Tribal Support removal of ENTRIES

Discussion in Technical Forum started by Les, Jan 29, 2016
Jan 29, 2016
L
Les
  website
Tribal Support

Members entries in FORUM are being censored and removed , against your

Terms of Use updated November 21, 2010

************************

Proprietary Rights in Content.

TribalPages does not claim any ownership rights in the text, information, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, or any other materials that you post to the TribalPages Services, including without limitation, to your profile, to a node or profile of any third party,

************************

or to our forum. ..........PLEASE NOTE

***********************

They are not breaking your Criteria as stated in

Terms of Use updated November 21, 2010

Please explain which if any that you are using to do this

Reply
Jan 31, 2016
IM
Ian Marr
May I add my support for Les on this matter. If an entry is deleted (and I accept there will be times when this needs to happen) then an explanation should be provided, otherwise, like Les and myself, some people are going to become suspicious and wonder if, indeed, TribalPages is censoring out things simply because they don't like them.

Regards,

Ian Marr

Reply
Feb 1, 2016
RJ
Randall Jensen
May I add my support for Les on this matter. If an entry is deleted (and I accept there will be times when this needs to happen) then an explanation should be provided, otherwise, like Les and myself, more ...
some people are going to become suspicious and wonder if, indeed, TribalPages is censoring out things simply because they don't like them. Regards, Ian Mar
I'm in complete agreement with Tribal Pages decision to remove/delete those entries. They do not have to explain their actions to anyone! Those post were based on an escalation of other posts by a pair of members.

>

I believe a line was crossed and things were correctly dealt with. The conservation had moved from addressing Tribal Pages with demands to one more personal in nature by bring up and calling out Ravinder Rao by name. This was all done out in public to draw attention to their demands of an explanation of the other issue that had them all bent out of shape.

>

Personally, if I had been the moderator of the boards I not only would have deleted those post but would have given them a timeout from the boards as one would give a child who had gotten to big for his britches and thinks the world revolves around him and can say and do anything he pleases. This whole notion that Tribal Pages (or anyone for a matter of fact) MUST explain their actions to them reeks of arrogance and self entitlement. Again, this is their site and they don't have to explain any of their actions to anyone!

>

As far as the other issue that seemed to have started this whole thing.... Tribal Pages doesn't have to explain any of it's business decisions to ANYONE! The decision to no longer offer Gedcom export to free sites is a business decision and they don't have to explain their rationale for this to anyone who doesn't work for or has investment in the company.

>

Actually their decision was a compromise they didn't have to include but they did. But allowing existing free sites to still be able to export a gedcom file, they were essentially grandfathering them in. Use of a grandfather cause is a very common business practice used during a transition stage of rules or polices. Individuals should be thanking them for doing that instead of just saying no more gedcom exports for free sites period with no exceptions.

>

That constant posting of " Proprietary Rights in Content" is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with whether one is able to export a gedcom or not. All the constant posting of that does indicate is a lack of understanding what it means and the law. What is strange neither of the two who are complaining about this are even effected by this. They are just complaining.

>

In my 10 years as a member here I don't think I have ever seen such a display of self importance , arrogance and condescending attitude as I have seen on this board of the 10 days being directed at Tribal Pages. To demand Tribal Pages, "HAS TOO", "YOU MUST", explain to them...... is truly unbelievable.

Reply
Feb 1, 2016
L
Les
  website
I'm in complete agreement with Tribal Pages decision to remove/delete those entries. They do not have to explain their actions to anyone! Those post were based on an escalation of other posts by a more ...
pair of members. > I believe a line was crossed and things were correctly dealt with. The conservation had moved from addressing Tribal Pages with demands to one more personal in nature by bring up and calling out Ravinder Rao by name. This was all done out in public to draw attention to their demands of an explanation of the other issue that had them all bent out of shape. > Personally, if I had been the moderator of the boards I not only would have deleted those post but would have given them a timeout from the boards as one would give a child who had gotten to big for his britches and thinks the world revolves around him and can say and do anything he pleases. This whole notion that Tribal Pages (or anyone for a matter of fact) MUST explain their actions to them reeks of arrogance and self entitlement. Again, this is their site and they don't have to explain any of their actions to anyone! > As far as the other issue that seemed to have started this whole thing.... Tribal Pages doesn't have to explain any of it's business decisions to ANYONE! The decision to no longer offer Gedcom export to free sites is a business decision and they don't have to explain their rationale for this to anyone who doesn't work for or has investment in the company. > Actually their decision was a compromise they didn't have to include but they did. But allowing existing free sites to still be able to export a gedcom file, they were essentially grandfathering them in. Use of a grandfather cause is a very common business practice used during a transition stage of rules or polices. Individuals should be thanking them for doing that instead of just saying no more gedcom exports for free sites period with no exceptions. > That constant posting of " Proprietary Rights in Content" is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with whether one is able to export a gedcom or not. All the constant posting of that does indicate is a lack of understanding what it means and the law. What is strange neither of the two who are complaining about this are even effected by this. They are just complaining. > In my 10 years as a member here I don't think I have ever seen such a display of self importance , arrogance and condescending attitude as I have seen on this board of the 10 days being directed at Tribal Pages. To demand Tribal Pages, "HAS TOO", "YOU MUST", explain to them...... is truly unbelievable
Hi Randell,

my only comment is that I am called by Les, by Ravinder and others and there is nothing special and secretive about Ravinder's Name as it is on view in ABOUT US.

I dont see why the fuss about his Name being used as he is just part of Tribal Pages as the rest of Tribal Support, After all we are only taking about a Family Tree program.

