|[ Return to The Zeitgeist Movement | Reply to Topic ]|
|The Burger King||Posted: May 02, 2010 - 05:44|
I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?
Hi this is a Letter sent directly to Peter Merola (by e-mail) from former members of the TZM developer group who the majority who signed the letter are now working on RBOSE project. This letter was mainly made after their were some (a lot) of concerns with TZM itself and it's direction. Special thanks to Gman for sending the letter to Peter Merola and for continuing support with RBOSE to this day. I am not apart of RBOSE anymore but anyone wanting to join RBOSE go to http://rbose.org/
I just wanted to put this letter out onto the public even though it was never intentionally hidden from anybody and one could easily attain this letter if one asked at least within /server rbose.org 6677.
The developers group had been ordered by Peter Merola to bann people from mumble even though mumble was not a official server of TZM they justified banning people because it was a large amount of TZM people gathering in one place holding meetings their (kind of like what TZM aka Peter Merola is doing in trying to take control of TZM facebook group). When the dev's were not obedient TZM drones Peter Merola decreed over his radio show and sent letters out saying that developers meetings were to be held on teamspeak (closed source). The developers began to see things going from bad to worse as Peter Merola and Gilbert Ismail wanted more projects pertaining to advertising than anything else. The concept of open source to Peter Merola and Gilbert Ismail is irrelevant because how will that help Peter sell his dvd's and get famous. People like Peter Merola and Gilbert Ismail have yet to grasp or understand such great and powerful system as FOSS because they simply lack the sophistication and even if they said they understood I highly doubt they would support it because in a way it doesn't really help them at all in making peter famous. The Dev group was compelled to do something well that something was a letter.
In the letter below their are a number of issues presented from 38 individual perspectives of problems within the TZM movement. This letter to peter Merola took 3 weeks to make from again 38 different perspectives at which those 38 perspectives of problems within TZM movement typed their names below as representation of their individual support for this letter as well as this letter was developed in Either pad for real time joint group editing. The letter in the Developers eyes after a week of working on it was like The Declaration of Independence.
Again it took the developers 3 weeks to write this letter and a day for Peter Merola and his top cronies to spit on it. I may actually present data a friend gathered named Lukas (formed TZM dev) had gathered that would support even more the problems addressed within this letter.
The Developers had noticed the problems were in fact the people on the top of the TZm cult hierarchal system the main problems being Peter Merola, Tanktop, Fresco and his g/f Roxaine, Gilbert Ismail, and VTV. Simply put the Dev's wanted these people on the top to stop giving them orders thinking the developers will follow blindly like other TZM drones. Dev's knew or the majority of the people within the group that Peter Merola, and Fresco, Gilbert Ismail are in fact the problem itself that it's simply the nature of the beast and hence what was originally a joke to start off with RBSOE was born. Main focus of RBOSE being it's a work platform project is to have as flat of structure as possible.
I suppose I should pose some question when reading this letter. My first question is this letter unreasonable? if so why if not why? Any points you find valid or interesting? Any problems with this letter? Anything you would add (if so what)? Anything else etc...?
~~ My opinion: I like to say that I never really thought this letter to Peter Merola would work but I must admit it does have good points, as well as I helped put down a few points myself within this letter. ~~
Letter to Peter Merola in .pdf document click link below (may be a easier read)
Letter to Peter Merola in txt below
LETTER HAS BEEN SENT ON 06. FEBRUARY, 08:00 A.M. UTC, BY GMAN
The purpose of this letter is to present a series of observed issues and proposed solutions. We hope that communicating with you will lead to a fruitful discussion about how to advocate the core tenets of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement, not only through education and communication, but through embracement and implementation. Involving the community in all areas related to the movement, without anyone being subservient and left behind, seems to be the obvious way we should operate.
Today communities exist, because people share common values and goals. We believe that different perspectives should be encouraged, valued and a general principle established, that any angle is up for discussion, as long as the quest for knowledge is the common goal and appropriate arguments are presented.
Various parts of this letter are linked to working documents, including examples of operating protocols, blueprints and proposals that are being actively developed within the movement. Many hours of thought and discussion have gone into the making of this presentation and we write this simply because we need your help to put the proposed solutions below into practice.
