There's been a lot of finger-pointing and judgements passed (mostly on alt.flame.furry, so take that as you will). I think it's safe to make the following observations:
1. The wizcorps of FurryMUCK might be just a tad disorganized. That contact to one wizard may not have been communicated to the rest is Not a Good Thing, but that's water under the bridge. It's also not necessarily surprising, though - if you tell something to, say, the head of the video room for a convention, there's not exactly a 100% chance that what you say will get directly to the convention chair.
2. We're getting filtered versions of the sequence of events, tinged by who remembers what and with what degree of accuracy. I've seen conflicting statements, and I'm not convinced that we've seen the whole story. And you know what? I'm not sure we should. Ideally, this should have stayed a private matter to be worked out by the principals, not tried in the court of Usenet.
3. There are no good guys here. There are no bad guys here. There's only shades of gray. It's quite evident that this whole mess stems from a breakdown of communications that got blown 'way out of proportion.
Finally, for my part, I feel that while Darrell's sticking a CF banner ad on Furrymuck's domain might be sound business practice, I find it objectionable, ethically speaking, for the precise reasons Shaterri stated.
There's been a lot of finger-pointing and judgements passed (mostly on alt.flame.furry, so take that as you will). I think it's safe to make the following observations:
1. The wizcorps of FurryMUCK might be just a tad disorganized. That contact to one wizard may not have been communicated to the rest is Not a Good Thing, but that's water under the bridge. It's also not necessarily surprising, though - if you tell something to, say, the head of the video room for a convention, there's not exactly a 100% chance that what you say will get directly to the convention chair.
2. We're getting filtered versions of the sequence of events, tinged by who remembers what and with what degree of accuracy. I've seen conflicting statements, and I'm not convinced that we've seen the whole story. And you know what? I'm not sure we should. Ideally, this should have stayed a private matter to be worked out by the principals, not tried in the court of Usenet.
3. There are no good guys here. There are no bad guys here. There's only shades of gray. It's quite evident that this whole mess stems from a breakdown of communications that got blown 'way out of proportion.
Finally, for my part, I feel that while Darrell's sticking a CF banner ad on Furrymuck's domain might be sound business practice, I find it objectionable, ethically speaking, for the precise reasons Shaterri stated.
-Duncan da Husky