unban Jersey Girl

[_LDSToronto]

Liz,

If I, or any other poster, threatened legal action against this board, and did so publicly, is that worthy of a ban? Even if the poster didn't follow up?

I notice that you neglect to mention that Jersey Girl *did* threaten the board, a fact that EA has highlighted a number of times. Do you believe that one should only be banned if they make a threat AND carry out that threat?

You seem to be giving Jersey Girl a lot of leeway based on the fact that she's got tenure. But, I'd argue, a tenured member should know better....

H.

[_marg]

Actually once Darrick made a post trying to expose the in real life identity of MCB..he should have been banned as per the rules. It doesn't matter that he was wrong..he was still trying to expose MCB.

This I believe happened on a Saturday evening. The next morning Sunday EA was in the thread ...I don't know if he was there the day before..but J.G was requesting that he ban Darrick...plus according to Liz, J.G. had made a complaint report the day before. At a minimum a temporary ban could have easily and quickly been done with no need to get an okay from Shades. Given the lax moderation of this board...it seems reasonable that Jersey Girl's reaction was in large part a function of frustration due to excessively lax moderation which tends to protect harassers leaving individuals being harassed with little if any moderating protection.

I do think Darrick was being goaded and people doing so were at fault as well. If his posts had been moved to telestial..anyone continuing to egg him on would have been responsible for things said to them.

[_Alter Idem]

Liz, isn't the banning of Jersey Girl evidence that Shades not only understands that he has a responsibility to the community of this board, but that he has the minerals required to do what is necessary to ensure that community is protected?

Jersey Girl got banned for something Jersey Girl did that threatened this community (as far as I can see). Regardless of who the poster is who was banned, what their history is etc. We do not know the ins and outs of it, nor should we. All we need to know is that when push came to shove, Shades acted in a manner consistent with the desire to maintain this board, this forum, on our behalf.

Liz, I think I am disappointed with your apparent lack of support for Shades and that you chose to display it in public on the board.

So, Shades states this explanation 'nailed it'.

Then Dr. Shades puts the safety of his message board above the safety of the posters who use it. I find this disturbing.

Apparently it does not matter that a poster felt physically threatened by another poster; her actions to protect herself were deemed unforgivable by the board owner. He did not feel the threat was credible therefore her concerns were brushed aside. I guess each poster here has to decide if they also are willing to put protecting the message board ahead of their own well-being. And it seems that some are fine with that (though I suspect it is those who don't feel they will ever be put in a predicament where they have to decide).


Dr. Shades: If protecting the board is more important than protecting your posters, then you are more like the owners of MADB than you care to admit. And if this is the case, then she's better off not posting here.

[_LDSToronto]

So, Shades states this explanation 'nailed it'.

Then Dr. Shades puts the safety of his message board above the safety of the posters who use it. I find this disturbing.

Apparently it does not matter that a poster felt physically threatened by another poster; her actions to protect herself were deemed unforgivable by the board owner. He did not feel the threat was credible therefore her concerns were brushed aside. I guess each poster here has to decide if they also are willing to put protecting the message board ahead of their own well-being. And it seems that some are fine with that (though I suspect it is those who don't feel they will ever be put in a predicament where they have to decide).


Dr. Shades: If protecting the board is more important than protecting your posters, then you are more like the owners of MADB than you care to admit. And if this is the case, then she's better off not posting here.

I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say Jersey Girl felt threatened. It appeared to me that Dan Peterson was under more of a threat than Jersey Girl ever was and to that end, I sent Dan an email to let him know what had happened. Jersey Girl, on the other hand, felt more like I did - a little pissed that Derrick was allowed to continue.

Not buying, not for a minute, that Jersey Girl felt any fear for her safety.

H.

[_EAllusion]

What is sad is that this situation could have been avoided had EA taken Jersey Girl's concerns seriously.

I did take them seriously and had expressed that. So what this really translates into is "if only EA acted within Jersey Girl's arbitrary and unnecessary 15 minute deadline, this could have been avoided." For that, I think you are deflecting blame from the person responsible to the people she acted against. I don't like the tone the "they were asking for it" defense implies.

[_EAllusion]

While I am in favor of banning Darrick, I'm not sure if we've seen any clear evidence that he had physically confronted people from his threatening obsessions. If it's out there, I've missed it. Like I said, I favor banning in either case due to the pattern of threatening behavior, but that charge has been thrown out several times and it's been difficult to trace the source.

[Guest]

7. Jersey Girl was banned, permanently, from a community she has contributed to, and has been an integral part of for the past 10 years.

This is a tough place. I was banned here for two weeks for nothing more than posting with red ink. It is not appropriate to post with red ink. Jersey Girl is such a nice person although she didn't like me.

[_Ceeboo]

What an enormously disappointing thread!

What a troubling example of how we human beings can treat one another!

What a disturbing display of our collective community!

What more can I possibly type!

v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Alter Idem]

So, Shades states this explanation 'nailed it'.

Then Dr. Shades puts the safety of his message board above the safety of the posters who use it. I find this disturbing.

Apparently it does not matter that a poster felt physically threatened by another poster; her actions to protect herself were deemed unforgivable by the board owner. He did not feel the threat was credible therefore her concerns were brushed aside. I guess each poster here has to decide if they also are willing to put protecting the message board ahead of their own well-being. And it seems that some are fine with that (though I suspect it is those who don't feel they will ever be put in a predicament where they have to decide).


Dr. Shades: If protecting the board is more important than protecting your posters, then you are more like the owners of MADB than you care to admit. And if this is the case, then she's better off not posting here.

I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say Jersey Girl felt threatened. It appeared to me that Dan Peterson was under more of a threat than Jersey Girl ever was and to that end, I sent Dan an email to let him know what had happened. Jersey Girl, on the other hand, felt more like I did - a little pissed that Derrick was allowed to continue.

Not buying, not for a minute, that Jersey Girl felt any fear for her safety.

H.

Your perception is incorrect, she DID feel threatened. When the moderator failed to take any action she felt she had no choice but to try and do something about the situation. And for that, she was punished.

[_Alter Idem]

What is sad is that this situation could have been avoided had EA taken Jersey Girl's concerns seriously.

I did take them seriously and had expressed that. So what this really translates into is "if only EA acted within Jersey Girl's arbitrary and unnecessary 15 minute deadline, this could have been avoided." For that, I think you are deflecting blame from the person responsible to the people she acted against. I don't like the tone the "they were asking for it" defense implies.

I think you didn't like being given an ultimatum and I don't blame you, Jersey Girl's a forceful personality at times so it's no surprise if it upset you. I can understand your reaction, BUT: Your annoyance with her and your decision to do nothing until consulting Shades also provoked her to an action she wouldn't have otherwise taken(and should not have had to). I don't think you meant to make the situation worse, but frankly, you did.

It was clear Darrick was a problem and nothing was done to contain or avert what ultimately took place. Shades bears the most responsibility for that decision.