Since the inception of thezeitgeistmovement.com website, an ever-growing core group of dedicated members have voluntarily assumed an immense workload, taking on a vast number of responsibilities. This level of contribution is commendable, but leaves less time to deal with unique and unforeseen challenges in a comprehensive way. When we are thus limited, certain decisions have to be made quickly, and adhered to, while we move on. Extended analysis and experimentation are often luxuries we cannot afford as individuals or small groups. We have many diverse priorities, and some issues are inevitably handled inadequately because we simply do not have the resources to deal with them. However, there are many active members within this movement who do have the time, experience and willingness to constructively address our community's emerging social and technical complexities.
The Zeitgeist Movement community, as a whole, has the knowledge, human resources, technical capabilities and will, to cooperatively overcome current and future challenges. On this note, we list some issues and then present solutions which we expect will significantly lower the workload for both the administrative team and yourself.
1.1 The main website inhibits members from reaching the areas where they can advance in learning and action.
1.2 While there is a protocol wiki page for moderation (Footnote 1.2 A), it has never been completed.
1.3 The recent commotion surrounding some of the moderators, coupled with members of the moderation team being pulled away to projects, seems to have left the current moderation team understaffed and undiversified across the movement. Instances of frustration and loss of temper have been witnessed. Lacking time and resources, authority is likely to be used as a shortcut in the process of decision making. Such power, however small, inevitably leads to instances of corrupt behavior in the name of "moving forward".(Footnote 1.3 A)
1.4 Some global decisions (eg suppression of software use, banning policy) have negatively affected the productivity and development of some projects throughout the community. (Footnote 1.4 A) Increasingly, decisions regarding thezeitgeistmovement.com are having an impact on the greater movement, reaching beyond the domain of the server and into the community at large. Despite the notion that the website is not the movement, the strong connection is self-evident. The problem is intensified by the fact that only a few individuals currently exert global control over the movement, and decide who can remain a member and who cannot.(Footnote 1.4 B) The distinction between the community and your privately owned server is not clear in relation to these privileges. (Footnote 1.4 C)
1.5 People without field-specific competence are in positions to decide which projects get pursued and which tools are used. In addition, nothing resembling a peer-review process exists within the current practice of decision making. (Footnote: 1.5 A)
The express exclusion of certain community tools and discussion mediums is counterproductive, prohibitive and ultimately unsustainable. It also leads directly to the perception of a dictatorship by many active members.
As a result of these issues and more, we are witnessing an increasing number of users, contributors and moderators suddenly deciding to throw in the towel and walk away from the movement. (eg BranManFloMore, Champ) (Footnote: 1.5 B)
The solutions posed here are suggestions that can be tried and evaluated. If they do not help improving the functionality of the community, then new approaches will be devised and tested benefiting from the previous failures. The scientific process must incessantly be applied to all problems. It is a continuous effort, not a final frontier.
2.1 The Zeitgeist Movement website may not encompass the entirety of the movement, but it certainly is seen that way by the many, many members who contribute to the growth of the overall movement by specifically giving their time, energy and passion to this site. The movement website is much more progressive and community-based than anything that preceded it. As such, it is self-evident that relevant solutions to most issues need to come directly from the community itself, which has given much more than is generally known (e.g., wiki, pootle, wave, numerous project threads, multimedia, etc.).
An up-to-date list of currently undergoing projects should be clearly visible on the main website, along with information on how they work and how to get involved with them. This way, new members will instantly see what is being worked on across the movement, learn how they can contribute, and gain a clear picture of our current state of overall progress. It can technically be implemented right now if the website source code is more accessible than it is today. (Footnote: 2.1 A)
2.2 A clear & concise protocol for moderation needs to be properly developed, with significant community input, and tuned to guide the moderation to a more teacher-oriented approach, including a section denoting moderator responsibilities to the community. Members of the moderation team should be asked to read and agree with it.
Several months ago, there was a concerted push by several members & moderators to intentionally monitor the "Questions for Radio Show" threads and surf around the forum answering newer members' questions. The result was that the majority of forum noise had quieted considerably in less than 1.5 months. (Footnote: 2.2 A)
2.3 Patience & understanding are needed. If patience is lost, the moderator needs to step back and take the time to get their patience back, instead of over-reacting. If a moderator is unable to handle a cumbersome member, for whatever reason, then the moderator should be required to ask for assistance from another moderator, or pass on the task of handling that particular issue to another moderator entirely. An increase in the number of teacher-minded moderators may help alleviate the tendency towards overstressed moderators. Patience and empathy need to be two of the primary requisites for moderator candidates.
