unban Jersey Girl

[_EAllusion]

To another point. Jersey Girl did *not* state that she was simply seeking clarification from DreamHost regarding policy.

I've read the inquiry and I view it as passive-aggressively encouraging dreamhost to see us in violation of contract.

Liz and Harm almost certainly will disagree and I think it is only fair to point that out, but I think we can cautiously say that it could could easily be read that way by a third party on the receiving end.

The stupidest thing about this whole situation is that it could have been avoided had the mods just announced that Derrick was suspended pending discussion of a perma-ban.H.

Darrick was suspended after she already had reported. Harmony didn't announce the suspension presumably because it was too late and I think she was unsure whether she should let that be known. If you're saying I should've suspended him in the 15 minutes she gave me, I was under the impression that I was directed not to do that. I did communicate that the matter was being treated seriously and a decision would be made. While I can be sympathetic to her feeling threatened, I did not think waiting a few hours would meaningfully increase risk to her, and did not feel the need to impulsively act right away due to heated emotions. I wouldn't let a threat modify what my decision would've been regardless. I wanted Darrick banned as much as anyone and am sorry that the slight delay would cause anyone grief. Moderation can take a little time sometimes, and I think people should understand that.

[_honorentheos]

I was online when the discussion was happening, and have a different perspective.

First, I think the biggest, dumbest thing done during the whole thing was a board member sharing a private PM. This PM was shown to Darrick and included content that, if people honestly considered him unstable, showed they failed to realize this was not a hypothetical virtual matter. Darrick and this person had in real life contact and it seemed to include past historic threats of violence. While completely distasteful and wrong, the insults to Jersey Girl are a different matter than the threats. The actual comment that Jersey Girl listed as a threat had to do with "blood flowing" which she felt was directed at her. I don't see it any more and don't recall the exact context. I didn't read it at the time as being specifically targeted at her but more as explanation for his hateful, angry behaviour to "Mormon Women" and anyone else disrespecting him. He identified himself as some sort of Hand of God. This crossed a line that I don't believe any other poster in the recent history of MDB has crossed. But the real threats were not made towards Jersey Girl specifically.

But second - Jersey Girl was both a victim as well as guilty of being part of addition bad judgement. If you read the linked to thread it's clear she was approaching the matter more or less level headed and just blowing Darrick off. But things escalated.

There is a concept in the military, expressed in terms of calling someone John Wayne or Hero, that applies when a person acts on a belief that they can single-handedly save the day from some threat. In the military, it's recognized that this is dangerous not only for the Hero, but for their brothers and sisters in arms. Jersey Girl did wrong when she went John Wayne and tried to save the board from a threat that wasn't real. Not just in the Dreamhost Inquiry, but on the board trying to initially taunt Darrick when trying to talk him down wasn't working. The taunting turned to a two-sided crazy crazy dialog that in my opinion made them both seem out of control. Darrick is a crazy SOB, but there is nothing that was happening directly to the board itself that couldn't have been better dealt with by ceasing to respond to Derrick.

Should Jersey Girl be unbanned? I don't know. I like her and consider her a friend. She's helped me with in real life needs and I think she's a generally good, big hearted person. But frankly, it's not exactly obscure that she thinks she could do a much better job at running the board than Shades and I suspect this episode directly came from that root belief. She went John Wayne, not because she thought there was a legitimate threat to herself, but because she was going to save the day single handed. I don't think that will be cured by the time off, and I suspect with the board sentiment being what it is there is likely to be more of an underground support for what happened to her that is very likely to feed into further John Wayne behaviour.

I think that should be taken into consideration, not only by the Mods but also by those who needle people prone to stupid behaviour. There's some shared responsibility for what happened that extends beyond Jersey Girl and Darrick, and it's not exactly cooling off yet, either.

[_Ceeboo]

It was my intention to take a break from this disturbing thread. I feel compelled and indeed forced (for many reasons) to offer another reply that brings me no joy.

I'm ambivalent regarding this whole matter. Bring her back, leave her banned,

I seriously doubt your ambivalence.

Jersey Girl's fate doesn't keep me up at night.

I get the impression that the fate on anyone (other than LDST) keeps you up at night.

A more accurate characterization would be hyper-vigilance; judge, jury, and executioner.

The very pinnacle of hypocrisy!

I felt as though she was being a bit of a show-off.

Yes, your "feelings" seem to be clear.

To another point. Jersey Girl did *not* state that she was simply seeking clarification from DreamHost regarding policy. I have PMs from Jersey Girl that detail a different story with different motives.

