Should Nats Be An Industry Watchdog?

[taboo_gal]

I'd say NATs is definitely founded in their position and resulting action. However, to come out publicly with names is a bit much in my opinion. Whatever went down on the phone/behind closed doors is one thing, to air it is another. I feel that there is a time, place and manner in which examples can be made while remaining discreet and not risk anyone's reputation. Playing Devil's Advocate for a sec, it could have been something as simple and inadvertent as a changed option in the admin or a new recruit changing something they shouldn't have (though the innocent don't often use profanity and hang up on someone, but I am not "in the know" and am being diplomatic). In any case, they should protect their brand and the choice to suspend until rectified is warranted.

[Jace]

Someone pointed this out on that other board and I think even though it was a fake nick typing, he had a point

NATS surely has a team of kickass lawyers....I really doubt that they would out someone like this without talking to their laywers first

I personally am ALL for them outing people publicly that try and cheat, and honestly if there are people that don't like them outing cheaters it makes me think twice about the people against them doing that.

[taboo_gal]

Originally Posted by Jace

Someone pointed this out on that other board and I think even though it was a fake nick typing, he had a point

NATS surely has a team of kickass lawyers....I really doubt that they would out someone like this without talking to their laywers first

I personally am ALL for them outing people publicly that try and cheat, and honestly if there are people that don't like them outing cheaters it makes me think twice about the people against them doing that.

I've got no issue with outing cheaters if they truly are cheaters. Given the response nats was met with, I'd say it warranted in this instance.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by taboo_gal

I'd say NATs is definitely founded in their position and resulting action. However, to come out publicly with names is a bit much in my opinion. Whatever went down on the phone/behind closed doors is one thing, to air it is another. I feel that there is a time, place and manner in which examples can be made while remaining discreet and not risk anyone's reputation. Playing Devil's Advocate for a sec, it could have been something as simple and inadvertent as a changed option in the admin or a new recruit changing something they shouldn't have (though the innocent don't often use profanity and hang up on someone, but I am not "in the know" and am being diplomatic). In any case, they should protect their brand and the choice to suspend until rectified is warranted.

Its about time you returned

[Toby]

As with all things on GFY you must read between the lines, figure out to to pay attention to and who to ignore, then distill it all down and let it age a bit.

Having carefully re-read some specifc posts by a couple of "new" nicks this is what appears to have take place:

1) Several months ago NR Media changes their CCBill login
2) That new login was never updated in the NATS admin
3) This is brought to the attention of TMM
4) TMM checks the numbers within the NATS admin and confirms a discrepency with CCBill numbers.
5) TMM attempts to contact NR Media to inquire about the issue and gets cursed and hung up on.

Given the apparent seriousness of the issue and the response by NR Media I don't think TMM had much choice but to go public given their prior statements about shaving.

[Jace]

Originally Posted by Toby

As with all things on GFY you must read between the lines, figure out to to pay attention to and who to ignore, then distill it all down and let it age a bit.

Having carefully re-read some specifc posts by a couple of "new" nicks this is what appears to have take place:

1) Several months ago NR Media changes their CCBill login
2) That new login was never updated in the NATS admin
3) This is brought to the attention of TMM
4) TMM checks the numbers within the NATS admin and confirms a discrepency with CCBill numbers.
5) TMM attempts to contact NR Media to inquire about the issue and gets cursed and hung up on.

Given the apparent seriousness of the issue and the response by NR Media I don't think TMM had much choice but to go public given their prior statements about shaving.

this is pretty much what I am getting out of all of it too

[Mike AI]

I wonder if these issues are covered in their contract.

[spazlabz]

Originally Posted by Mike AI

I wonder if these issues are covered in their contract.

Great point and almost exactly what I was thinking...

---------
outting them publically after... if i am reading this correctly...one phone call involving unprofessional conduct is equally unprofessional.

who did they talk to? was it the owner of the company or a lacky? BIG difference right there.... someone in that company had to have a reasonable thought process that could have worked it out before damaging the company as badly as going public surely must have...


spaz

[taboo_gal]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Its about time you returned

No worries. I'm just fashionably late.