Problems with the board
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10274
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm
Re: Problems with the board
Ok, I’m convinced. Icarus, if you’re the person who made a cash offer to buy the board, that was good of you to do. You may do just fine as the owner of a different board, but you are not well suited to own or have control of this board. This thread alone makes that crystal clear. You keep justifying the inexcusable. I would have stayed out of this whole mess, but your references to others on the board supporting your actions leads me to make It clear: I am not one of them.
I’d be happy to pitch in and buy the board and give it to Shades. I’d be happy to do the same for a non profit that had a board I trusted, as long as Shades was on board with the plan. But I think the number one criteria for anyone running this board is the community’s trust that they will protect its members from real life repercussions for posting here. And I’m sorry to have to say that I don’t trust you to do that.
I’d be happy to pitch in and buy the board and give it to Shades. I’d be happy to do the same for a non profit that had a board I trusted, as long as Shades was on board with the plan. But I think the number one criteria for anyone running this board is the community’s trust that they will protect its members from real life repercussions for posting here. And I’m sorry to have to say that I don’t trust you to do that.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: Problems with the board
Why should I want to know that about a message board participant?
Hinting? How cute is that! What you are calling hints are threatening behaviors to any normal person. Here is an example of what you call a "hint".But I've never divulged that kind of information about anyone, just hinting to them that I very well could if they don't back the ____ off.
"Do it again and I'll make sure you regret it". ~ Icarus
I'm confident in saying that there is no other poster on this board who "thinks" that way. So yeah. No. I don't want to participate on a board that you have your hands on.
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:04 am, edited 6 times in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: Problems with the board
I think that there are quite a few of us who would be willing to pay the full cost and gift it to Shades just to push this along and make it a new reality. Some part of me really finds the BOD concept appealing so long as the BOD members were made public? Sheesh. This is all starting to feel really cumbersome.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:35 pmOk, I’m convinced. Icarus, if you’re the person who made a cash offer to buy the board, that was good of you to do. You may do just fine as the owner of a different board, but you are not well suited to own or have control of this board. This thread alone makes that crystal clear. You keep justifying the inexcusable. I would have stayed out of this whole mess, but your references to others on the board supporting your actions leads me to make It clear: I am not one of them.
I’d be happy to pitch in and buy the board and give it to Shades. I’d be happy to do the same for a non profit that had a board I trusted, as long as Shades was on board with the plan. But I think the number one criteria for anyone running this board is the community’s trust that they will protect its members from real life repercussions for posting here. And I’m sorry to have to say that I don’t trust you to do that.
I mentioned in previous discussion (on this thread?) that when the posters purchased the board on my first board, some of them ended up complaining because "I paid [amount] for this board!" type thing because they didn't like the way things were going and the board itself had NO rules at all. Lord of the Flies that was!
I wonder, if when the dust settles on a viable plan, if we could take the number of willing contributors and divvy up the cost equally? That wouldn't cover the posters who would like to contribute but might not be able to contribute their piece of the pie so to speak depending on what that was. I'd really like to see if there is a way we can prevent contributors from trying to leverage their contributions to influence moderators.
Ow. My brain hurts.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:01 pm
Re: Problems with the board
I think I made it clear I was referring to people I've spoken to off forum, not other people I don't really know (like you). I already knew where you stood on this when you voiced your opinion some time ago right after it happened and you gave Doc a pass for his behavior because he had previously told you he would go "thermonuclear" if anyone messed with him, or something to that effect. How that is supposed to excuse him from future criticism of his behavior escapes me, but that's basically what I remember you posting at the time. Everyone else I've spoken to about this matter - which is a lot of people including my wife's bishop at the time - they don't find fault in anything I did and they sure as hell don't see it as proof of a character flaw. They see a man who was defending his family the only way he could. So I know you guys think you're on solid moral high ground here, but I'd bet my last nut most human beings would find more fault with the cowards using anonymity to attack women and children. And they sure as hell wouldn't understand this silly notion being pushed by the cackling hens, that anyone who attacks me or my family get's to have their anonymity protected by the person they're attacking. That just doesn't make any sense.
