# Elsaspet??



## Parago (May 14, 2008)

What in the world happened?? Can somebody please explain??


----------



## abraxas (May 14, 2008)

Parago said:


> What in the world happened?? Can somebody please explain??



Watching the drama unfold for quite sometime now, I can safely say, "Not really."


----------



## Parago (May 14, 2008)

abraxas said:


> Watching the drama unfold for quite sometime now, I can safely say, "Not really."



Well, I'm not here THAT often but I would still like to know where elsaspet went that far that she was facing being banned. Thanks.


----------



## Overread (May 14, 2008)

I belive I can answer with what I think is the reason, but I think it would be better for a mod make the statement (if they choose) and leave things at that.


----------



## zendianah (May 14, 2008)

sorry.. off topic.. but Abraxas I love your remember when.. (cabbage patch kid).. I cant stop lauphing.

I'm not here that often Parago and I don't know what happen. I think Cindy has helped me and many others and it would be ashame if she was banned. I hope thats not true.


----------



## Parago (May 14, 2008)

I went through some of her recent posts and yea.. she can be slightly.. blunt - but hey, we're all individuals and some of us are quite a character and I can't see at all what would've caused this. But then again some of her recent posts have been edited so I don't know details.

SCARY!


----------



## zendianah (May 14, 2008)

very interesting.


----------



## Big Mike (May 14, 2008)

It is indeed unfortunate but the member in question has been banned.

I don't want to get into it here, but the primary reason is that another member was singled out  as a target.  We here at TPF do not allow our members to be singled out, picked on or bullied. 

In this case, a warning was given before the banning.  In fact, several other warning had been issued for previous incidents.

Please know that we don't wish any ill will to the member in question and consider this a very unfortunate situation.


----------



## Parago (May 14, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> It is indeed unfortunate but the member in question has been banned.
> 
> I don't want to get into it here, but the primary reason is that another member was singled out  as a target.  We here at TPF do not allow our members to be singled out, picked on or bullied.
> 
> ...




Thanks for clarifying, Big Mike. I appreciate that. Like I said.. I looked through some of her recent post but couldn't find anything overly hostile but if there's been previous incidents I guess I understand the decision.

Well in case you're reading this, elsaspet, I wish you best of luck with your work - I think you're an inspiration, in your own way.


----------



## Corry (May 14, 2008)

There were MANY past incidences that were taken into account.  It was not an easy decision, nor was it a quick one. 

However, continuous inflammatory behavior coupled with a blatant disregard for the rules of the forum and the repeated warnings from the entire moderator team led to the decision being made.  

Singling someone out, naming them, and basically threatening them in any way, shape, or form, is not something that will be tolerated here -- especially after several warnings about similar behavior in the past.

EDIT: Also, please keep in mind that usually offending posts are removed from view, especially those that are direct attacks on someone.  Searching said member's old posts will not give you a full view of the situation.


----------



## dslrchat (May 14, 2008)

The thread is question was removed/moved.

IMHO the thread itself wasn't that bad, except it was a blatant response to another members thread.


----------



## dpolston (May 14, 2008)

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121950


no it wasn't

BTW did the other "party" get banned too? I think they needed too.


----------



## Corry (May 14, 2008)

dpolston said:


> http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121950
> 
> 
> no it wasn't
> ...



Yes, the offending thread was removed.  That is not it.


----------



## Parago (May 14, 2008)

dpolston said:


> http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121950
> 
> 
> no it wasn't
> ...



I have to say, I do agree. It's people like Jols who turn an entire forum into a kindergarten party gone horribly bad. I don't exactly understand why elsaspet didn't just drop it and walk away but Jols should NOT get away with HER behavior either, I'm sorry. If she does I'd be highly disappointed due to lack of consistency when it comes to enforcement of what you guys pointed out as the rules of this site.

There's a reason why in her header she says 'No, I'm not a troll.. blah blah' - because she's probably heard that word way too many times. I have to say I'm not surprised.

(Should this count as single-ing someone out, that's fine with me. Sometimes things need to be said.)


----------



## caspertodd (May 14, 2008)

Elsapet was taunted.  The person that caused it should have been banned as well.  The fact that they were not is upsetting.


