiding your hand.
one should have the courage and conviction, to stand behind their words, or not post at all
that's what grown folks do!

and...
those in corporate world, typically have the common sense not to get involved in political or controversial discussions,
as they know that such discussions could alienate some of their current or potential customers, regardless of which side of the issue they may be aligned with, personally.

imo....

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

those in corporate world, typically have the common sense not to get involved in political or controversial discussions,
as they know that such discussions could alienate some of their current or potential customers, regardless of which side of the issue they may be aligned with, personally.

Yes. Reason why ... they would need another (personal) account. Thanks for making my point. And this would also support nicknames and privacy.

By temporary, I meant to take part to a conversation until the subject is done, not throw one single post out there (isn't it what it was about for the initial case at NP?). You may be seeing/interpreting things a bit negatively.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

But once people know you and your style, it's also becoming difficult to not be recognized. And with multiple accounts allowed, you would have more suspicions about who may be another account of who and that kind of things. Not very good stuff. There's all that too, which supports single accounts.

As said, overall, sure, single accounts is easier. It is true.

 

[Tom K.]

For those of you connecting dots, NameOptions is DNPlaybook aka TCK at NamePros. He is entitled to his opinions. As near as I can tell, Tom and Derek Peterson sing from the same "hymnal". I don't claim to fully understand their shared fascination with Epik, but I think they certainly have a lot to say about Epik and seem to devote a lot of their time to the topic. And when it comes to TCK's site, apparently Epik is the main thing Google cares about with half of the indexed pages referencing Epik.

The site has a modest 186 indexed pages:


View attachment 5502

Of these, nearly half point to Epik:


View attachment 5503



#BeEpik

What is your point of posting this info?

Are you engaging in an ad hominem attack?

"(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument." - https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

While here, can you state and advise the users of DN Forum whether or not their data has been exposed in the Epik hack?

 

[Fried]

While here, can you state and advise the users of DN Forum whether or not their data has been exposed in the Epik hack?

Rob seems keen on using his forum to propagate lies (eg. Lying about the nature of the duplicate nP member account ban to support his false struggle session narrative) meanwhile Twitter members are out there doing Gods work.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450607493562843136

Really, it's a shame that Robs playbook seems to entail creating a pattern of doubling down on misinformation to support false narratives. Not only in this latest example of Rob mischaracterizing the duplicate nP acct ban, but last year as well, when Rob attempted to exploit his PRO status on namePros, to call BS on WIPO UDRP thuggery using a domain with a rather checkered acquisition history:

UDRP - BC30.com UDRP lost by NamePros Member

Sorry to read that Rob Monster lost a domain and a payday. I learned from this. https://domaingang.com/domain-law/bc30-com-udrp-what-not-to-do-when-negotiating-a-domain-sale/ Let's discuss this. I personally have never been involved in a udrp case, but naturally I've contemplated my plan if I...

www.namepros.com

Rob says:

However, if we lose this complaint, we will take care to critique the outcome in the public theater. We are not huge believers in the future of WIPO. See here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/have-you-hugged-your-whois-privacy-provider-today.1162503

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...upper-that-is-held-via-privacy-proxy.1163437/

These articles get thousands of views because I wrote them. Most of my threads rank in the top most active in any given month.

Ignoring Robs attempt to exploit his position within the nP community, there is a gross issue with the information Rob provided (false statements) to WIPO UDRP and with the facts that actually happened. The CEO of Epik submitted,

Rob says:

In brief, BC30.com was bought be me. It is LLNN.com popular with Chinese speculators lately. We have owned it for a long time. It could easily refer to the year 30 B.C. as well as countless other BC 3.0, etc.

You can be fully certain that the domain was registered in 2011 by me, on the drop, for no other reason than because it is short, like Epik.com. There is absolutely no case of malfeasance. None.

