What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

[MapleDots]

I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

 

[TCK]

About this:



That's a misinterpretation, in my view. The employee referred to is me, and here is where I discussed the case in question:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/so...er-or-suspension.1107245/page-24#post-7170517

Yes, Rob and I both felt the website (which promoted rape) was immoral – disturbingly so. But the site's immorality, as such, was NOT the basis of Epik's decision. Rather, the website itself endorsed a crime. Moreover, endorsing that crime was not incidental to the site – some wayward paragraph in a blog post or stray comment by a user. Instead, endorsing that crime was the site's raison d'être. In other words, the site's explicit theme and purpose was 100% devoted to promoting a crime.

Illegality – that was the reason Rob gave when ordering the domain be deleted. And we were able to cite Epik's TOS to support that decision. I'm not white-washing this case whatsoever. In fact, for the sake of accuracy, I'm referring to the transcript of the chat where the decision was made. Morality was not even discussed because the nature of such a site is so obviously immoral. I did most of the talking, since I'm verbose and was using a laptop whereas Rob was succinct, apparently using a mobile phone. Direct quotes:

"If it is non-lawful content, it comes down"

"Right,down it goes"

"Delete it"​

I replied, "Deleted", to which Rob responded:

"Works. Rape is by definition illegal so easy one."​

Nothing meaningful has been left out of Rob's side of the discussion. Ordinarily I would not quote an internal Epik discussion, but I want this issue to be crystal clear. This is not true:



Even if you believe that, it is certainly true that the case referenced above cannot be cited as evidence banning a domain on moral grounds. That is refuted by the actual transcript of the conversation between me and Rob where the decision was made.

This concern is unwarranted, based on my experience at Epik during the past 2 years:



During the past 2 years, virtually all abuse cases or decisions about suspending a domain went through me. Whenever there was a judgment call, I had a 1-on-1 conversation with Rob. So I do know what I'm talking about based on real experience.

In principle and in practice, the criterion has been legality, not morality. Epik has erred on the side of legal due process, even when it is frustrating and time-consuming or when it causes some public attacks (e.g. pharmaceutical lobbyists like LegitScript).

Are you still working at Epik? It sure sounds like it. If not as staff maybe at least as freelancer/contractor.

 

[carob]

. I have explained the facts of the case twice now, even quoting the transcript of the decision-making process itself.

You keep making this a discussion about ONE domain. But when you were asked if Epik suspended or deleted domains on moral grounds, you said "Yes, often." Often means many more times than just once.

 

[TCK]

Notre Dame is burning.

It took 200 years to build. At this rate, it will likely be not much by morning.

Show attachment 116019

Show attachment 116022

The media is not ignoring that this event falls in what is Holy week for Christians, based on Passover being this Friday, i.e. the day Jesus was crucified, Monday (today) would have been the day Jesus walked into Jerusalem, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple.

There will be speculation and finger-pointing in the coming days, with some claiming that radical Muslims did it as revenge for Christchurch. On other hand, Macron has his hands full with 22 weeks of non-stop protests and now a mid-term European election in May that his party would struggle to win.

You can thank independent sites powered by free speech to investigate and discuss the why behind the what and to leave few stones unturned. Given the timing, and the likely substantial destruction, I don't believe this was an accidental fire and while Muslims likely will get blamed, I don't believe they did it.

This will be a common sight when the Wild Beast (UN) turns on the Harlot (Babylon the Great, aka false religion). But you should really start a new thread on conspiracy theories. This is a new topic that really doesn't belong here.

 

[uglydork]

I dont agree with Robs beliefs. Posting a video of innocent people being murdered in New Zealand right after it happened is unforgivable. Imagine you child being murdered on camera and its played over and over in perpetuity for the world to see. He gives a platform to evil and then talks about God out of the other side of his mouth. Its disrespectful to humanity.
Rob also lied to me and mislead me on a deal in order to move a domain to Epik. he made it seem like he had contacts and discussed a deal with people. After I pressed him, he never spoke to anyone except for an email contact I had given him! I dont trust him or his company.
I will not argue or debate this point,you all have free will to decide on your own. This is my opinion and mine only.

 

[Slanted]

Are you still working at Epik? It sure sounds like it. If not as staff maybe at least as freelancer/contractor.

Yes, of course, I'm still working at Epik, even after resigning. Professional responsibility demands that I finish outstanding tasks, place ongoing projects in a state that allows them to continue, and turn over responsibilities to someone else. While it might be picturesque to walk away from a job immediately following a dramatic "I quit", the right thing to do – for Epik customers, for my coworkers, and for the company that employed me for 2 years – is to ensure a smooth transition process. If I wanted to feel important, then I'd take pride in things falling apart without me. But I don't relish that. And I'm doing my best, given the limited time I have during my transition out of Epik, to ensure that (once I'm gone) nobody needs me. That's what a "turnover" meant in the Navy; and, since that's where I was trained to work, that's how I work.

