THE JERSEY GIRL MEGATHREAD

[Guest]

Edit: Didn't see Cicero's post, guess this is a bit of a rehash, but oh well.

I was not aware of any of the stuff regarding Jersey Girl until I read this thread, as I wasn't around this board when it happened. However, doing a bit of google searching I found one of the threads in question, and it sure sounds like she threatened legal action.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23210

Look, I don't have much time to do this right now so I'll just cut to the chase.

**** precedence.

Last night Darrick wrote this:

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

The man's mind is all over the place. I consider the above to be a threat directed towards MCB, Dan Peterson and MYSELF and if you don't have the ******* spine to block this guy, EA, in favor of political correctness, you guys are gonna have a legal ******* fight on your hands and I'll initiate it.

Keep in mind that there are no published disclaimers on this board so admin is in it up to their eyeballs if they don't knock this guy off the board.

Like now.

(Emphasis mine. I also added some asterisks to the swear words due to this thread being in the terrestrial forum. Mods, let me know if altering quotes in that way is not cool.)

When someone starts talking about bloodshed and searching up in real life information on a message board, it's clearly time to block the poster.

Liability is a bitch, EA, and make no mistake about it, so am I. No part of me is willing to stand idly by while a person makes threats against myself and others without moving on it.

I'm giving the mod team 15 minutes from the time this post goes up to block Darrick and assure this community that he has indeed been blocked. If I don't see that happening, I'll begin with filing a complaint.

15 minutes, starting now.

Another mention of legal action along with an ultimatum.

I know exactly how "banning works" here, EA. I invite your attention to the fact that MormonDiscussions has a contract which employs Terms of Use and an Acceptable Use Policy, both of which place liability for illegal conduct squarely on the shoulders of the owners of this board.

I'm regret that you chose to spend your time equivocating over obvious threatening behavior. The 15 minutes I allotted for the mod team to take action has passed.

I feel confident that I notified the moderating team using appropriate channels via the report feature. The very least you could have done would have been to block Darrick's IP until Shades became available.

In light of the fact that the moderating team failed to take action, I believe I am left with no choice and will act accordingly.

Jersey Girl

The statement that she will act accordingly could be open to interpretation, but at least one reasonable interpretation would be that she intended to follow through on the legal threats she made earlier in the thread.

Now, it looks like Jersey Girl had really good reasons to want something to be done about Darrick (and something was done, later in that thread Liz announced he was permabanned). And I have no idea what went on after Jersey Girl was suspended for a week, either in real life or on the board. But just going by what she said in the thread itself, I certainly wouldn't blame Shades for taking the legal threats seriously.

Just putting in my two cents as somewhat of an outside observer.

[_Shulem]

It's a matter of common fairness in how we treat others and not a matter of religious faith.

There are only 24 hours a day and Shades has to eat, sleep, work, and have sex too. Good God! It's a wonder that he spends the amount of time he does trying to be as fair as possible running this board. The problem is, not everyone agrees on what fair is. That will always be the case. There will always be winners and losers and two sides of every argument. Jersey Girl lost the argument and the case is closed.

Paul O

[_LDSToronto]

I'm the newbie here, and wasn't participating during the recent fiasco that lead to the banning, so I should probably keep my big mouth shut . . . but I've never been able to do that so here goes:

I certainly don't know Jersey Girl in real life, nor am I familiar with her posting history, but some of you seem to be saying that she is perfectly harmless and has denied making threats. As an outside observer, I honestly have a hard time believing that when I see posts like this:

I consider the above to be a threat directed towards MCB, Dan Peterson and MYSELF and 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.

Liability is a bitch, EA, and make no mistake about it, so am I. No part of me is willing to stand idly by while a person makes threats against myself and others without moving on it.

I'm giving the mod team 15 minutes from the time this post goes up to block Darrick and assure this community that he has indeed been blocked. If I don't see that happening, I'll begin with filing a complaint.

15 minutes, starting now..

Oh, come on, Cicero, Jersey Girl would NEVER have acted on her threats. Why, she's as harmless as a fly, and anyone who TRULY knew her could never EVER in a million billion TRILLIONETY-ZILLION years think that Jersey Girl was being anything more than a kind and gentle Pranky Smurf!

:smiley: :winkie: :smiley: :winkety winkie:

H.

[_Shulem]

never EVER in a million billion TRILLIONETY-ZILLION years

I'll bet that was the next thing Joseph Smith would have said had he more time to finish his translations of Facsimile No. 2.



Paul O

[_Bret Ripley]

Question: Does banning someone make them ...

A) less likely to follow through on legal threats.

B) more likely to follow through on legal threats.

C) neither more nor less likely to follow through on legal threats.

It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which the correct answer is A. If the correct answer is B or C, the ban has nothing to do with protecting anyone (and may even be counter-productive).

I think I can understand why Shades would be tempted to ban Jersey Girl for her legal threats, but I just don't see that it accomplishes anything worthwhile. If Jersey Girl's threats were made in earnest, banning her would only make her more determined than ever to act. An argument could be made that banning her only makes sense if there is no fear that she will follow through, in which case it is understandable that the ban comes off looking like an act of pettiness. <shrug>

2 cents.

[_Drifting]

It's not unreasonable for him to want to respond to their criticism, but when he does so by stating his version of events, which Jersey Girl denies vehemently, and she is not able to respond, that's wrong.

Who's version of events should he state if not his own?

I reckon, if you get people to stop bringing it up Shades will stop responding. Am I right?

[_LDSToronto]

Question: Does banning someone make them ...

A) less likely to follow through on legal threats.

B) more likely to follow through on legal threats.

C) neither more nor less likely to follow through on legal threats.

It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which the correct answer is A. If the correct answer is B or C, the ban has nothing to do with protecting anyone (and may even be counter-productive).

I think I can understand why Shades would be tempted to ban Jersey Girl for her legal threats, but I just don't see that it accomplishes anything worthwhile. If Jersey Girl's threats were made in earnest, banning her would only make her more determined than ever to act. An argument could be made that banning her only makes sense if there is no fear that she will follow through, in which case it is understandable that the ban comes off looking like an act of pettiness. <shrug>

2 cents.

Banning is punitive. And I have no problemo with that notion on this board.

H.

[_Bret Ripley]

Question: Does banning someone make them ...

A) less likely to follow through on legal threats.

B) more likely to follow through on legal threats.

C) neither more nor less likely to follow through on legal threats.

It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which the correct answer is A. If the correct answer is B or C, the ban has nothing to do with protecting anyone (and may even be counter-productive).

I think I can understand why Shades would be tempted to ban Jersey Girl for her legal threats, but I just don't see that it accomplishes anything worthwhile. If Jersey Girl's threats were made in earnest, banning her would only make her more determined than ever to act. An argument could be made that banning her only makes sense if there is no fear that she will follow through, in which case it is understandable that the ban comes off looking like an act of pettiness. <shrug>

2 cents.

Banning is punitive.

I think this is probably correct. If so, we can dispense with any notion that banning Jersey Girl had something to do with preventing her from "stealing bread from kids' mouths".

[_LDSToronto]

Banning is punitive.

I think this is probably correct. If so, we can dispense with any notion that banning Jersey Girl had something to do with preventing her from "stealing bread from kids' mouths".

Sure, so long as the notion that banning Jersey Girl was a "gross miscarriage of internet justice" is tossed out at the same time.

H.

[_Shulem]

If you have an adult kid living in the house making all kinds of threats to the parents then it's time to kick that kid out of the house.

Paul O