Teamspeak 3, Mumble and IRC are already designed with relatively easy-to-use moderator controls for muting problematic users who need a little time to cool off. It already exists in other mediums within the movement. Some moderators might not want to use it where it's already available, but their personal preferences and emotional reactions should not guide their actions. (Footnote: 2.3 A)
Muting prevents posting, while still allowing users to read. As a result, most banning by moderators/admins is rendered obsolete. Moderation/leadership requires empathy and a large dose of patience to perform the functions adequately. Banning, as a moderation option, should only be applied to issues of site security (hack attempts, serious physical threats, etc.), with the use of the new Mute function handling the rest.
If no sensitive information is posted in the public medium (e.g. forum) that can be used to harm the posters, then no harm can come from a muted user to the community, while some good can go to the offending user by means of 'teaching by example'. Users are still able to educate themselves using our materials, and there is no reason why we should deny them this option.
2.4 While a centralized platform for broadcasting and sharing information has its value, limiting ourselves to one solution is recognized as nonconstructive and restrictive. A holistic approach would provide a common and universally accessible place for major announcements and discussions, while also fully supporting the use and development of different tools, like Zynergy (Footnote 2.4 A), ZMSocial, Mumble (Footnote 2.4 B), Gobby, Wave, Etherpad, etc., that have the potential to surpass the currently used ones. It would also let members, teams and projects explore different solutions that best fit their evolving needs.
It is unlikely that any single solution will always work (or even be accessible) for everyone. Having a choice of mediums maximizes the ability to contribute and minimizes the risk of complete communication breaks. With all the richness (abundance) in options provided by a variety of instruments there is no need for us to take the weaknesses and shortcomings of a monolithic construct. (Footnote 2.4 C)
The emergent nature of our community demands continual improvement of the tools we use. An open, non-authoritative stance that welcomes development is self-evident in its benefits for promoting the movement forward.
2.5 Decisions are best arrived at through investigations, analysis and input of interdisciplinary teams that possess the necessary expertise to address all aspects of a specific issue. In other words, decisions that affect the movement should be worked towards openly in a way that maximizes the amount of substantiated input while minimizing personal and emotional bias.
The current practice of individuals and small groups imposing their decisions on the community as a whole, claiming to represent a consensus without ever having gone through a transparent process of decision making, deprives us both of optimized solutions and active support of our members. In order for us to make any significant progress, we all need to work together towards necessary solutions, instead of being told what is, or what is not, permissible.
The majority of communication pathways across the entire movement are privately owned, inhibiting community participation in the development of the communication infrastructure. Is there an intention to move towards a cooperatively "owned" model of the communication infrastructure?
As for now, only with your approval are we able to implement the solutions proposed here, including the main website and the current moderation team. We hope that this letter will open productive discussions and let the whole community actively become involved in the development of all areas of the movement within a flat social structure.
More materials detailing problems perceived and solutions to ideas were produced, but not included so as not to overburden this letter. If you need further information, we would be happy to provide it.
(in alphabetic order)
Absalom - Web developer / Programming Team Member
[1.2 A] Wiki: Help Moderator: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki...:Moderator
[1.3 A] Behaviour:
* Synopsis of behavioural issues http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joom...=20#215557
* logs and analysis (suggested to ilustrate emotions)
* Language Statistics http://www.paxton.de/tzm/languagestatistics.txt</p>
* Why Powerful People - Many of Whom Take a Moral High Ground - Don't Practice What They Preach http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...105906.htm</p>
[1.4 A] Examples: Translation Project, Linguistic Team, Programming Team
* Peter Joseph: "We must ban in all sectors related to The Movement until new solutions arise."
* Peter Joseph: "In the event you feel there is a user that needs to be suspended in your area, you would send an e-mail/IM to a specific address (this will be released soon) and report the issue."
* Peter Joseph: "This person is to be banned from mumble, in accord with our universal banning rules."
* DarkDancer: "i fulfill moderator duties, therefore am trusted to judge on a users good or bad intentions"
* DarkDancer: "i am trusted to know the direction and goal of this movement to make such a decision"
* DarkDancer: "as understood now i am granted trust to speak on behalf of chapter administration"
* DarkDancer: "no there is no rule, it becomes a rule when a moderator asks it to be moved"
* DarkDancer: "the rules are perfectly in line with the goals"
[1.4 C] Quotes:
* Peter Joseph: "The site is not the movement".
* Peter Joseph: "This is one site and operates as one unit."
