THE JERSEY GIRL MEGATHREAD

[_marg]

I think that she was turning it over to dreamhost. She had no idea what they would do with it, but I do think she must have thought some sort of legal action was at least a possibility. People have been using the word "sue" as a substitute for "engage in legal action against."

Personally I think she was only making an inquiry to Dreamhost to see if via them she could get Darrick banned..in case the mods did nothing. But by making that inquiry to them..it then made it seem as if she was trying to initiate that "legal fight" which she had mentioned she would initiate. She was acting quickly without appreciating how her words and actions would be interpreted.

You know when an abusive husband slaps his wife, then later claims he didn't mean it? My view is that he absolutely meant it in the heat of the moment, but now regrets his behavior and wishes he didn't mean it. Maybe his emotions overwhelmed his better judgement and if he was thinking more clearly he wouldn't have done that. Not intending to make a legal threat would've been something like using a poor choice of words that misled people into thinking you meant something you didn't. I don't think that happened here. Jersey Girl intended to make a legal threat in the moment, then maybe later wished she didn't. Sure, she might've been overwhelmed by intense emotion and said something she otherwise wouldn't have, but that doesn't change what happened and you'd have to consider the fact that she's susceptible to doing that.

See above. I think that she never meant to imply that she, herself, was going to engage in legal action against the mods, but rather that she was turning it over to dreamhost, and that may have been one possible outcome she imagined.

I agree with EA that " Jersey Girl intended to make a legal threat in the moment, then maybe later wished she didn't." but I think that legal threat was words only intended to strong arm him into banning Darrick, and not something she ever intended to carry through with, nor intend to initiate Dreamhost into carrying through with.

In terms of the effect on the mods, if that had happened (which I know was not possible, but if), it would have been the same as if she personally engaged in the legal action. So I'm not saying this difference would or should have modified Shades's response, but I think the differentiation may be why Jersey Girl insists she never said or meant to imply that she, personally, was going to engage in legal action.

Yes I think her saying she was going "to initiate" is the problem. Jersey Girl does not acknowledge that her words were only to strong arm EA and not something she intended to carry through with. To me that's the problem here. Her denying she would ever sue..doesn't take away from her words that she was going to initiate a legal fight which the board would be involved in.

I asked her specifically about this, and she said that she really didn't know what dreamhost would do. But I can't help but think that legal action was one consequence she imagined possible, otherwise her words don't make much sense.

Jersey Girl said things which in my opinion she's too stubborn, to retract and acknowledge she didn't mean to say. And if she doesn't acknowledge this, it's difficult to argue a case for her that she didn't intend any legal ramifications for the board.

[_Alter Idem]

Alter Idem,

When Jersey Girl says: "if you don't have the f*****g spine to block this guy, EA, in favor of political correctness, you guys are gonna have a legal f*****g fight on your hands and I'll initiate it." what is it that she's saying she's initiating? Is she saying she's initiating a legal fight that Dreamhost is going to be involved in...against the board? Who do you think or understand her to be saying will be involved in a legal fight?

"Legal fight" did not mean she was going to sue. Suing involves lawyers and retainer fees--it's very expensive and a pain in the neck. You have to have the money, the time and inclination to actually sue someone. Jersey Girl says she meant she was filing a complaint with the webhost to force the board to remove Darrick. It would involve temporarily shutting down the board while it was being investigated, but would not involve shutting the board down completely unless the owners refused to abide by the terms of agreement they had contracted to follow.

That legal fight she mentions she perceives will have financial consequence..as she says "Liability is a bitch, EA, and make no mistake about it".

"Liability" also means 'responsibility'-- Jersey Girl was pointing out to EA that 'Responsibility' for running a board is something that they could not ignore. Shades was responsible for protecting his posters--not ignoring their safety concerns. Once again, please remember that suing involves formal contracts with a lawyer, retainer fees, everything documented with letters etc.--it's not a given that anything she said involved 'suing' Shades. He's read that into it and his defenders have jumped on that bandwagon. If she was actually suing him, where' the proof? All we've got is her heated comments which have been misconstrued and used to accuse her of attempting to sue Shades.

