THE JERSEY GIRL MEGATHREAD

[_Alter Idem]

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.

Sorry marg, I did answer it somewhere, but I think my posts are so long that things get lost.

Jersey Girl has explained (on another board) that she was 'initiating' a complaint or inquiry with the webhost to try and get the host to review the situation, consider the contractual or legal terms that the board is supposed to abide by and determine if the host could force MD to remove Darrick. She could not see that her complaints to mods were being taken seriously, in fact, they were ignored for 12 hours so this was the next step in dealing with the perceived threat.

I came across the threads about Jersey Girl's banning a day or two after this happened and I never thought she wanted to sue the board. She has said that she wanted the board to be held to the legal terms that it had contracted with the webhost for internet space. She was fearful of Darrick's potential to ferret out her location and cause physical violence--she knew he had a documented history of stalking and threats. She had experienced a tragedy in her family shortly before this all happened from an unstable person making threats and then carrying them out.

[_marg]

Sorry marg, I did answer it somewhere, but I think my posts are so long that things get lost.

Jersey Girl has explained (on another board) that she was 'initiating' a complaint or inquiry with the webhost to try and get the host to review the situation, consider the contractual or legal terms that the board is supposed to abide by and determine if the host could force MD to remove Darrick. She could not see that her complaints to mods were being taken seriously, in fact, they were ignored for 12 hours so this was the next step in dealing with the perceived threat.

I came across the threads about Jersey Girl's banning a day or two after this happened and I never thought she wanted to sue the board. She has said that she wanted the board to be held to the legal terms that it had contracted with the webhost for internet space. She was fearful of Darrick's potential to ferret out her location and cause physical violence--she knew he had a documented history of stalking and threats. She had experienced a tragedy in her family shortly before this all happened from an unstable person making threats and then carrying them out.

Alter Idem,

Her words are not necessarily saying she intended to be in a legal fight but her words are that she was initiating what she thought would result in a legal fight. So there is little difference between the 2 situations...whether she initiated the legal fight herself or was the cause of others being in a legal fight with the board.

So your argument on her behalf and what she herself has argued..that she didn't intend to ever "sue" doesn't mitigate anything..because the end result is essentially the same.

It is up to Jersey Girl to retract her words...that's if she's interested in doing so.

[_Alter Idem]

Alter Idem,

Her words are not necessarily saying she intended to be in a legal fight but her words are that she was initiating what she thought would result in a legal fight. So there is little difference between the 2 situations...whether she initiated the legal fight herself or was the cause of others being in a legal fight with the board.

Jersey Girl was initiating something which would mean that Shades would have to defend his actions if they were found to violate the legal terms of the contract MD had with the webhost. It was going to cause problems, but as what happened with SGW, it was temporary. Do you think she was wrong to contact the webhost when the board had refused to do anything for 12 hours about a threat she perceived as very serious? If not, it begs the question of what rights do posters here have, when it comes to their own safety? This could happen again. Do posters have any redress if the moderators choose to ignore a potential threat? If Shades' position is that complaints to the webhost are a bannable offense, he's essentially shut down any recourse a poster can take if they need help and Shades dismisses their concerns.

So your argument on her behalf and what she herself has argued..that she didn't intend to ever "sue" doesn't mitigate anything..because the end result is essentially the same.

It is up to Jersey Girl to retract her words...that's if she's interested in doing so.

I don't see why she should retract her words. She never said she was going to sue. What I see is her words being misconstrued and claims made about her intentions which are false.

[_Yoda]

Aside from you and Liz, I don't think anyone else cares much about this issue anymore, now that the facts are out and Jersey Girl is no longer reading the board or responding. My work in this thread is done.

H.

Hey moron, you don't need to copy Alter Idem's long post..in order to respond with 2 lines. And if your work is done...then piss off.

[Anonymous]

I wasn't a participant in the events that surrounded Jersey Girl's banning. But now having taken the time to read this whole thread, I feel obligated to give my verdict.

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

Exactly.

If Jersey Girl’s intention was to inform the moderating team that she was going to escalate her complaints to Dream Host in order to expedite Derrick’s banning, then it was a superlatively poor choice of words to say, “you guys are gonna have a legal ******* fight on your hands and I'll initiate it.” I totally agree with EA’s interpretation of what Jersey Girl said: a “legal fight” implies an actual “fight” in the realm where legal fights take place.

In no way am I defending Derrick, the pace with which the moderator’s banned him, or the subsequent decision to ban Jersey Girl. I am saying Jersey Girl appears to be in denial about the clear implications of what she did in fact say. "Why on earth anyone would think that I would a) sue my *friends*, b) use my personal funds to sue a message board or my *friends* when there is already a contractual agreement in place, is beyond me. To imply that I would sue my *friends* is more offensive to me than any of the statements that Darrick directed my way."

