THE JERSEY GIRL MEGATHREAD

[_Bret Ripley]

... a difficult decision in the best interests of both himself and this board.

In what manner was banning Jersey Girl in the best interest of this board? For example, do you think banning her made it less likely that she would pursue legal action? (I'm not being a smart-ass, here -- I am genuinely trying to understand your POV.)

[_Drifting]

... a difficult decision in the best interests of both himself and this board.

In what manner was banning Jersey Girl in the best interest of this board? For example, do you think banning her made it less likely that she would pursue legal action? (I'm not being a smart-ass, here -- I am genuinely trying to understand your POV.)

Legal action against the board jeapordises the boards existence.
I want the board to exist, therefore I support it's protection.

[_Stormy Waters]

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.

I see your point. But one positive effect it does have is that it keeps people from making legal threats as a means to try to blackmail the moderators into taking action.

[_LDSToronto]

Anyone who cares about Jersey Girl is already in touch with her on a regular basis over at Liz's private geeky NOM board, and the rest of us who don't really care, well, who cares?

If you want to chat it up with Jersey Girl and care about her defense, ask Liz for an invite.

H.

That's not the problem. I am on Liz's board and can talk to Jersey Girl there. The point is that Shades is discussing her banning on THIS board, giving his skewed version of events and once again accusing her of trying to legally hurt him, his family, the board etc.--all of which she denies. BUT, because she is permanently banned, she is not able to respond.

As long as she cannot defend herself, he should not post his justification for what he did. If he's so sure he did what was right and best for the board, then he should not feel the need to explain himself, but should ignore the grumblings. That would be the right thing to do.

When he insists on responding by once again posting his justification for banning her, he has unfairly maligned her because she can't dispute his accusations. This kind of thing happened at MADB and it was wrong. When it happens here, it's wrong too.

Who.Gives.A.Serious.Flying.“F”.

H.

[_Alter Idem]

Let's be quite clear.
Shades took a difficult decision in the best interests of both himself and this board. He had the necessary minerals to do what was required when a clear and real (as far as he could reasonably perceive) threat was put on him. The fact is that Shades has only responded with a version of events that is already commonly known because it was commonly seen by the posters on thus board. He hasn't revealed anything from his private e mails and messages, nor has he revealed anything from private sources that were shared with him to aid the resolution to the problem that Jersey Girl herself created.

I thought Shades handled, and continues to handle, himself with far more diplomacy and dignity than I would have been capable of.

Well, some of us disagree. I for one, don't think it was handled well and I think he over reacted. I believe he also chose to respond more harshly to Jersey Girl than he did to others who he perceived as a threat to the board. I feel he ignored an unstable, frightening poster, allowing him to escalate and then, tied the hands of his moderators so that they felt they couldn't take action, which put them in a bind when things came to a head. I think he ignored a friendship of many years and what he knew of his friend to accuse her of being a threat to him and his board. I think if he doesn't want to make things right, he should stop the attacks he unleashes whenever he gives his skewed version which she disputes.

For Cylon and Cicero; You weren't here so you don't Jersey Girl, but she was a fixture on this board and her friendship with Shades goes back many years. There's a lot more to this than the posts you pulled up. I don't expect you to understand why some of us disagree with what was done, but I'll tell you we have good reasons.

[_LDSToronto]

But but but ... won't you miss the histrionics? <swoons>

I think we both agree that the conversation would improve were some parties less prone to the maudlin.

No, I think the conversation would improve if assholes would stop bringing up Jersey Girl's banning every time they want to attack Shades.

H.

[_Bret Ripley]

Legal action against the board jeapordises the boards existence.
I want the board to exist, therefore I support it's protection.

So banning Jersey Girl makes it less likely that she will pursue legal action? If anything, I would have thought banning her would make her more likely to pursue legal action. Can you please explain how banning serves as protection against legal protection?

[_LDSToronto]

Got it.
Gag Shades on a free speech board.
Allow Shades to be accused but give him no recourse.

No, you don't 'got it'.

Shades can accuse her and defend himself all he wants, but if he doesn't allow Jersey Girl to challenge his version(which she strongly disputes) and defend herself, he's as bad as MADB.

Well, if Shades is as bad as MADB, that must make you as bad as Pahoran, because your ability to reason is right up there with his, or JeffK's.

H.

[_Drifting]

I think he ignored a friendship of many years and what he knew of his friend to accuse her of being a threat to him and his board.

I think Jersey Girl ignored a friendship of many years when she put Shades in the position of having to consider banning her.

Jersey Girl was banned because of what Jersey Girl did.
You may disagree with the punitive measure taken, but you really cannot dispute she created (read the old threads) the situation where banning was a potential outcome?

Edited to add.
I'm done with this now.
You want people to stop talking about it, so I will - bet you don't stop though....

[_LDSToronto]

There's a lot more to this than the posts you pulled up. I don't expect you to understand why some of us disagree with what was done, but I'll tell you we have good reasons.

See, here's where the whole "Jersey Girl's banning was unreasonable" argument breaks down. We bicker for a whole bunch of pages and then someone who is on the inside claims that outsiders just don't understand, and couldn't possibly understand, the reasons why insiders are so vehemently against Jersey Girl's banning.

Now watch this next trick. I will challenge Alter Idem:

"Alter Idem, why don't you explain these good reasons for disagreeing with the decision to ban Jersey Girl?"

And Alter Idem will deftly sidestep with some stupid excuse about privacy, or Jersey Girl isn't hear to defend (although she is reading everything here and bellyaching about it over on geekynom...)

It's a clever trick, but a lot like seeing a girl sawed in half, it's overdone and getting old.

H.