It is most telling (to me anyway) that you continue to offer the board these "private" communications as a tool to continue running over a person who is unable to respond to (and/or defend themself against) concerning your severe lack of integrity on display.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Doctor Scratch]

This episode reminds me a bit of when DCP threatened to use legal means to "go after the board" if Shades didn't comply with his censorship demands. (Incidentally, DCP was asked directly about this during the TIME Lightbox fiasco and he lied about it.) Of course, in that case, DCP didn't actually act (as far as I know), and it sounds like Jersey Girl did. Further, based on what I know, it seems like Jersey Girl had far, far better grounds for kicking up a stink than Dan did. Dan only cared about whether his crappy behavior would get wider exposure; Jersey Girl was looking to take the axe to actual threats. (At least as far as I know.)

But, then again, I know virtually nothing about what has gone on behind the scenes. Transparency, I agree, would be nice, but this is obviously the mods' decision in the end. C'est la vie.

Ok, just to clarify on something: Jersey Girl didn't sent any complaints in to DreamHost, although she did threaten to do so.

Instead, she backed off and sent an inquiry to DreamHost. Specifically, she wanted to know if Darrick's actions violated their policies as stated here:

General Acceptable Use Policy
Shared Hosting Addendum

General Acceptable Use Policy

PROHIBITED CONTENT AND ACTIVITIES
Illegal Activity
Customer may only use DreamHost Web Hosting’s Server for lawful purpose. Transmission of any material in violation of any Country, Federal, State or Local regulation is prohibited. To this effect, child pornography is strictly prohibited as well as housing any copyrighted information (to which the customer does not hold the copyright or an appropriate license) on DreamHost Web Hosting’s Server. Also, using DreamHost’s servers or network to conspire to commit or support the commission of illegal activities is forbidden as well.

They basically replied to her that they would not do anything about Darrick. So no, she didn't file a complaint with DreamHost, nor was she responsible for the boards being taken down. That was Keene trying to fix the virus problems.

Two other posters (not Jersey Girl) contacted their local law enforcement in the wake of Darrick's threats. So if you ask me, what Jersey Girl did was actually pretty mild.

Jersey Girl didn't actually do anything worse than what several other members of our community have done and not been perma-banned for. Seattle Ghost Writer actually took the forums down for a few days, and yet he was still welcomed to post here with the understanding that he not do it again and instead try to resolve copyright issues with the administration directly.

There's just no sense to making a ban on Jersey Girl permanent if she will agree to resolve issues with the administration in advance instead of threatening to complain to DreamHost. My feelings are that she would easily agree to that.

I think I agree with you, MsJack. Frankly, Dan Peterson's legal threats against the board were much worse, and far more abusively manipulative, and yet he wasn't banned. Instead, Dr. Shades went ahead and complied with his censorship demands. I suppose the main difference I see is that DCP didn't put a 15-minute timetable out there as a conditional. But still: why perma-ban one and not the other? Perhaps a new rule or precedent is being set, but I'm just saying: past actions aren't exactly squaring with these new developments.

[_EAllusion]

The actual comment that Jersey Girl listed as a threat had to do with "blood flowing" which she felt was directed at her. I don't see it any more and don't recall the exact context.

I linked the offending post on the last page of this thread. The comment was made in response to a post of Bond's. Bond wrote, " Then I hope you put away your anger because you'll end up in jail or dead going that path. Be well."

Darrick responded with...

Did the Anger of any black people, who got FED UP with DISrespect from whites, in the South, in the 1960s, land them in Jail?

Did the Anger of the American Colonies, tired of the DISrespect of the king and paraliament of England, land them in Jail?

Sometimes....one has to FIGHT for respect! Sometimes, blood has to be shed.

Remember, the King and rulers of English thought the American Colonial Congress to be filled with "INSANE MEN".

...

He goes on comparing his plight to that of blacks fighting under Jim Crow. (Which, oddly, was mostly ended through nonviolent protest.)

He was speaking generically and not directing it at anyone in particular. He mostly talked about Mormon women, but also those who "disrespect" him. However, Jersey Girl had gotten herself into a very heated exchange with him surrounding this post. She clearly was one of those people who he thought was "disrespecting" him, probably more so than anyone else in that exchange, which is why she would see it as a threat implicating her.

[_beastie]

I just read the linked threads and don't know what to say. It's sad to see severe mental illness taking over someone's mind, and the fall-out on others that entails. Yes, it would have been better had Jersey Girl and everyone else had stopped responding to him once he was clear that he had seriously gone around the bend, but in the heat of the moment it's hard to be clear-headed.