[1.5 A] Factual top-down structure of the community: http://pppp.ovh.org/z/diagram1.png<br /> [1.5 B] Examples of people leaving the team or even the movement:
* BranManFloMore: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joom...=30#217908
[2.1 A] Forum topic: How we can make things easy to find? why not? http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joom...618#219618</p>
* TZM Forum 2.0: Management efficiency http://www.paxton.de/tzm/tzmforum2.txt</p>
[2.2 A] A Thread about filtering questions for PJ'S Radio show: http://tinyurl.com/ydxu67o</p>
[2.3 A] The Mute technology for the forums, already implemented on a test server, is summarized in this wiki page and accompanying video:
[2.4 A] Zynergy blueprint:
* blueprint of new forum engine
* blueprint describing auto-moderation features
* IRC bot counting words
* (mute and bury)
[2.4 B] Mumble Protocol (In working progress)
* Blueprints for Decision making practice: http://www.paxton.de/tzm/mumbleprotocol2010jan05.html</p>
[2.4 C] Community Projects currently designed around non-hierachial systems approaches:
* Translation Project
* Linguistic Team
* Radio Address Transcription Team
* From Earth To Venus
* Some IRC Channels like #venusproject, #linux, #music or #zeitgeistmovement.de (all users have operator status there)
* Freenode IRC (only Bots have operator status / autoop)
END OF LETTER
As of now RBOSE is blacklisted from TZM decreed by Peter Merola, influenced by all upper staff.
If TZM is willing to address the issues in this letter with good or bad criticism and is willing to discuss not only these issues but even more developed issues since then I and others may be willing to listen. I can speak for myself when I say I always have a open door policy for anything and am willing to talk about this issue among other issues EX: programming, mechanics etc... As for TZM open door policy well the link above blacklisting RBOSE is indeed a closed door policy when it comes to RBOSE and any site TZM cult deems as a threat to their cults ideology.
I can say responding to Peter Merola's topic about blacklisting RBOSE. it simply does not make any sense. I mean for example of a so called deemed troll, has trolled every forum on the internet then joins RBOSE but never join TZM then that's ok but if TZM banns and calls a individual a troll and that individual joins RBOSE or any other group then that group is in fact a troll group by guilty of association. This would mean if a banned users from TZM joins Ubuntu development of mumble development team then that entity or FOSS group would be defined as a troll group and is subject to be blacklisted. I see the good and wise logic by Peter Merola now...
RBSOE has clearly stated again and again that no one individual is a leader nor represents RBOSE, RBOSE is a project platform. So when Peter Merola singles out Grits and says he's working on behalf of RBOSE that's simply not true. RBOSE is a work platform simply put nothing else nothing more, if you want to go after a individual well that's your progitive to do so but to go after a group and say they facilitate a environment well why stop their why not label every group that individual is affiliated with and say it facilitates a hostile environment? Your the ones giving labels not us, if you have a problem with a individual contact him directly and solve it's not rationally to take it out on a project well mainly because it's a project not a group so your condemning project that's still in it's alpha phases and well that just looks kind of silly (makes no sense to me) . I really think you don't understand what RBSOE is about and yet you, yes you Peter Merola pretend you do along with VTV, Gilbert Ismail, Gregory Wantz, and Noel.
|#1||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|sorry||Posted: May 02, 2010 - 06:57|
So much effort; and all because some guy had to make a fake movie.
|#2||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|anticultist||Posted: May 02, 2010 - 07:55|
Brainwashing you for money
"* Peter Joseph: "This person is to be banned from mumble, in accord with our universal banning rules.""
i love this...he cant even escape to alpha centauri.
|#3||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|The Burger King||Posted: May 02, 2010 - 13:34|
I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?
Thought this was funny, below TZM barred people off from coming onto the developers mumble server. As they say no official TZm cult group may hold meetings on this server LOL... Keep in mind that this was a developers mumble server nothing else nothing more and we had people NOT affiliated with TZM (nor did they ever care too) on this server as well to note TZM cult never said this was a official server as well...
Before you read the problem is solved when and if the individual figures out the mute function on mumble :D
Because the administrators of the mumble server are not effectively moderating the chat, and are unable or unwilling to block users who are harassing, threatening and disrupting meetings, The Zeitgeist Movement officially states that it does not endorse the use of this server.
Moderators, chapter leaders, project managers are requested not to use this server until further notice for any meetings designated as "official."
