[Kamikaze Chinchilla]

iCookies wanted me to see the explanation to get both sides of the story. Although I see that iCookies has now removed it. For everyone else, his explanation was that the site had 'group ownership' and that Postlife purchased the url and had rights to it, but then was helped with the funding by the others. And because it was group ownership, from what iCookies said, Postlife could not be called the 'one' owner. However, from Postlife's side of the story, she was taken down from the owner/admin position and was offered a mod position. She was upset afterwards.

However, this does not show that 1+1=2. If it was truly a group ownership, why would someone be upset from the change? Group ownership means that everyone is equally important to the team and that everyone owns the project, so titles/positions should not matter.

Just explain, truthfully and not just 'one sided'.

One or both of you answer these questions, please:
1 - Every website starts with 'one' person. That one person comes up with the idea and brings it to the table with at least one other person. Who was that one person?
2 - Did that person distinctly say or imply that they were the sole owner so that everyone understood the terms?
3 - Did the person who started the idea agree to 'group ownership', or was it decided by the team without the consultation of the person with the original idea and/or whoever the owner was?
4 - Did you have enough communication where all the decisions were acceptable?
5 - I understand that there is a phase 1 and phase 2. In other words, the old version and the new version. Who funded the site in phase 1? Who is funding the site in phase 2?
6 - Do you believe that ownership of a business goes to the one that does more work or does it go to the one who originally set up the project and/or claimed original ownership?

*sits back and listens* Let's fill in the holes here.

And the site is now <url removed>