A Meltdown of Epic Proportions

[_Ceeboo]

While I will not add to the chaos, finger pointing, alliance jockeying, or agnst that is clearly alive and well in this thread, I will comment on one thing that I find to be largely important.

This new PM talk is very, very, disturbing to me (On several levels)

I really don't care (nor do I believe it is the business of any on the board) to hear, read, or learn about private messages. (No matter what is said in them)

As one who uses, and enjoys the PM feature, I expect those private messages to remain private (Without exception), and feel that anyone who posts PM's, or makes references to the content of PM's on the public board (No matter the reason) is grossly in the wrong and places the entire board at risk. Period.


Peace,
Ceeboo

Bump!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Doctor Scratch]

Liz:

for what it's worth, I don't think Everybody Wang Chung is objecting to your objections about the content of the alleged PM per se. Rather, he's complaining that, as an MDB moderator who is arguably expected to respect the "private" nature of PMs on MDB, you nonetheless provided a forum for this material to be hashed out on The Cafeteria. In other words, his complaint--if I'm understanding him correctly--has to do with the way he feels you handled ostensibly "private" MDB material.

To a certain extent, I think he's got a point. You had a thread over there, started by Ray A, that contained a screen shot of an MDB poster's PM. As an MDB moderator, I kind of think you should have deleted that. I get, too, that you felt it was different in the case of the Everybody Wang Chung PM because of (a) the nature of the alleged PM, and (b) because Ray had already posted it and you therefore felt it was "public" (though then again, it was only "public" to those people who saw it before Shades deleted it).

But, of course, at this juncture it's kind of a moot point.

[_Yoda]

Liz:

for what it's worth, I don't think Everybody Wang Chung is objecting to your objections about the content of the alleged PM per se. Rather, he's complaining that, as an MDB moderator who is arguably expected to respect the "private" nature of PMs on MDB, you nonetheless provided a forum for this material to be hashed out on The Cafeteria. In other words, his complaint--if I'm understanding him correctly--has to do with the way he feels you handled ostensibly "private" MDB material.

To a certain extent, I think he's got a point. You had a thread over there, started by Ray A, that contained a screen shot of an MDB poster's PM. As an MDB moderator, I kind of think you should have deleted that. I get, too, that you felt it was different in the case of the Everybody Wang Chung PM because of (a) the nature of the alleged PM, and (b) because Ray had already posted it and you therefore felt it was "public" (though then again, it was only "public" to those people who saw it before Shades deleted it).

But, of course, at this juncture it's kind of a moot point.

Again, this is moot because the thread is gone. But, Ray never posted any kind of a screen shot of the PM on my board. He didn't even QUOTE Everybody Wang Chung's PM. He just broadly said what the nature of the PM was, and the he was, understandably, upset about it.

Timp a.k.a. RockSlider asked about content, and I stated that I had read it before it was deleted, and that I was appalled that anyone could post something like that about someone's child, and that it referred to Ray's daughters "turning tricks."

[_Jersey Girl]

Liz:

for what it's worth, I don't think Everybody Wang Chung is objecting to your objections about the content of the alleged PM per se. Rather, he's complaining that, as an MDB moderator who is arguably expected to respect the "private" nature of PMs on MDB, you nonetheless provided a forum for this material to be hashed out on The Cafeteria. In other words, his complaint--if I'm understanding him correctly--has to do with the way he feels you handled ostensibly "private" MDB material.

To a certain extent, I think he's got a point. You had a thread over there, started by Ray A, that contained a screen shot of an MDB poster's PM. As an MDB moderator, I kind of think you should have deleted that. I get, too, that you felt it was different in the case of the Everybody Wang Chung PM because of (a) the nature of the alleged PM, and (b) because Ray had already posted it and you therefore felt it was "public" (though then again, it was only "public" to those people who saw it before Shades deleted it).

But, of course, at this juncture it's kind of a moot point.