Now last night I said my piece on this subject in as much detail as I'm inclined to do, and the only people I care about convincing are already convinced. There is no need to belabor the point more than I already have, so this will likely be my last comment on the subject. Anyone bored enough to read through this thread can make up their own minds. People can try to empathize with the situation I was in at the time, or they can choose to go along with Jersey Girl's despicable smear campaign, pretending as if I violated some kind of sacred trust. They can choose to side with two guys who said things like my wife is a whore and my children are "brats" (Subgenius), or they can accept the hard reality that there is no such thing as "honor among internet participants." There is nothing written in Sanskrit anywhere that says every internet participant has an obligation to help protect the anonymity of all offenders. Virtually everyone I know who doesn't post on forums, they find this concept Jersey Girl pushes confusing as hell. Just this morning while getting ready for a day of Football I brought this up to a neighbor of mine who put it this way: If someone is prank calling you and you find out who they are, should you respect their decision to remain anonymous or would you use this knowledge against them to deter them from future pranks? His analogy was apt because my wife receives sexually explicit calls and emails at least once every other week. This first happened a few years ago but it gets worse and worse every month. As I explained to Shades on the phone a while ago (I called because he wasn't responding to the messages I sent via the forum) the notes my employer received corresponded to the same time all of this was playing itself out on this forum. So, I knew who was doing it, but there was no way to definitively "prove" it, so Shades said he was unable to take any action. This was a couple of years ago when I called him up to tell him I was leaving the board for good and asked him to remove my name if he could. He couldn't remove all of my posts and he couldn't reprimand anyone for contacting my employer either. So
People like Jersey Girl get wrapped up in this false notion that online anonymity is absolutely sacred. Well, no it isn't. The hard fact is that when people are using their anonymity to violate rules of common decency, then they shouldn't be able to post anonymously. You don't have a right to call my wife a whore and then say, "I dare you to out me." Only on this forum is that a viable tactic by bad actors like Doc and Subs, because only on this forum is there a someone like Jersey Girl who helps enable them because she is anxious to spend hours and hours writing up bogus rationales for attacking their same target. She's been obsessed with attacking me for a while now and this was evident this week when she tried to trick me into breaking a rule just so she could throw another conniption fit. After that, and her antics from yesterday, Jersey Girl and Lemmie have been on ignore because at this point I'm just convinced they're not good people. And it is pointless to even try continuing a discussion because I know Jersey Girl's games all too well. She will rant over and over with these eternal tit for tat derailments while never arguing in good faith or even admitting any wrong doing when it has been pointed out. All she's doing now is a high school type smear campaign of divide and conquer. Right now I think she is just upset she initially started all of this with ignorance, emotion and irrationality. Now she now realizes that what I did wasn't mindless, but was a strategic response to either 1. their outing of me or 2. their attacks on my fam. And because she's a person with no empathy and cannot ever admit being wrong, she's decided to stick with the initial unhinged approach to spin things so she maybe doesn't appear to be wrong anymore. So, try to desperately create a contradiction that doesn't exist, to suggest I sometimes do this "unprovoked," for no reason other than just being a vindictive asshole. But as I said before, if that were the case I never would have removed their names after they removed mine. This was always intended to be a quid pro quo.
As far as the forum ownership goes, you couldn't pay me enough to take over at this point. I mean if there are really a lot of people here who are so dumb they just cannot fathom any meaningful difference between what I actually did and an admin outing just any person on the slightest whim, then they really need to get a hobby and stop posting online all together. You can't let this anonymous crap become a second way of life like some have. I can now understand why the powers that be decided not to involve Jersey Girl in any of that, given how emotional her approach is to everything. Good Lord, just look at what she's done in just a few days of gossiping behind the scenes.
"One of the hardest things for me to accept is the fact that Kevin Graham has blonde hair, blue eyes and an English last name. This ugly truth blows any arguments one might have for actual white supremacism out of the water. He's truly a disgrace." - Ajax
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10274
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm
Re: Problems with the board
Icarus, I have no doubt that when people hear your version of the story, they agree with you. I don’t need to rely on your version of the story. I witnessed the events as they happened. I saw your threat. I saw what preceded it. I don’t have to rely on anyone’s description. And what you actually said was way, way out of line. You are responsible for your own bad behavior—someone else’s bad behavior is not an excuse.
I think it’s appropriate to take into consideration the considerable stress you were under at the time. But your continued failure to acknowledge that threatening physical harm against another poster while making it clear that you know who they are and where they reside was unjustified is what leads me to not trust you. Good judgment is not something people can turn on and off like a light switch.