Regards

Les

Reply
Feb 1, 2016
L
Les
  website
I'm in complete agreement with Tribal Pages decision to remove/delete those entries. They do not have to explain their actions to anyone! Those post were based on an escalation of other posts by a more ...
pair of members. > I believe a line was crossed and things were correctly dealt with. The conservation had moved from addressing Tribal Pages with demands to one more personal in nature by bring up and calling out Ravinder Rao by name. This was all done out in public to draw attention to their demands of an explanation of the other issue that had them all bent out of shape. > Personally, if I had been the moderator of the boards I not only would have deleted those post but would have given them a timeout from the boards as one would give a child who had gotten to big for his britches and thinks the world revolves around him and can say and do anything he pleases. This whole notion that Tribal Pages (or anyone for a matter of fact) MUST explain their actions to them reeks of arrogance and self entitlement. Again, this is their site and they don't have to explain any of their actions to anyone! > As far as the other issue that seemed to have started this whole thing.... Tribal Pages doesn't have to explain any of it's business decisions to ANYONE! The decision to no longer offer Gedcom export to free sites is a business decision and they don't have to explain their rationale for this to anyone who doesn't work for or has investment in the company. > Actually their decision was a compromise they didn't have to include but they did. But allowing existing free sites to still be able to export a gedcom file, they were essentially grandfathering them in. Use of a grandfather cause is a very common business practice used during a transition stage of rules or polices. Individuals should be thanking them for doing that instead of just saying no more gedcom exports for free sites period with no exceptions. > That constant posting of " Proprietary Rights in Content" is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with whether one is able to export a gedcom or not. All the constant posting of that does indicate is a lack of understanding what it means and the law. What is strange neither of the two who are complaining about this are even effected by this. They are just complaining. > In my 10 years as a member here I don't think I have ever seen such a display of self importance , arrogance and condescending attitude as I have seen on this board of the 10 days being directed at Tribal Pages. To demand Tribal Pages, "HAS TOO", "YOU MUST", explain to them...... is truly unbelievable
Hi Randell, just to clarify. I take it that you are a Grandfather site, so the issue brought up did not have any meaning to you.

All the best

Les

Reply
Feb 2, 2016
AS
Alan Scott
  website
I'm in complete agreement with Tribal Pages decision to remove/delete those entries. They do not have to explain their actions to anyone! Those post were based on an escalation of other posts by a more ...
pair of members. > I believe a line was crossed and things were correctly dealt with. The conservation had moved from addressing Tribal Pages with demands to one more personal in nature by bring up and calling out Ravinder Rao by name. This was all done out in public to draw attention to their demands of an explanation of the other issue that had them all bent out of shape. > Personally, if I had been the moderator of the boards I not only would have deleted those post but would have given them a timeout from the boards as one would give a child who had gotten to big for his britches and thinks the world revolves around him and can say and do anything he pleases. This whole notion that Tribal Pages (or anyone for a matter of fact) MUST explain their actions to them reeks of arrogance and self entitlement. Again, this is their site and they don't have to explain any of their actions to anyone! > As far as the other issue that seemed to have started this whole thing.... Tribal Pages doesn't have to explain any of it's business decisions to ANYONE! The decision to no longer offer Gedcom export to free sites is a business decision and they don't have to explain their rationale for this to anyone who doesn't work for or has investment in the company. > Actually their decision was a compromise they didn't have to include but they did. But allowing existing free sites to still be able to export a gedcom file, they were essentially grandfathering them in. Use of a grandfather cause is a very common business practice used during a transition stage of rules or polices. Individuals should be thanking them for doing that instead of just saying no more gedcom exports for free sites period with no exceptions. > That constant posting of " Proprietary Rights in Content" is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with whether one is able to export a gedcom or not. All the constant posting of that does indicate is a lack of understanding what it means and the law. What is strange neither of the two who are complaining about this are even effected by this. They are just complaining. > In my 10 years as a member here I don't think I have ever seen such a display of self importance , arrogance and condescending attitude as I have seen on this board of the 10 days being directed at Tribal Pages. To demand Tribal Pages, "HAS TOO", "YOU MUST", explain to them...... is truly unbelievable
Hello Randall.

I cannot recall having seen a message from you in the past, in Forum. An interesting outburst from you. Have you been asleep while Les and others have been helping members over the years. However nice to see you writing in Forum to show that there are more sides to the discussion.

Seems like you are suggesting that freedom of speech is not allowed. Well it is in my country.

Incidentally mentioning Ravinder Reo's name is not a no no. He is mentioned if you click on "my account" > "about us".

FORUM - a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. A public meeting place for OPEN discussion.

Members have a right to express their thoughts in Forum which you clearly have done. I accept that. Also as Forum is a place where members can reply I will tell you that I think you have a very narrow minded view. I would have thought that Tribalpages would be more than happy to accept criticism and suggestions and then make their own final decision. If they do it wrong after reading your views as well as others they will be the looser in the long run.

Regards,

Alan

Reply
Feb 4, 2016
AS
Alan Scott
  website
May I add my support for Les on this matter. If an entry is deleted (and I accept there will be times when this needs to happen) then an explanation should be provided, otherwise, like Les and myself, more ...
some people are going to become suspicious and wonder if, indeed, TribalPages is censoring out things simply because they don't like them. Regards, Ian Mar
Hi Ian,

Your message is very sensible. I can guess why you received such an extraordinary reply from Randall but I will keep that to myself.

Your message did not, in any way, deserve the reply you received. If Randall had something he wanted to say he should have directed it to the two persons he referred to in his message. That would have been common courtesy.

Regards,

Alan Scott

Reply