When in fact, the domain BC30.com was registered in 2011, not by Rob Monster, but by Michael Bush. A simple WHOIS History check will confirm this. Thus, presenting a serious concern of trust, when it comes to what actually happened, and what narrative Rob Monster/Epik is trying to spin. The actual narrative in what had happened with BC30.com appears much more embarrassing to/for Epik/Rob.. eg

namePros member says:

it appears that a domain name registrar <epik.com> threatened to invalidate the trademark <BC30> of a former customer <Michael Bush/Ganeden> in retaliation for losing a UDRP for domain name <BC30.com> of which epik had acquired through warehousing, after acquiring IntrustDomains. Such actions by a registrar do not shed positive light on the practice of domain name investing by any standard.

So one has to ask, why is @Rob monster risking his credibility by making clearly false statements on easily verifiable information? I want to believe him on some issues, but when he is so clearly making a mockery of the truth, it really is hard to believe any of the other stuff he says.

 

[amplify]

There is an indication that NP justified banning a thoughtful user with fluent English for an alleged duplicate account. The identity of that user is unknown to me but based on writing style is almost certainly a different person.

Rob seems keen on using his forum to propagate lies (eg. Lying about the nature of the duplicate nP member account ban to support his false struggle session narrative) meanwhile Twitter members are out there doing Gods work.

What are you even talking about? Rob said that the user was banned due to having a duplicate account and went on to try and guess who it was without being able to due to a shift in writing style. He even said this after NamePros made the following announcement, so I hardly see where any lie could be.

As far as we can tell, there is nothing nefarious about this member; they simply created another account for privacy reasons, allegedly afraid to challenge Rob without anonymity (and presumably the hackers, as well). We don't have reason to believe otherwise.

Source...

As far as I can tell, you're the only one being dishonest here when there's irrefutable proof to say otherwise, for as long as someone is willing to search for it. I have done just that in order to quash you trying to paint DNForum as some Epik propaganda tool. You're now attacking my character, not Rob's, and I take offense to that; but at the end of the day, you're still welcome here as everyone else is.

 

[Fried]

What are you even talking about? Rob said that the user was banned due to having a duplicate account

As far as I can tell, you're the only one being dishonest here when there's irrefutable proof to say otherwise

Nice try.

The provided answer (irrefutable proof) was a secondary response submitted by Rob AFTER being caught in his lie.

The lie:




The lie being pointed out by a more discerning member:

You make it hard for people that support you to actually support you. They posted they banned that one person because of duplicate accounts.

 

[amplify]

Nice try.

Nice try being really dishonest there by having to take a screenshot instead of actually quoting it. You will see that your post quotes post #113 in this thread while mine quotes #120. I wonder which post came first and which one might've been a correction of it?

 

[amplify]

Do you think catching someone up in a mistake is tantamount to lying?

If so, I'm a habitual liar.

 

[Tom K.]

@robmonster, as the owner of this forum you should set the tone for civil professional conversations. This way you also set the example for your staff. They will follow your lead.

Making ad hominem attacks, making unfounded accusations, trying to find conspiracies, will only turn off serious, professional users.

Don't turn this forum into it being about you. Make it a platform for domainers to interact, make sales, etc., without being made to cringe.

Just friendly advice. Take it or leave it.

 

[Fried]

Do you think catching someone up in a mistake is tantamount to lying?

When you knowingly use it as evidence to support a false narrative, and have a history of distorting the truth on the little things, it makes one begin to wonder if the company is distorting the truth in other (larger) area's.

namePros is a business; not a charity. nP likely makes more money off the average domainer in membership fee's than epik makes from the average nP member. To have a secondary account, I am happy to be a paying member to support namePros. Insult them for censoring independent thinkers if that's your modus operandi, or respect their business model, and treat nP as you wish to be treated.

 

[Tom K.]

IMO, there is nothing wrong with having multiple accounts for business. For example, you may have an account for your Web design business, another for your domaining business, another as a personal account. What I think is wrong is when you use accounts as proxy accounts to inflate posts, results, or go after someone. For example, it's my decision that I would not use my other accounts to give one of my posts extra likes or respond to make it appear like someone else is posting. I wouldn't feel comfortable with that. That would be dishonest, IMO.

 

[amplify]

I would not use my other accounts to give one of my posts extra likes or respond to make it appear like someone else is posting.

I would group this in with "nefarious activities" as I posted prior.

I think I have the solution for this, but no official announcement to be had yet.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

Nice try.