At such time as the administrators of the server express a willingness and ability to block users banned from the main site, we will reconsider.
|#4||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Muertos||Posted: May 02, 2010 - 19:20|
Paid Disinformation Blogger
GET IN THE BUNKA!
|#5||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Sky||Posted: May 03, 2010 - 02:04|
So did he ever respond to the letter?
|#6||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|anticultist||Posted: May 03, 2010 - 06:00|
Brainwashing you for money
If I remember rightly he wrote back saying he was too busy to address all the points and mentioned a few things. Bill can get all the replies easy enough.
|#7||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|The Burger King||Posted: May 03, 2010 - 14:44|
I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?
Well I'm not too sure Peter Merola ever wrote back but yes he might of said that he'll respond later because he was busy making his movie. He might of wrote back but I mean if he did I would at least know so I'm assuming he didn't after we sent that letter their were discussions about it but it was mostly indirect communication after the letter. I'll ask around if anybody knows.
New: Peter response to RBOSE
START OF LETTER
Note from Gman: This reply illustrates that there are a number of things that Peter is not yet aware of, and/or that he has received far too much incorrect background information for him to base his thinking (for example, what the community considers to be a 'project'). I believe this to be our fault for not making him more aware of the facts back when it was first learned that others were passing him incorrect info. Let's think about the best way(s) to fix that instead of continuing to try to convince those who have been sending him incorrect info, regardless of their intentions or awareness that the info was wrong. In other words, please focus only on solutions here. :)
Reply from Peter, arrived Feb 25th
Hi Gman- this all i have time for right now. thanks
Specifics: 2.1 "An up-to-date list of currently undergoing projects should be clearly visible on the main website, along with information on how they work and how to get involved with them. " Most are - though many projects are not implemented yet as well. The major projects constitute dedicated websites. We simply are not there yet. New organizational system will emerge.
2.2. "A clear & concise protocol for moderation needs to be properly developed, with significant community input, and tuned to guide the moderation to a more teacher-oriented approach" In revision now. New rules will be obvious and protocols transparent foreveryone. It will take another week or so. Mods can be teachers but most (hopefully) should simply guide the content and objectively maintain the rules. This is always hard and is an ongoing development given the nature of conflicting personalities. All mod must agree to our agreed upon rules/protocol, of course.
2.3 "Patience & understanding are needed." Of course. This is an ongoing process and we are working to create stability through new constructs. (IE-global mod team.)
"Muting prevents posting, while still allowing users to read. As a result, most banning by moderators/admins is rendered obsolete."
We have dedicated trolls/spammers working to harass and bother. If you were in a room with a person who has the intent and conditioning to be deliberately uncooperative and hence dedicated to causing trouble and confusion, you would be diligent to remove the person initially from the room, as they would be hurting everyone else otherwise. This is the sad reality of the current world.
Banning is the only option in severe cases. I can give 100 examples of trolls where "talking to them" or the like would be non-productive and a waste of time. It has to do with their intent. Muting can be a decent method for moderate problems however, I agree. Yet - muting assumes that the person will be allowed back to post at some point. This isn't always the case.
2.4 "While a centralized platform for broadcasting and sharing information has its value, limiting ourselves to one solution is recognized as nonconstructive and restrictive. " Solutions are gauged by effect, ease and efficiency. It is really self regulating. Reason reflects that we need info in one place to be consistent/simple, however, so less is more in this regard. We will always be shifting most likely as new mediums/advances become available.
2.5 "The current practice of individuals and small groups imposing their decisions on the community as a whole, claiming to represent a consensus without ever having gone through a transparent process of decision making, deprives us both of optimized solutions and active support of our members. In order for us to make any significant progress, we all need to work together towards necessary solutions, instead of being told what is, or what is not, permissible."
We have done a good deal of interaction with people to gauge feedback about direction and will continue to improve methods for this interaction. If your idea is to set up a "voting" system which emails all members to decide every time a person gets banned, or every time we change the color of the site, or every time we alter a rule, I can assure you that such a practice will be counterproductive. I have grow extremely tired of the argument that "decisions are made by peter/admins and no one else". Rather than say "peter decides" why don't people actually listen to WHY the decision is what it is. For example, we have mumble and teamspeak. There is an argument that since one is open source and the other is not, we should focus on the open source. Great. But guess what, Mumble has problems which Team Speak does not. ( I'm not going to go into details) If I was to evaluate a machine to be used for a purpose I would look at it functionality and versatility. This is critical to global access of such a medium. Mumble doesn't meet this code. As far as it being opensource, the question thus becomes: Do we use a software which is less capable but fits a better philosophy- or do we use a software to meet our needs, even if it is not open source? The answer could only be based on capability if our focus is action and not philosophy. This bring into question the focus on the movement. At this stage, being dogmatically open source is not going to help. Believe me, I wish it could!!!
