JC
Senior Member
Yes, Michael Tapes has been banned from posting in all forums on DPReview.
I was one of the alpha testers for Archive Creator and, like so many of you, believe this is an extremely useful and valuable product. I recently spoke with Michael and he informed me that when he attempted to post in one of the Archive Creator threads, he was unceremoniously informed that he was banned for “abuse” of the site. No email from Phil beforehand, no notice whatsoever, no regard for all that he has contributed in discussions about Archive Creator and, of course, YarcPlus. Since Michael received no other information regarding the ban, it is not possible to know for sure why he was banned. Presumably, Phil banned Michael for violating the rule against advertising.
The irony of the situation is that Michael has emailed Phil several times within the past few days in an attempt to purchase advertising for Archive Creator on DPReview! Phil, however, failed to respond to any of Michael’s emails. Michael emailed Phil again after being banned and still no response.
So where does this leave the Canon SLR forum (and other forums as well)? Questions and comments about Archive Creator continue to come in, but the person best qualified to answer those questions cannot respond. Questions about YarcPlus also will continue to be posted but, again, Michael will not be able to provide the level of service and support that he has in the past. To those who would say that users of the software can still email him, you should realize that there is a benefit in users posting questions and getting replies so that all users may benefit, even if they did not have that specific issue. Moreover, individuals who have not purchased the software also get to see the strengths and even weaknesses (such as lack of Mac support) of the software.
That’s the practical argument. Another argument is that the ban is STUPID! I know it’s Phil’s site and he can do with it what he pleases. But whom is he helping by banning Michael? And how can Phil, in good conscience, ban Michael for advertising when Phil has refused to answer Michael’s emails asking to pay for advertising? Someone mentioned a double standard exists. But given Michael’s attempt to purchase advertising, it seems as if there is just an arbitrary standard. Phil’s apparent hubris helps no one, not even Phil.
I could on, but I guess you all get the message. A valuable contributor to the forum has been banned for providing information about a new product, despite his attempts to purchase advertising for that product. Now let’s see if I get banned as well, even without violating any of the rules.
JC
I was one of the alpha testers for Archive Creator and, like so many of you, believe this is an extremely useful and valuable product. I recently spoke with Michael and he informed me that when he attempted to post in one of the Archive Creator threads, he was unceremoniously informed that he was banned for “abuse” of the site. No email from Phil beforehand, no notice whatsoever, no regard for all that he has contributed in discussions about Archive Creator and, of course, YarcPlus. Since Michael received no other information regarding the ban, it is not possible to know for sure why he was banned. Presumably, Phil banned Michael for violating the rule against advertising.
The irony of the situation is that Michael has emailed Phil several times within the past few days in an attempt to purchase advertising for Archive Creator on DPReview! Phil, however, failed to respond to any of Michael’s emails. Michael emailed Phil again after being banned and still no response.
So where does this leave the Canon SLR forum (and other forums as well)? Questions and comments about Archive Creator continue to come in, but the person best qualified to answer those questions cannot respond. Questions about YarcPlus also will continue to be posted but, again, Michael will not be able to provide the level of service and support that he has in the past. To those who would say that users of the software can still email him, you should realize that there is a benefit in users posting questions and getting replies so that all users may benefit, even if they did not have that specific issue. Moreover, individuals who have not purchased the software also get to see the strengths and even weaknesses (such as lack of Mac support) of the software.
That’s the practical argument. Another argument is that the ban is STUPID! I know it’s Phil’s site and he can do with it what he pleases. But whom is he helping by banning Michael? And how can Phil, in good conscience, ban Michael for advertising when Phil has refused to answer Michael’s emails asking to pay for advertising? Someone mentioned a double standard exists. But given Michael’s attempt to purchase advertising, it seems as if there is just an arbitrary standard. Phil’s apparent hubris helps no one, not even Phil.
I could on, but I guess you all get the message. A valuable contributor to the forum has been banned for providing information about a new product, despite his attempts to purchase advertising for that product. Now let’s see if I get banned as well, even without violating any of the rules.
JC