[sarcasm]Gosh, Jersey Girl, I have no clue why anybody would think you'd give them a legal damned fight.[/sarcasm] Take some responsibility for what you said!

[_marg]

Jersey Girl was initiating something which would mean that Shades would have to defend his actions if they were found to violate the legal terms of the contract MD had with the webhost. It was going to cause problems, but as what happened with SGW, it was temporary.

There is no indication by her words that she was implying only a temporary shut down of the site.

And what she actually had in mind versus her words implied is not the same thing.

Do you think she was wrong to contact the webhost when the board had refused to do anything for 12 hours about a threat she perceived as very serious? If not, it begs the question of what rights do posters here have, when it comes to their own safety?

If one is truly concerned about their safety then it is best to back off further discussion with that poster ...and go behind the scenes to contact mods to have something done. I don't think she was wrong to contact the web host. What I think happened is that following her threat of "initiating" what might result in a "legal fight"..and then her action of contacting the web host resulted in her action being perceived as following through with intent to cause legal repercussions.

This could happen again. Do posters have any redress if the moderators choose to ignore a potential threat? If Shades' position is that complaints to the webhost are a bannable offense, he's essentially shut down any recourse a poster can take if they need help and Shades dismisses their concerns.

Jersey Girl did not act as if she was truly concerned about her or her family's well being. If she was truly concerned it would have been in her best interest to back off from the discussion and encourage others to do so.

Shades is saying that he personally and the mods..should not be held responsible for actions by a 3rd party of which he knows nothing about. At the very least he needs to be notified..before one initiates what one thinks will result in legal actions. In addition Darrick was being provoked. Just because he claimed to know who MCB was, who he was in error about... doesn't amount to cyberstalking. And we all know that things said on message boards often are said without truly meaning what is said.

I don't see why she should retract her words. She never said she was going to sue. What I see is her words being misconstrued and claims made about her intentions which are false.

Her words aren't being misconstrued. She said she would "initiate" actions and as a result the board would/could have a legal fight on their hands. It's irrelevant whether she personally intended to sue. She then contacted the web host which gave the appearance she was following through on her threat of initiating.

The big issue in my opinion, is when she says she intends to initiate and that follows her words about the board having a legal fight on its hands.

[_sock puppet]

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?

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".

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.

marg, you are saying that Jersey Girl's threat of legal action was just an idle threat? If you are EA and Shades, do you bank on such an assumption, particularly when the preliminary steps, contacting DreamHost, were actually taken by Jersey Girl? The legal action that was threatened was something that Jersey Girl could initiate on her own, not requiring EA's or Shades' consent.

Idle or not, the threat was a bullying tactic. I think the response was appropriate, whether the threat was idle or not. Shades did what was within his power, he banned the poster making the legal threats.

[_marg]

will respond later SP...too busy atm.

[_beastie]

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.

If I recall correctly, the timeline was such that Shades was not completely aware of everything that transpired immediately, since he was off the board. I understood it took him a while to get up to speed. That's probably the interim period in which she was unbanned.

Let me ask you another question. Do you think Jersey Girl thought it was possible that one possible outcome would be that dreamhost would initiate some sort of legal proceedings, in terms of a court of law? Keep in mind that she thought Derrick was engaging in criminal activity.

Jersey Girl's pm to LDStoronto:

Okay, I appreciate it. I'm looking at the DreamHost website and terms of service. According to their contract, Mav is fully liable for what goes on here and what Darrick has done is against their "Acceptable Use Policy". That is, assuming that making threats is,

"Also, using DreamHost’s servers or network to conspire to commit or support the commission of illegal activities is forbidden as well."

and

"Collecting or using email addresses, screen names or other personal identifiers without the consent of the person identified (including, without limitation, phishing, Internet scamming, password robbery, spidering, and harvesting)."

DreamHost incurs no liability whatsoever. This is part of the Terms of Use agreement.

I'm giving them the 15 minutes I offered, after that I'm contacting DreamHost. When it comes to threatening behavior, I act swiftly.

Unlike EAllusion who should have blocked Darrick's IP as soon as the complaints rolled in and at least put him "on hold" until Shades was available.

I'm giving them the 15 minutes I offered, after that I'm contacting DreamHost. When it comes to threatening behavior, I act swiftly. Unlike EAllusion who should have blocked Darrick's IP as soon as the complaints rolled in and at least put him "on hold" until Shades was available.

[_Chap]

Jersey Girl gone.

Jersey Girl not coming back.

Jersey Girl not want to come back.

Jersey Girl stuff about Jersey Girl posted all over the place, repeatedly, plus Jersey Girl supporters' stuff about Jersey Girl.

Non-JG supporters still not convinced, nor remotely likely to be.

End of.