THE JERSEY GIRL MEGATHREAD

[_Yoda]

Maybe liz can write some porn about me getting spanked by the board idiot. Then you can really have a good wank, marg!

Sorry, I am very selective about who I write stories for, or about. You would never be that privileged.

[_Shulem]

Jesus, Liz. You're practically flying solo. Hardly anyone on this board agrees with you. Doesn't that tell you something? Hello! Liz!



Paul O

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Liz is as wrong as two boys ****in'.

Wait.

crap.

Sorry, Paul.

- VRDRC

[_Tator]

Tastes great..... less filling!

For 12 pages.

[_Shulem]

OK, boys. I think she's dead now.



Paul O

[_marg]

Alter Idem I feel we are talking past one another and for today I'm not going to add anything else.

[_Yoda]

Liz is as wrong as two boys ****in'.

Wait.

crap.

Sorry, Paul.

- VRDRC

OK, this made me literally LOL!

[_sock puppet]

I discuss this more at length in the mod forum thread, but it bears mentioning that blocking Darrick's IP would do little to nothing to deter him from driving to someone's house wearing lipstick and carrying a shotgun. IP bans are easily got around. Since a sizeable % of posters here are so banned from MADB and still access it, I'm sure that's known. But even more to the point, if someone has the ability to hunt you down personally merely from accessing this board, then it's overwhelmingly likely that a mere IP ban isn't a significant barrier to them. An IP ban is meant to discourage further posting and interest. That's something we wanted to do in Darrick's case, but waiting a few hours to make that decision wasn't making anyone appreciably more at risk. Now, I understand if someone isn't thinking rationally about this in the moment, but we have to take into account what people do when they aren't thinking rationally.

I think Jersey Girl's concern about Darrick yet having privileges to post and PM here was that he was fishing for in real life information re Jersey Girl from other posters, one of whom could have provided it to Darrick. Ban Darrick, and you cut off his use of MDB to fish for this information from other posters. Darrick had, as I understand it, just before Jersey Girl's request, started making in real life threats and asking for in real life information about Jersey Girl, as well as DCP and one other person I cannot now recall. So, it seems that Jersey Girl's request to ban Darrick was one to cut off his use of MDB to find another poster who might give him that in real life information. In this context, time was of the essence as just one other poster that had the in real life information could have provided it in a matter of minutes in response to Darrick's request.

[_sock puppet]

So, if Shades' honest reason for banning Jersey Girl was that she was threatening to sue him personally, and the other Moderators personally, then he completely fell short in his assumptions.

So what is your hypothesis as to what Shades' honest reason for banning Jersey Girl was if not that she was threatening to sue him personally?

[_Dr. Shades]

Once again, in the interest of time (and length) I'll refrain from addressing every point with which I disagree and instead respond to overarching themes that need to be corrected.

POINT ELEVEN:

According to Shades, attempts to go after the board are okay with him.

NO. Suing the board as a legal entity is understandable if grievances need to be redressed. This doesn't mean I grant carte blance to "go after the board" (her words) however one wishes.

Shades, in his own words, has indicated that he has no problem with posters attempting to take the board down.

WRONG! . . WRONG! . . WRONG! . . WRONG! . . WRONG! . . WRONG!

Jesus Christ Almighty, I can't imagine a worse misinterpretation of my words. Look, I said that I don't mind if someone sues the board as a legal entity. I DO INDEED MIND EVERYTHING ELSE. This is because if the board itself gets sued, then attorneys wrangle it out behind-the-scenes and board functionality is unaffected. In other words, if someone sues the board, then the board continues humming along like normal and nobody is any the wiser.

Good God, of course I damn well care if someone takes the board down, spams the board, hacks the board, does a DDOS (dedicated denial of service) attack against the board, etc. etc. etc. How could I *NOT* care? I wouldn't be much of a board owner if I cared nothing about whether it continues to exist or function or not.

Sheesh. A little common sense is in order, methinks.