The provided answer (irrefutable proof) was a secondary response submitted by Rob AFTER being caught in his lie.

The lie:

View attachment 5533


The lie being pointed out by a more discerning member:

To me, this is nuts. I don't see any lie, nor any problem with what he said, here.
You want so much to make him look bad that you will try to twist absolutely anything (If it needs to be said, even if I find always this a little dumb: He isn't perfect, like most of us). This makes YOU look bad, because you indeed don't seem honest. Maybe you even believe yourself the BS you're peddling.

Was "an objective voice of reason" banned, or not? Well, "objective voice" is Rob's opinion, but was the account banned, yes or no? It seems, as per @mr-x post above, that you even actually can have a secondary account on NP if you pay. In any case, NP could have let the account continue, at least until this discussion was over. It was their choice to ban it (as it was their choice to let me participate for months on a non-residential IP until they used this as an excuse to ban me).

The fact is that they choose to let some accounts continue, whatever may be going on (IP, duplicate account, etc.), and they choose to stop some when it says some things they don't like and they prefer to stop (sometimes with BS excuses which aren't even true, what we cannot be sure about for the supposed "duplicate" part). So the second highlighted sentence is totally true too, IMHO. Even if it was indeed a "duplicate" account.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

namePros is a business; not a charity. nP likely makes more money off the average domainer in membership fee's than epik makes from the average nP member. To have a secondary account, I am happy to be a paying member to support namePros. Insult them for censoring independent thinkers if that's your modus operandi, or respect their business model, and treat nP as you wish to be treated.

Ok, so your theory is that NP are people caring so much about MONEY that they don't care AT ALL about what is being said. The latter part didn't play any role whatsoever. Only money is important in this world (for them, at least).

Maybe you're right. Still doesn't make a different view "a lie".

 

[Tom K.]

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the account @shoulda9393 was closed because of any posts as to the content. In fact, at this time all the posts appear to be up and anyone is able to read them. The mods wrote:

"Rob, @shoulda9393 is still able to participate in this thread from their primary account, and if they’d like to preserve anonymity, they can upgrade their primary account to Gold to reopen their @shoulda9393 account. @shoulda9393 is aware of these options and thanked us for excising them from this discussion so they could focus on other things."

So in order to keep posting under the anonymous account, the primary user needs to upgrade to a Gold level and can reopen that account. Anyone see anything nefarious about that?

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

Anyone see anything nefarious about that?

It depends if it's true or not. Can these people be trusted? Are they fundamentally honest and they don't tend to lie?
You know, the kind of people for whom TRUTH, HONESTY and FAIRNESS is important.

Has the supposed primary account of the banned one written about it? (and you can indeed recognize according to the writing style it's the correct person). Words are cheap (those caring a lot about money well understood this, it seems)

But maybe it is true. Maybe.

aware of these options and thanked us for excising them from this discussion

Right

 

[Tom K.]

It depends if it's true or not. Can these people be trusted? Are they fundamentally honest and they don't tend to lie?
You know, the kind of people for whom TRUTH, HONESTY and FAIRNESS is important.

Has the supposed primary account of the banned one written about it? (and you can indeed recognize according to the writing style it's the correct person). Words are cheap (those caring a lot about money well understood this, it seems)

But maybe it is true. Maybe.

Well, if you have any concrete facts with regards to this particular situation, then maybe you can post those. Apparently the account holder thanked the mods and is not interested in upgrading, preferring to focus on other things. If this person is on DNF then perhaps he or she can collaborate or contradict that statement.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

Well, if you have any concrete facts with regards to this particular situation, then maybe you can post those. Apparently the account holder thanked the mods and is not interested in upgrading, preferring to focus on other things. If this person is on DNF then perhaps he or she can collaborate or contradict that statement.

I don't have more concrete facts than you. What I have is a personal opinion of NP mods and staff for having dealt with them. What you have is what they say.

 

[Tom K.]

I don't have more concrete facts than you. What I have is a personal opinion of NP mods and staff for having dealt with them. What you have is what they say.

Well, the person behind that account has a voice. Still has an account at NP, and more than likely here on DNF. If this person has been silenced and feels treated unjustly then is free and able to make this known and elaborate.