None of my posts at NamePros have anything to do with my role at Epik. I'd have said everything I've already said even if I had already stopped working at Epik. So I'm annoyed by the implication that I'm writing as some task of my employment. I am not. No employer can buy my opinion or my public statements. And if Rob had ever asked me to say something in defense of him or Epik in the context of this scandal – which he has not – then I would have refused point blank. Furthermore, though I have partly defended Rob, I have also criticized Rob, which no boss would ask for. I have explained the issues involved as factually and clearly as possible because I care about the issues and the facts.

P.S. I did resign. And I expect to be gone from Epik soon. NamePros asked me the other day if they should remove my "Epik.com Staff" badge, and I said go ahead.

 

[uglydork]

Yes, of course, I'm still working at Epik, even after resigning. Professional responsibility demands that I finish outstanding tasks, place ongoing projects in a state that allows them to continue, and turn over responsibilities to someone else. While it might be picturesque to walk away from a job immediately following a dramatic "I quit", the right thing to do – for Epik customers, for my coworkers, and for the company that employed me for 2 years – is to ensure a smooth transition process. If I wanted to feel important, then I'd take pride in things falling apart without me. But I don't relish that. And I'm doing my best, given the limited time I have during my transition out of Epik, to ensure that (once I'm gone) nobody needs me. That's what a "turnover" meant in the Navy; and, since that's where I was trained to work, that's how I work.

None of my posts at NamePros have anything to do with my role at Epik. I'd have said everything I've already said even if I had already stopped working at Epik. So I'm annoyed by the implication that I'm writing as some task of my employment. I am not. No employer can buy my opinion or my public statements. And if Rob had ever asked me to say something in defense of him or Epik in the context of this scandal – which he has not – then I would have refused point blank. Furthermore, though I have partly defended Rob, I have also criticized Rob, which no boss would ask for. I have explained the issues involved as factually and clearly as possible because I care about the issues and the facts.

P.S. I did resign. And I expect to be gone from Epik soon. NamePros asked me the other day if they should remove my "Epik.com Staff" badge, and I said go ahead.

You're doing the right thing by customers and doing the right thing to Rob. You are living the best of both worlds.

 

[TCK]

Yes, of course, I'm still working at Epik, even after resigning. Professional responsibility demands that I finish outstanding tasks, place ongoing projects in a state that allows them to continue, and turn over responsibilities to someone else. While it might be picturesque to walk away from a job immediately following a dramatic "I quit", the right thing to do – for Epik customers, for my coworkers, and for the company that employed me for 2 years – is to ensure a smooth transition process. If I wanted to feel important, then I'd take pride in things falling apart without me. But I don't relish that. And I'm doing my best, given the limited time I have during my transition out of Epik, to ensure that (once I'm gone) nobody needs me. That's what a "turnover" meant in the Navy; and, since that's where I was trained to work, that's how I work.

None of my posts at NamePros have anything to do with my role at Epik. I'd have said everything I've already said even if I had already stopped working at Epik. So I'm annoyed by the implication that I'm writing as some task of my employment. I am not. No employer can buy my opinion or my public statements. And if Rob had ever asked me to say something in defense of him or Epik in the context of this scandal – which he has not – then I would have refused point blank. Furthermore, though I have partly defended Rob, I have also criticized Rob, which no boss would ask for. I have explained the issues involved as factually and clearly as possible because I care about the issues and the facts.

P.S. I did resign. And I expect to be gone from Epik soon. NamePros asked me the other day if they should remove my "Epik.com Staff" badge, and I said go ahead.

At this point, this smells like a crisis-mitigating strategy to me. Especially when I see you post every time there is a potentially damaging post in the thread that could hurt Epik's brand. Usually having to do with the New Zealand mosque attacks. Moments later, Rob posts something off-topic.

Please let us know when you cut all ties with Epik.

 

[Slanted]

@TCK

We were having a cordial private conversation today until you asked me to write a guest post on your blog. When I declined, moments later you began attacking me in this NamePros thread. Coincidence?

At this point, this smells like a crisis-mitigating strategy to me.

So you're calling me a liar. Let's be clear about that.

Conspiracy theorists and dogs live by their noses. I tell the truth. And I only ask that people take me at my word. Those who can't pay me that much respect deserve none from me.

Especially when I see you post every time there is a potentially damaging post in the thread that could hurt Epik's brand.

I have worked hard for 2 years straight to make Epik a success. So you're right that I'm protective of Epik – defending it from this scandal caused by Rob and from angry mob's overreactions and from Rob's politicization of the brand in the first place.

What a twisted world you inhabit if you see something devious or dastardly in me defending Epik's brand! How is that a bad thing? Particularly if I am contradicting FALSE statements made by others.

Also, what on earth is wrong with mitigating a crisis? Would it be better to foment the crisis, and burn Epik to the ground like Notre Dame? Since when is that a bad thing? Sheesh!

During the initial week when people's knee-jerk reaction was to denounce Rob as a Nazi and demand that all domainers boycott Epik, of course I wanted to mitigate a crisis. If you were working at a company you cared about – a company with a hard-working team and many happy customers – and saw such a reaction caused by the personal opinions expressed by your boss, wouldn't you step forward to defend what you've worked for?

Maybe you wouldn't. It means standing up to a lot of people who want to see me as a villain of some kind – a mercenary or a liar. It requires a spine.