POINT TWELVE:

People have brought up the SeattleGhostWriter situation and contrasted it against the Jersey Girl situation, saying that they both tried to get the board taken down, so why were they treated differently? Herein lies the difference: SeattleGhostWriter merely wanted to get a single image removed from the board, so he delivered a DMCA takedown notice to DreamHost, asserting unauthorized use of his copyrighted image (which was true). DreamHost got an itchy trigger finger and shut the whole board down instead of just notifying us first and giving us a few minutes to take care of the problem. SeattleGhostWriter asserted that he never intended to take the whole board down, that he wanted the image removed ONLY. DreamHost forwarded us the text of his notice, and what do you know, the wording made it VERY clear that he was telling the truth about his relatively benign intentions.

Therefore, I saw no need to punish him for a result that he didn't intend.

Jersey Girl's messages to LDSToronto, on the other hand, made it VERY clear that her initial goal was to get the whole board shut down entirely. Every other moderator in the world would consider that alone to be an immediately bannable offense.

POINT THIRTEEN:

Alter Idem and Jersey Girl still labor under the delusion that she (and, according to Alter Idem, everyone else) is/was not protected from dangerous individuals. When discussing what I had to do to protect myself, she asks, "What about ME?" Well, we DID INDEED protect her (and others) by. . . drumroll. . . BANNING DARRICK! We banned Darrick, which is precisely what she wanted! She got precisely what she asked for! What the Hell else does she or Alter Idem want? harmony gave him a temporary suspension, and when I got online and was brought up to speed, I agreed with a perma-ban of him and a blocking of his IP address. If Alter Idem doesn't think that counts as "protecting" the posters here, then I'd really like to know what does.

POINT FOURTEEN:

Jersey Girl has feigned innocence, asserting her right to protect herself by whatever means necessary. She and Alter Idem ask what else she could've done to protect herself (at least, I think that's what one or both of them asked at one point). Well, a good place to start would've been to **NOT** poke, prod, and goad Darrick into flying off the handle the way he did. In other words, if she wanted to protect herself, she could've avoided creating the situation in the first place by leaving him well enough alone. Logging off the computer or switching to another thread would've been good starting points, too.

So, for those people who think that Jersey Girl was an innocent, unknowing puppet on Darrick's strings, tragically forced into threatening lawsuits entirely against her will, then logic demands that they also conclude that Darrick was an innocent, unknowing puppet on Jersey Girl's strings first, tragically forced into flying off the handle entirely against his will, too. I for one reject both premises, but if you accept the first of them, then consistency demands that you accept the second of them, too.

POINT FIFTEEN:

Some people assert that Jersey Girl didn't really mean what she said, that she was panicking and can't be held accountable for her words. Well, as her messages to LDSToronto prove, she wasn't panicked at all; she was calm, cool, collected, and calculating throughout the entire process. . . and therefore 100% accountable for, and serious about, everything she said.

POINT SIXTEEN:

Alter Idem extends Jersey Girl every possible benefit of the doubt because she had to protect herself from what she perceived to be a real-life threat. Well, if that's the case, then I too had the right to protect myself from what I perceived to be a real-life threat. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. . . or do you disagree, Alter Idem?

POINT SEVENTEEN:

It's been mentioned a couple of times that if EAllusion had simply informed the board that Darrick had been suspended pending review, then Jersey Girl would've stopped in her tracks. Well, we don't announce bannings or suspensions on this board, because it's a form of "kicking a person when he or she is down." As a former moderator herself, she should've known this. If she was curious, she could've easily asked EAllusion or harmony whether he'd been banned or suspended before she followed through on her threats. Nothing was preventing her from asking.

POINT EIGHTEEN:

Alter Idem says that Jersey Girl was temporarily unbanned before being perma-banned. This indicates, in his mind, that all was forgiven for at least a short time. That's not how I remember it; my recollection is that we gave her a temporary ban until we could all hash out what should be done about her, but the temporary ban expired before we were finished discussing the issue. Once we were finished and I made the final decision, the permanent ban went into effect.

POINT NINETEEN:

Alter Idem thinks that merely contacting the board host is a bannable offense. This isn't true. As I've painstakingly attempted to make perfectly clear, it was her threat to sue us (as opposed to the board as a legal entity) that was the bannable offense. Once again, she didn't say she would END with filing a complaint. She said she would BEGIN with filing a complaint. Here on Planet Earth, "begin" means "begin." Alter Idem, in the bizarro alternate universe that you inhabit, does "begin" mean "end?"