My personal opinion was she was trying to strong arm EA or a mod to ban or temporarily block Darrick immediately..that she never intended to initiate anything which would result in legal ramifications. But that's my interpretation, it's not what she has said or acknowledged after the fact.

'What she said' has been misconstrued, in my opinion, because I do not read that she intended to sue the board and she insists she had not intention to do that. However, this reading into her angry words that she was going to sue seems to be what Shades has used as his reasoning for dealing with her in such a harsh manner. In regards to what she wanted done, I'd agree with you except that her actions show that she was doing more than just trying to 'strong arm' them to block or ban him. She actually contacted the webhost to try to get them involved.

To some on this board, I think THAT as the real crime and that's why they wanted her punished. She's vilified because she put her own safety and the safety of her family above the board. To them, she committed a crime against the board--but it is outrageous to put the well being of the board over the well being of a person or their family! She had a right to act as she did--to put her and her family's best interests first. Those of you who post here, take note--the board must be protected at all costs--individual posters, even long time posters who were once considered friends, are expendable.

If putting the message board's protection above you or your family's protection is a crime, then this place is totally twisted.

[_beastie]

A.I.,

The term "legal fight" normally connotes a court of law. Do you or do you not agree?

[Tator]

To some on this board, I think THAT as the real crime and that's why they wanted her punished. She's vilified because she put her own safety and the safety of her family above the board. To them, she committed a crime against the board--but it is outrageous to put the well being of the board over the well being of a person or their family! She had a right to act as she did--to put her and her family's best interests first. Those of you who post here, take note--the board must be protected at all costs--individual posters, even long time posters who were once considered friends, are expendable.

If putting the message board's protection above you or your family's protection is a crime, then this place is totally twisted.

That's not how I read it at all. In my view, the question is about whether Shades had an obligation to allow Jersey Girl to continue to participate despite the fact that he - reasonably - interpreted her words to mean she was going to somehow involve the law and courts in this "fight".

I have always said I'd never run a message board. I'd prefer to never participate on another message board again rather than run one. The same is true for moderating one, for me. But if I were running a message board, and thought a poster was even HINTING that he/she was considering taking legal action against me, of course I'd get rid of that poster. Or shut the whole board down.

Shades has consistently said that he was protecting his OWN family's financial needs, and I think that is a fair reaction. I doubt there are many posters here who would put the board above anyone's safety.

To me, the whole question is this: would a reasonable person interpret Jersey Girl's words in the way Shades and EA did? I think the answer is clearly yes. That doesn't mean that's exactly what she intended them to mean, of course.

[_beastie]

Does anyone else think that personal bias is affecting us quite a bit here? Sometimes it seems to me that posters have a grudge against Jersey Girl for how she moderated or posted in the past. I admit that she can be very abrasive, of course. And some posters seem to have a grudge against Shades for the way he runs the board in general. How much is this coloring our opinions? (I say "us" because, of course, I am influenced by bias, as well.)

[_marg]

Alter Idem

it doesn't appear to me you answered my question.

Jersey Girl said "you guys are gonna have a legal f*****g fight on your hands and I'll initiate it."

- what is it that she's saying she's initiating?


by the way...I'd like to support Jersey Girl as well, but in my opinion she's not helping herself when she argues against her own words such that it doesn't make sense. Her words are that she intended to "initiate"..what would be a legal fight. I don't think she meant it, but those are her words.

[_Alter Idem]

See above. I think that she never meant to imply that she, herself, was going to engage in legal action against the mods, but rather that she was turning it over to dreamhost, and that may have been one possible outcome she imagined.

In terms of the effect on the mods, if that had happened (which I know was not possible, but if), it would have been the same as if she personally engaged in the legal action. So I'm not saying this difference would or should have modified Shades's response, but I think the differentiation may be why Jersey Girl insists she never said or meant to imply that she, personally, was going to engage in legal action.

I asked her specifically about this, and she said that she really didn't know what dreamhost would do. But I can't help but think that legal action was one consequence she imagined possible, otherwise her words don't make much sense.