I’m sorry to learn that you and your wife are being harassed. If it’s someone here, I hope you can find evidence that will result in a permaban.
And I’m not taking anyone’s “side.” I’m expressing my own opinions based on your own words and conduct. I have my own opinions about other folks, but to my knowledge they aren’t attempting to buy the board.
I think it’s appropriate to take into consideration the considerable stress you were under at the time. But your continued failure to acknowledge that threatening physical harm against another poster while making it clear that you know who they are and where they reside was unjustified is what leads me to not trust you. Good judgment is not something people can turn on and off like a light switch.
I’m sorry to learn that you and your wife are being harassed. If it’s someone here, I hope you can find evidence that will result in a permaban.
And I’m not taking anyone’s “side.” I’m expressing my own opinions based on your own words and conduct. I have my own opinions about other folks, but to my knowledge they aren’t attempting to buy the board.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10274
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm
Re: Problems with the board
In my experience, in any joint effort people will find something to fight over. I'm sure you are correct that, if some give more than others, some may expect more influence as a quid pro quo. I'm afraid that making contributions equal will foreclose some who would like to contribute from doing so. Perhaps we could set the system up so that nobody knows who gave what -- or at least the new owner or BOD don't know who gave what -- and adopt a rule that prohibits disclosure of the amount of anyone's donation. Also, make clear up front that the contributions are a gift -- there is no quid pro quo. Just my opinion, but I think the two most important things are gaining full ownership and control of the board and giving everyone an opportunity to pitch in if they are financially able to do so.Jersey Girl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:46 pmI think that there are quite a few of us who would be willing to pay the full cost and gift it to Shades just to push this along and make it a new reality. Some part of me really finds the BOD concept appealing so long as the BOD members were made public? Sheesh. This is all starting to feel really cumbersome.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:35 pmOk, I’m convinced. Icarus, if you’re the person who made a cash offer to buy the board, that was good of you to do. You may do just fine as the owner of a different board, but you are not well suited to own or have control of this board. This thread alone makes that crystal clear. You keep justifying the inexcusable. I would have stayed out of this whole mess, but your references to others on the board supporting your actions leads me to make It clear: I am not one of them.
I’d be happy to pitch in and buy the board and give it to Shades. I’d be happy to do the same for a non profit that had a board I trusted, as long as Shades was on board with the plan. But I think the number one criteria for anyone running this board is the community’s trust that they will protect its members from real life repercussions for posting here. And I’m sorry to have to say that I don’t trust you to do that.
I mentioned in previous discussion (on this thread?) that when the posters purchased the board on my first board, some of them ended up complaining because "I paid [amount] for this board!" type thing because they didn't like the way things were going and the board itself had NO rules at all. Lord of the Flies that was!
I wonder, if when the dust settles on a viable plan, if we could take the number of willing contributors and divvy up the cost equally? That wouldn't cover the posters who would like to contribute but might not be able to contribute their piece of the pie so to speak depending on what that was. I'd really like to see if there is a way we can prevent contributors from trying to leverage their contributions to influence moderators.
Ow. My brain hurts.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Problems with the board
If I may butt in here, being on the BOD of a non-profit that funds MDB does not need to carry with it the expectation that the BOD dictates how the board is run. All it needs to do is make sure the board functions properly, is updated regularly, and its data and domain name are protected. I should think that more invasive demands would scuttle the possibility of such an organization before it got off the ground. The initial BOD need only consist of a minimum number of people who are willing to front a certain amount of money to get the thing rolling. People can be cycled off and on the BOD according to specific rules. Shades' role as chief moderator and day-to-day operator of the board can remain intact indefinitely. Icarus can take over the running and moderating of non-Mormon discussion fora here.
Personally, I don't give a crap about running things and dictating to others.I don't want to do that kind of thing. I am happy to have Shades continue as he is. I just don't want to see the board data lost or the board lapse into a completely broken and unusable state. To the contrary, I want to see more functionality and greater security for MDB. I think INDIVIDUAL ownership of the board has put us in a bad place and, if allowed to continue, will leave the board vulnerable. Some folks need to draft a carefully worded pitch for the wisdom and method for initiating non-profit corporate ownership of the board. If that can't or won't happen, then, if the current offer is turned down, perhaps we should vote on how to move forward.