[_Yoda]

I think I agree with you, MsJack. Frankly, Dan Peterson's legal threats against the board were much worse, and far more abusively manipulative, and yet he wasn't banned. Instead, Dr. Shades went ahead and complied with his censorship demands. I suppose the main difference I see is that DCP didn't put a 15-minute timetable out there as a conditional. But still: why perma-ban one and not the other? Perhaps a new rule or precedent is being set, but I'm just saying: past actions aren't exactly squaring with these new developments.

Amen, Scratch! I wholeheartedly agree.

As I stated in the Moderator Forum, I think that, it is best at this point, to leave Shades and Jersey Girl to their private conversation and let things progress from there. Shades has yet to hear Jersey Girl's side of the story directly, and I believe that she is owed that.

I also need to clarify something. I misinterpreted something that Jersey Girl clarified for me this morning when I spoke with her via email.

I had indicated that Jersey Girl acted out of panic. She did not. She acted out of a sense of determination to her family. Let me explain. Jersey Girl has gone through hell and back this year; a close family member committed suicide, she has dealt with health issues of children, etc. She viewed, and I believe rightfully so, Darrick as a threat to herself and her family. She was not going to allow her REAL LIFE to be turned upside down by some Internet stalking nut. I cannot blame her for that.

[_honorentheos]

The actual comment that Jersey Girl listed as a threat had to do with "blood flowing" which she felt was directed at her. I don't see it any more and don't recall the exact context.

Darrick responded with...

Did the Anger of any black people, who got FED UP with DISrespect from whites, in the South, in the 1960s, land them in Jail?

Did the Anger of the American Colonies, tired of the DISrespect of the king and paraliament of England, land them in Jail?

Sometimes....one has to FIGHT for respect! Sometimes, blood has to be shed.

Remember, the King and rulers of English thought the American Colonial Congress to be filled with "INSANE MEN".
...

He goes on comparing his plight to that of blacks fighting under Jim Crow. (Which, oddly, was mostly ended through nonviolent protest.)

He was speaking generically and not directing it at anyone in particular. He mostly talked about Mormon women, but also those who "disrespect" him. However, Jersey Girl had gotten herself into a very heated exchange with him surrounding this post. She clearly was one of those people who he thought was "disrespecting" him, probably more so than anyone else in that exchange, which is why she would see it as a threat implicating her.

Thanks EA.

I was taken back that night when Jersey Girl claimed his blood shed comment was directed at her because I didn't get that from it. I went back to reread it just to be sure. I agree that I can see why, in the heat of the moment, she might take it personal but again I think just about everyone engaged in the discussion would have been better served by standing down.

I'll say this, though. I think this episode with Jersey Girl is turning into a bigger problem for Shades than it should have been. Having the mods divided over whether or not she should be unbanned doesn't help the argument that the board is being well managed. I personally think things are generally just fine given that there is a wide range of diverse beliefs and opinions expressed here and not just regarding religion. But when someone's core standard for moderation in the past has been for free speech if segregated by content, then it does seem that a much more clear explanation for why Jersey Girl remains banned along with clear direction for future similar actions by other board members should be stated.

I don't think it's bad to update the rules because of current circumstances, but it helps to know what the current rules are. Ms Jack and others seem to suggest that Jersey Girl did not actually threaten the boards existence but only asked if the Derrick content represented actionable violations of the host's rules. This fact leaves the water very muddy. Is it a case where there is more history than just this incident? or is it based on this incident, and there is a divided view on whether this represents a threat or not? What should I, as a board participant, assume is safe vs unsafe action on my part? If I were to inquire at Dreamhost about a potential violation would I be banned?

[_bcspace]

I think the whole "blood must be shed" thing is way overblown.

[_LDSToronto]

It was my intention to take a break from this disturbing thread. I feel compelled and indeed forced (for many reasons) to offer another reply that brings me no joy.

I'm ambivalent regarding this whole matter. Bring her back, leave her banned,

I seriously doubt your ambivalence.

Jersey Girl's fate doesn't keep me up at night.

I get the impression that the fate on anyone (other than LDST) keeps you up at night.

A more accurate characterization would be hyper-vigilance; judge, jury, and executioner.

The very pinnacle of hypocrisy!

I felt as though she was being a bit of a show-off.

Yes, your "feelings" seem to be clear.

To another point. Jersey Girl did *not* state that she was simply seeking clarification from DreamHost regarding policy. I have PMs from Jersey Girl that detail a different story with different motives.

It is most telling (to me anyway) that you continue to offer the board these "private" communications as a tool to continue running over a person who is unable to respond to (and/or defend themself against) concerning your severe lack of integrity on display.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Listen, Pahoran, if I wanted to hear from you, I'd go over to MD&D. Stop sending your protege's, I'll eat them for lunch.

H.