Another issue: "Universal Banning" Some argue that banning can occur in one medium but should not pertain to the other. This so grossly illogical, I don't know what to say. If a person goes into the SCIENCE and TECH category of the forum and posts spam, should we just ban him from the S&T category and leave him/her to spam in the other Cats? Or how about where the person choose to spam - such as the tread- should be JUST ban them from that single thread? The ZM website( and other create by us) is a single structure. It can only be treated as such.
When all is said and done. The movement isn't even remotely operational. The nitpicking and ego projection I see coming from various cross-groups are taking issue with such trivial aspects that i'm am nothing but disheartened and bored.
The focus of the movement is not the forum, the chats or anything of the like. It is not the website. THIS MOVEMENT EXISTS IN THE "CHAPTERS" AND "TEAMS" WHICH ARE IN THEIR INFANCY OF ORGANIZATION. IT IS BASED SYNCHRONIZED UNDERSTANDING WHICH EACH CHAPTER/ TEAM/GROUP initiates on it own, ideally. ONCE CREATED, IT WILL BECOME A NETWORK OF SHARED INFORMATION AND TACTICS. AN INTERNATIONAL BOARD WILL BE CREATED AND DIRECT TEAM ACTION IMPLEMENTED. Also, the teams/process we are using now will eventually be entirely obsolete as we move into the next progressive phase.
|#8||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|anticultist||Posted: May 03, 2010 - 14:58|
Brainwashing you for money
The Letter to Peter Joseph: http://freenet-homepage.de/venusproject/Letter_To_Peter.pdf</p>
|#9||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|The Burger King||Posted: May 03, 2010 - 16:13|
I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?
I like statement 2.5 of the reply Peter Merola gave. Yeah I read this letter before but I remember thinking to myself that it wasn't much of a reply and Peter Merola wasn't much open to suggestion because the information/opinions/data the guy was receiving was from people against what we believed in therefore the guy only could argue one side of the story because he either didn't want to review/interpret/download the data from a force that thought differently or simply never understood the other forces point of view and where they were coming from and therefore that data was not interpreted.
>> Peter Merola: For example, we have mumble and teamspeak.
I'm going to have to completely disagree with Peter Merola on this part. This is a developer platform software meaning versatility and functionality are important but to developers flexibility is the most important ingredient towards a developers environment. When Merola talks about versatility and functionality he's talking from a user point of view not a developers point of view. To say such things about open source without being a developer is very sad.
The funny thing is this as it isn't a philosophical belief/argument mumble can do the same things as TS3 matter in fact TS3 is nothing but TS2 just a name change basically. If we include the topic of mumble being open source again that's not a philosophical belief/argument open source has been proven (it works), TZM/TVP have not been proven, are a cult, and they pretend that they have proven themselves when they have absolutely not. TS3 or the original concept of Ts3 came up around 2004, in 2006 beta version of TS3 was suppose to be release but they push the date back until Jan 2010. It doesn't take 6 years to do a rewrite on the software... TeamSpeak developers had 6 YEARS to market TS3 and unfortunately after awhile people start to believe it's a great product because of clever marketing ploys without even using the product yet.TS3 and mumble basically have the same features, but to be honest I prefer IRC for my choice of communication medium. Mumble is open source it's flexible to developer it makes sense to for developers to use it. To people outside of the developer realm looking in you may not get it or maybe you will but the bottom line is open source works it's been proven example of things not been proven is TZM/TVP and the people on the top of TZM cult such as Peter Merola, Tanktop, Gilbert Ismail, VTV, Fresco, Roxanne simply are not sophisticated enough to understand that not only has open source been proven but what they do with their cult has not been proven.
I never believed this letter to peter Merola would work and actively promoted against writing this letter but I did believe in going with consensus as long as my thoughts were out their and I did help out in making the letter. My main problem is the fact that Peter Merola is even put into that position in the first place. I think the problem and it's always been a problem (not just in TZM) is the type of structure implemented within any group, therefore we should have as flat of a structure as possible with no leaders... So therefore ultimately in my book Peter Merola, Fresco and Roaxian, Gilbert Ismail and VTV are the problems...
|#10||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|anticultist||Posted: Jun 13, 2010 - 21:26|
Brainwashing you for money
letter to peter in pdf:
here is a link to peters reply:
|#11||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|