----------



## Corry (May 14, 2008)

caspertodd said:


> Elsapet was taunted.  The person that caused it should have been banned as well.  The fact that they were not is upsetting.



Again, that thread that was linked to is not the offending thread.


----------



## Big Bully (May 14, 2008)

Ahhh Now I know what/who the other thread was talking about.... Makes sense now.

I think in this case the reason elsaspet was banned is because she didn't drop the situation and brought up a new thread about it. Aka furthering the conflict, whereas jols didn't.
Jols yes has issues, but she did not continue the fight elsewhere.


----------



## Big Bully (May 14, 2008)

Oh as a side note, how did you do in your classes Corry?


----------



## caspertodd (May 14, 2008)

I know, and I have no doubt that if she was banned, that it was for a reason.  I read the thread where she was being taunted as it was happening, and saw where the person that was taunting Elsapet was warned to not continue, and they continued anyway but yet was not banned.  The whole situation is just dissapointing.


----------



## Corry (May 14, 2008)

Unfortunately, you are just going to have to accept that there is more to the story than you are aware of.  


Due to the fact that we feel that some things should be taken care of behind the scenes, and not aired in public, the discussion of current members will not be allowed to continue.  

Thank you for your understanding.


----------



## dpolston (May 14, 2008)

okay... I'll drop it (but I am pretty darn curious!)   lol


----------



## Fally (May 14, 2008)

> Unfortunately, you are just going to have to accept that there is more to the story than you are aware of.


 
I've been to hundreds of forums, and invariably, this kind of response from moderators breeds the curiosity rather than quashing it.  I'm disappointed to see it really.

Jols appears to get off on starting something, taunting as it was referred to previously.  It's a pretty disgusting behaviour all things considered.  If Jols doesnt' get banned out of this, regardless of warnings (oooooo, PM warnings), nothing beneficial will come of it.

You've banned an inspiration to some, and really, a good example of what people hope their pictures look like, in favor of not eliminating the catalyst.

IF only a warning was given to Jols and not a direct ban smacked down on them, then this is akin to the victim being put the death by firing squad while the accused gets to fire the first shot.

Fally


----------



## Corry (May 14, 2008)

Fally said:


> I've been to hundreds of forums, and invariably, this kind of response from moderators breeds the curiosity rather than quashing it.  I'm disappointed to see it really.
> 
> Jols appears to get off on starting something, taunting as it was referred to previously.  It's a pretty disgusting behaviour all things considered.  If Jols doesnt' get banned out of this, regardless of warnings (oooooo, PM warnings), nothing beneficial will come of it.
> 
> ...




Jols is not the member in question, nor is that thread the reason the member in question was banned.


----------



## Corry (May 14, 2008)

Also, one final reminder: 



> Due to the fact that we feel that some things should be taken care of behind the scenes, and not aired in public, the discussion of current members will not be allowed to continue.


----------



## Lacey Anne (May 15, 2008)

I'm disgusted with the whole thing. Seriously. I'm disgusted that Cindy was banned, that people like Jols remain and that moderators hide behind their freakin' "It's private" while publically banning. It's enough to make me want to pack up and move on. If those who are truly talented, as Cindy is, get this kind of treatment, why even have a photography site at all?


----------



## Corry (May 15, 2008)

Lacey Anne said:


> I'm disgusted with the whole thing. Seriously. I'm disgusted that Cindy was banned, that people like Jols remain and that moderators hide behind their freakin' "It's private" while publically banning. It's enough to make me want to pack up and move on. If those who are truly talented, as Cindy is, get this kind of treatment, why even have a photography site at all?



Level of talent is irrelevant to this situation.  

This banning was only public because of everyone asking about it.  Otherwise, everything possible was done to keep it private.  

Now, since no one seems to want to abide by the 'stop talking about current members' rule, I'm closing this thread.  

I don't care who they are, and how little or how much they annoy the crap out of everyone, I am not going to allow for public lynchings of any member on this site.  

I will say one last time:  jols has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.  jols has been approrpriately given a final warning for the last incident in which she was involved, but it was not jols who wreaked havoc all across the forum for the umpteenth time today.


----------

