sean,

To me (paraphrasing) 'repeated violations of the TOS, even after warning' sounds exactly like an explanation. You want a chapter and verse quote of exactly where? Why? A TOS is a TOS. I understand that there is disagreement by some about the fact and/or nature of the violation, and we have nothing but he said-she said regarding that. I also firmly believe that the farther this goes, the less any entrenched side is going to believe anything the other will say, so it really doesn't help to drag it on out here in front of everyone, especially across forum threads that will likely be blocked or erased due to off topic posting - which will further inflame those who already feel heated.

"The same could happen to us" only if we, too violate the TOS. If we do violate it we don't have the right to "give our side" in some court of public opinion. I can't stop anyone from attributing malice to one party or the other, but I don't think this site would have lasted even 3 months with putatively capricious creators.

That is the problem though. I did not violate ANY TOS and I certainly received no warning from them. All I want is for my name to be removed from a list I do not belong on. I promise that once that is done, and all my songs and other accounts that I can't get into have been removed, I will leave quietly. I'm heading over to join max bumps, so anyone that's interested in reading, please go there. I apologise if I have caused any offence to anyone out there, but I did no wrong and I have to defend myself. Surely, I have the right to do that. Locking forum posts is not being objective, it's the actions of someone trying to hide something.

Artist accounts: Mel Cheeky collabs, Shining voice.
Listening Account: Mel Cheeky

For now it looks like anything else than you leaving quietly. Just head for the Max Bumps forum and tell us your story in detail. At the moment you're not making a good impression over here by just denying, as James gave a reasonably sounding answer concerning the TOS and Facebook. Just stop being childish in this forum and start telling us over there...

Jean - While I agree that the conversation should be moved I don't think that calling anyone childish will help matters.

@eatabagel

bump

I didn't think "childish" was such a bad word ;)

However I think it is childish to jump from topic to topic and tell everyone the same things over and over again instead of just posting an extended version on Max Bumps...so I'll stick with the choice of words.

The jumping from topic to topic is as a result of the original being locked or posts removed. Either James wants a personal argument or not. If it's the former then it would indeed be less 'childish' all round if he enabled it to stick to one thread. If it's the latter then he could do a lot worse than stick to running his site and not encourage flame wars by naming names.

@willie

+1

My final word for Mel in this forum - placed here because #4 is something J&S; should consider if they haven't already:

Either: 1) J&S; are lying, arbitrarily and maliciously singling Mel out for violations she never committed (*I don't believe this*). 2) Mel is lying, denying behaviors she committed and foisting the blame on "the man" (I don't know Mel, but I am inclined not to believe this). 3) There was serious miscommunication or misunderstanding about violations, followed up by more miscommunication and/or stiff necks on one or both sides (I think some permutation of this is most likely). 4) Mel's account(s) was hacked and some malicious 3rd party caused the trouble (Possible, but all the more reason to ban, though the resulting acrimony was still likely some form of (3)).

I don't know you, but I'm not aware of any (if not semi-private mini sites) online game, social networking site or else, where bans are openly debated in public. I doubt one can really expect that coming up here. Just go to Max Bumps, tell your versions of the story there...I don't see why there's such a drama going on here instead of giving motives and facts in an external place.

@ iyzie

#4 I've get it...kosmikray = melanie fudge?

she's over there posting now. Just because you know about an external site does not mean every user is aware of it or cares to use it. This is the site that has gone about defaming her. This is where the conversation SHOULD be taking place.

i prefer brownies

Jean, today was the FIRST time I'd heard of max bumps. As Dolmere stated, this is the place I have been lied about, so why can't I defend myself? If the topic had remained open, I'd have just posted there. Do you have a facebook account? I'd gladly join you on any page there if it's proof you need that I've not been banned ANYWHERE. I'm not childish, quite the opposite. A child would run away, hurt. What if this had happened to you Jean? Also, no, bans are not usually made public, so why post my name in public with no reason as to why???? Even after all this useless back and forth, I STILL don't have ANY idea why I was banned ?????????

WTF is going on? Too much drama. I hadn't been looking at forums for awhile. But the locking caught my attention.

James and Sam: You guys should think about never talking on the forums or making posts as "Thesixtyone". You have better things to do than engage in these wars. I know you've made changes and I haven't really enjoyed them. But I have the choice of either sticking with t61 or not.

Still don't know what's going on. But the site doesn't need this.

The drama goes away when the accounts and name do, Michael. Then everyone who cares to stay on a site run by amazingly technically minded, talented but socially inept admins will just resume the love of music as they always have.

James,

Instead of wasting time deleting alt accounts and removing forum messages could you just take a few moments to click the mouse enough to honor Melanie Fudge's request to be removed from your site?

Please remove her name from the groupthink announcement and delete the following accounts: Mel Cheeky collabs(artist), Shining voice(artist) and Mel Cheeky(listener).

You said "Our general policy is to not disclose this information; however, since rumors have bubbled up regarding the inactivity of certain high-profile users, we've decided to make a one-time exception and publish the list to clear up remaining confusion." Your point has been made. For the sake of a google cache and common decency please remove this section of the announcement.

Thank you!