Personally, I don't give a crap about running things and dictating to others.I don't want to do that kind of thing. I am happy to have Shades continue as he is. I just don't want to see the board data lost or the board lapse into a completely broken and unusable state. To the contrary, I want to see more functionality and greater security for MDB. I think INDIVIDUAL ownership of the board has put us in a bad place and, if allowed to continue, will leave the board vulnerable. Some folks need to draft a carefully worded pitch for the wisdom and method for initiating non-profit corporate ownership of the board. If that can't or won't happen, then, if the current offer is turned down, perhaps we should vote on how to move forward.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10274
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm
Re: Problems with the board
I think those are good points, Kish. The Board’s authority is set out in the articles of formation. But the Board can delegate anything, including setting rules for the Board.
Also, membership on the Board does not require (in my opinion should not require) monetary contribution. It requires people who will read the articles, do what they require, make sure any required reports are filed on time, and set up systems to make it hard for anyone with access to money to embezzle.
Also, membership on the Board does not require (in my opinion should not require) monetary contribution. It requires people who will read the articles, do what they require, make sure any required reports are filed on time, and set up systems to make it hard for anyone with access to money to embezzle.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: Problems with the board
No. In spite of your attempt to obscure the truth in a wall of text, that's not going to work here.
Here is the post that contains my first comments regarding your violations.
The incidents that you continue to rely on did NOT take place in the span of one week's time.So what you are saying is that you are publicly disclosing privately gotten information about this board and three other posters that took place behind the scenes off the board. By my count that's four times you've done something like this on the board with alleged private information in the span of one week's time now
The Russian Collusion exchanges happened back in August.
The other remarks happened more than a year ago and some longer than that.
I am talking about exchanges that took place in the span of one week's time. In spite of my attempts to trigger your memory here, you started reaching back over time to other incidents in which you took part which is astounding since the violations that I referred to actually took place a scant TWO DAYS before I made the above remark. And you don't recall them?
I saw no place where they meet the criteria that you listed above. 1. There was no attempt to "out" you. 2. There were no attacks on your family. All there was were challenging discussion-related remarks. You responded with 3 violations.
I invited you at least twice to go on the thread and show me where those criteria were met. I asked you to bump up the thread and show me where such criteria against you had been met. You don't recall events that took place TWO DAYS prior to my mentioning them?
I have tried to be discreet here. Not wanting to call attention to the violations at the outside chance that any of the violations contained accurate information. But the violations damn sure took place. Since you were being so avoidant here or suffering from memory loss, I named the thread they took place on. And following that, you show me that your are going Ostrich and refuse to deal with my comments. How bloody convenient.
You were faced with challenge and you responded with violations. You caved. You violated.
Now, let me tell you this. Shades (you know the guy you claimed to recently call?) had reports in hand on those violations when you spoke to him. They were made by me using the report system built into this board.
He absolved you of your remarks concerning group conversations. He did NOT absolve you of those violations.
I pointed you to the applicable thread here. Had you tried to deny once again or deleted those remarks for the purpose of denial,I would have easily pointed you to my copies.
You are irresponsible. You are reactive. You avoid accountability at all costs. You are not fit to have your fingers inside a board like this. I do not want to see you pay for this board. I do not want you to pay a moderator salary. There are plenty of us here willing to contribute without having to worry that someone who behaves the way you do, would try to use their contributions as a form of leverage or if you had access to any in real life data about posters would raise concern that you'd misuse what you saw.
There is no question in my mind that if you had anything in real life about me, you would have tossed it out during the course of these exchanges without batting an eye in attempt to shut down challenge just like you have on other threads. Your record speaks for itself and when it speaks, your record is littered with violations and self-justifying "reasons".
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10590
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm
Re: Problems with the board
Sounds ideal if he would be interested.“Kish” wrote:
Shades' role as chief moderator and day-to-day operator of the board can remain intact indefinitely.
I seriously disagree with that, for reasons pointed out on this thread.Icarus can take over the running and moderating of non-Mormon discussion fora here.
Exactly. A non-profit board keeps the show running but in my opinion they do best when they appoint someone else to actually run the show.Res ipsa wrote:
Also, membership on the Board does not require (in my opinion should not require) monetary contribution. It requires people who will read the articles, do what they require, make sure any required reports are filed on time,