Your insinuation that I am posting based on some kind of secret strategy is false. I respond to whatever I think is worth refuting or highlighting. Rob's conspiracy theories, for example, I ignore – because everybody can see they're nonsense without my needing to chime in. Misconceptions about Epik's decision to delete a domain? I was personally involved in that decision; so of course I respond to set the record straight.

Also, why must I report to you personally on my last day of work at Epik? You've got some nerve.

 

[Slanted]

Raise your hand if you think Epik or Rob did something WRONG by banning a domain that was 100% devoted to the idea that women and girls deserve and/or want to be raped.

Anybody? OK. I thought not. Then let’s stop trying to turn that case into a “gotcha” moment.

But when you were asked if Epik suspended or deleted domains on moral grounds, you said "Yes, often."

Since you are trying to use my answer against me (for some reason), it’s important to accurately quote the question that I was answering. You yourself quoted it in full moments ago:

“Has Epik, not even once in their history, suspended or banned a customer for behavior that while it might be legal was morally reprehensible or legal but against their TOS?"

I think my previous explanation should be clear to anyone attempting in good faith to understand how Epik decided to ban the domain in that case. Only someone who is intent on a “gotcha” will continue trying to find fault what I’ve said on that matter. The facts are not in dispute. I even quoted from the actual transcript.

You keep making this a discussion about ONE domain. … Often means many more times than just once.

When I answered the original question a few weeks ago, I was asked for 1 example. So I supplied one example and described the case in detail. And how am I repaid for taking the time to discuss such a case? Someone tries to twist the episode into proof that Epik is banning domains arbitrarily based on Rob’s morality! Facts be damned. That’s the “gotcha” end result we want. Right?

But seriously who would NOT want to ban that domain? Raise your hand. And how can you seriously cast Epik as the registrar that is arbitrarily banning domains willy nilly based on morality? How is that even plausible? Remember, the original Epik scandal was caused by Epik ACCEPTING the transfer of a domain that GoDaddy – not Epik – had banned on moral grounds. And apparently Epik was the only registrar willing to step forward and accept the domain. So if Epik is now being portrayed as a registrar that can’t be trusted because it bans domains left and right on moral grounds, then the sky is green; and I’m a giant rabbit.

Really, folks, I understand that people want to criticize Rob and/or Epik. But let’s try to do so on legitimate grounds and not turn the facts upside down – to the point of using a case where a pro-rape website was banned by Rob as evidence of Rob’s irresponsibility. That’s nuts.

 

[TCK]

@TCK

We were having a cordial private conversation today until you asked me to write a guest post on your blog. When I declined, moments later you began attacking me in this NamePros thread. Coincidence?

You asked me to keep that conversation "off the record". But you are blatantly mischaracterizing it publicly. You are forcing me to put the conversation on record.

 

[uglydork]

You asked me to keep that conversation "off the record". But you are blatantly mischaracterizing it publicly. You are forcing me to put the conversation on record.

Please keep it between you two - please stop

 

[TCK]

Please keep it between you two - please stop

So how do I defend myself from the mischaracterization of the conversation?

 

[Slanted]

So how do I defend myself from the mischaracterization of the conversation?

You apologize.

 

[TCK]

So how do I defend myself from the mischaracterization of the conversation?

You apologize.

Read again the question and your answer. See if you can do it with a straight face.

 

[Slanted]

Read again the question and your answer. See if you can do it with a straight face.

My face couldn't be straighter.

 

[MapleDots]

Reading this entire topic over again I can say this for sure....

At this point in his career wherever @Slanted lands they are fortunate to get him.

The man defends the brand even as he is leaving the company.

I have worked hard for 2 years straight to make Epik a success. So you're right that I'm protective of Epik – defending it from this scandal caused by Rob and from angry mob's overreactions and from Rob's politicization of the brand in the first place.

I personally think Epik was lucky to have you and I for one wish you well in your new endeavours.

Good luck to you

 

[TCK]

Your insinuation that I am posting based on some kind of secret strategy is false.

If that is true then I sincerely apologize.

 

[waterman]

Let's be perfectly clear, this thread is not about bashing Rob as if he were some kind of a piñata. As far as I can tell, no one attacked him personally. This is a thread about conspiracy theories and other inappropriate posts that Rob made and stands by. I won't recite them, you will have to follow the thread from the beginning to get the context. As I stated before, I love Rob even though I fundamentally disagree with him on a number of fronts.

Actually, it is about how some people (like you) call select posts "inappropriate" and try to have them removed, and censor/shame their posters.

IOW, it's about free speech and those who for some reason won't tolerate it, and try to eliminate it according to their own desires/beliefs.

Thanks for bringing the thread back on point.

 

[TCK]

Actually, it is about how some people (like you) call select posts "inappropriate" and try to have them removed, and censor/shame their posters.

When I write inappropriate it is not in the sense of NP rules. It is in the sense of morality.

 

[offthehandle]

@Slanted I am looking forward to your Domain articles and well thought out comments should you intend to continue writing them as you did before like for DNW. When you do, Please post something here to alert and let us know where such posts are by stopping by Namepros from time to time. Wishing you the best.