I think we have to put this in the context of what was happening. At the time, she perceived Darrick are a real threat to herself and others on the board but after following the guidelines on this board for someone to do something about the threat, she got no help. She went to the webhost for help. She probably didn't know what would happen--but she expected that the threat would at least be dealt with, not ignored, as was happening at MD. We'd seen what happened when SGW went to the webhost, the board was shut down temporarily and the attacks he complained about stopped. I guess she thought it was a viable next step in dealing with the threat--which she took seriously from what had happened in her own family.
I ask, what is a poster to do if they feel they are in danger and the board owner and moderators don't do anything? What is someone supposed to do? Are they supposed to ignore the threat because they might upset the board owner? I think that any of us on this board or any board should not feel we have to sit back powerlessly in a situation like what happened to Jersey Girl, but should be able to go to the webhost. If Shades tries to make that a bannable offense, then he runs this board like a despot and he doesn't care about his posters.

I have to object to this, A.I.. It is most certainly a reasonable interpretation of her words. In fact, it's the most reasonable. It took me a long time, many rereadings, and many questions to be able to understand a different possible interpretation.

"Met the criteria" for what, by the way?

Look, I want posters to be fair to Jersey Girl in this, but I also want posters to be fair to Shades and EA. They weren't smoking crack, hallucinating, or deviously putting words in Jersey Girl's mouth when they say she threatened to take legal action against them. I think it's important to recognize and concede that point if you hope that the rest of your points will be taken seriously.

I know that Jersey Girl tried to have conversations with Shades after what happened. She was even unbanned at one point, so clearly, Shades even had questions about what her intentions were--It's NOT cut and dried--but with time, his position has hardened and so have all those in his camp. I think they've 'circled the wagons' and ignored why this all happened in the first place (because it sheds a poor light on Shades for his decisionmaking and EA's lack of communication during the crisis.) Shades and EA aren't hallucinating etc, but they are covering their rear ends. No one likes to have their mistakes pointed out.

[mentalgymnast]

A.I.,

The term "legal fight" normally connotes a court of law. Do you or do you not agree?

Not on the internet, in my opinion, It does not--So in this instance, I do not agree.

I read it that she meant that the board was going to have to deal with the webhost--and the legal terms of their agreement.

Also, as I said, please note that she was unbanned at one point so from that, I think Shades did not think she was trying to sue him in a court of law. I think he says it now because it gives him an excuse for the harsh action he took.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey beastie

Does anyone else think that personal bias is affecting us quite a bit here?

Without question, yes.

In addition to personal bias....... angst, venom, and personally motivated illusions of loyalty are largely visible.

How much is this coloring our opinions?

A ton!

(I say "us" because, of course, I am influenced by bias, as well.)

Indeed, without exception, we all are. (For many reasons, the degree of influence will/may vary)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Alter Idem]

To some on this board, I think THAT as the real crime and that's why they wanted her punished. She's vilified because she put her own safety and the safety of her family above the board. To them, she committed a crime against the board--but it is outrageous to put the well being of the board over the well being of a person or their family! She had a right to act as she did--to put her and her family's best interests first. Those of you who post here, take note--the board must be protected at all costs--individual posters, even long time posters who were once considered friends, are expendable.

If putting the message board's protection above you or your family's protection is a crime, then this place is totally twisted.

That's not how I read it at all. In my view, the question is about whether Shades had an obligation to allow Jersey Girl to continue to participate despite the fact that he - reasonably - interpreted her words to mean she was going to somehow involve the law and courts in this "fight".

I have always said I'd never run a message board. I'd prefer to never participate on another message board again rather than run one. The same is true for moderating one, for me. But if I were running a message board, and thought a poster was even HINTING that he/she was considering taking legal action against me, of course I'd get rid of that poster. Or shut the whole board down.

Shades has consistently said that he was protecting his OWN family's financial needs, and I think that is a fair reaction. I doubt there are many posters here who would put the board above anyone's safety.

To me, the whole question is this: would a reasonable person interpret Jersey Girl's words in the way Shades and EA did? I think the answer is clearly yes. That doesn't mean that's exactly what she intended them to mean, of course.

If that's the case, why was she unbanned for a while before being permanently banned. If he really thought he was going to be sued in a court of law, why would he take the chance of letting her back on the board?