Hey, the screen shot, Wasn't it something that I posted? If so, could you identify the issue it contained?

Or send the issue to me via other means?

Thanks.

[_marg]

Jersey Girl, I'm not really following what DCP did or didn't do. I took a very brief look at the board..did a search on my name, saw myself being maligned by someone I've haven't even had discussions with..essentially it was the sort of comment that I'm sure Ms. Jack would likely have in pm's but now with that board and in private it was a great place to place that sort of attack there. I also noticed by looking at subject heading..because I have no interest in reading the board ..but noticed it's not meant to be a NOM board..it's really meant to be a Shades board but with Liz and her co mods you being one, having complete control. I say that because she set up a thread for Dale to discuss the spalding theory. That's has nothing to do with NOM's and it's not even something Liz has ever taken an interest in on this board. So she's essentially wanting a Shades board but on her terms. And that's fine..but restricting participants to invites and then allowing those invites to malign others not on that board..but on here..that's pathetic. Such cowards.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The screenshot was of a PM from someone else. I.e., it wasn't Everybody Wang Chung's PM (and no--it had nothing to do with Jersey, either). This was an older thread. If I recall correctly, Ray posted it clear back in, like, July or August. It was back during the early days of the board, when there was very little traffic, so it seems likely that you saw it, Liz, though maybe not.

[_Yoda]

Liz:

for what it's worth, I don't think Everybody Wang Chung is objecting to your objections about the content of the alleged PM per se. Rather, he's complaining that, as an MDB moderator who is arguably expected to respect the "private" nature of PMs on MDB, you nonetheless provided a forum for this material to be hashed out on The Cafeteria. In other words, his complaint--if I'm understanding him correctly--has to do with the way he feels you handled ostensibly "private" MDB material.

To a certain extent, I think he's got a point. You had a thread over there, started by Ray A, that contained a screen shot of an MDB poster's PM. As an MDB moderator, I kind of think you should have deleted that. I get, too, that you felt it was different in the case of the Everybody Wang Chung PM because of (a) the nature of the alleged PM, and (b) because Ray had already posted it and you therefore felt it was "public" (though then again, it was only "public" to those people who saw it before Shades deleted it).

But, of course, at this juncture it's kind of a moot point.

Hey, the screen shot, Wasn't it something that I posted? If so, could you identify the issue it contained?

Or send the issue to me via other means?

Thanks.

????

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I don't remember any screen shots appearing on Cafeteria...ever.

And, again..this is really moot.

I literally deleted all of the forums on that site. I can't retrieve them. They are gone.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

Will get back to you in a sec, I'm trying to figure something out that Scratch made mention of.

CRS.
:-)

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Dr. Scratch,

That is exactly what I'm saying.

It really doesn't matter that Liz didn't bother to learn both sides of the story or even comment on Ray's nasty and filthy PMs to me. It doesn't matter that she has publicly maligned me without learning the facts. It's obvious that Liz is only concerned about her "friend" Ray.

What really concerns me and what Liz is having a hard time understanding and taking responsibility for, is that she was a Moderator and immediately deleted a PM and then shortly thereafter started publicly commenting about the PM on "The Cafeteria".

I think Ceeboo is correct that every member of this board should be VERY concerned that Liz is a Moderator. She sees nothing wrong with deleting a PM that Ray posted and then immediately posting such information on "The Cafeteria".

Liz, if you can't understand that your behavior is inappropriate, then you need to step down immediately. Liz, I really think it's time to go.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

While I will not add to the chaos, finger pointing, alliance jockeying, or agnst that is clearly alive and well in this thread, I will comment on one thing that I find to be largely important.

This new PM talk is very, very, disturbing to me (On several levels)

I really don't care (nor do I believe it is the business of any on the board) to hear, read, or learn about private messages. (No matter what is said in them)

As one who uses, and enjoys the PM feature, I expect those private messages to remain private (Without exception), and feel that anyone who posts PM's, or makes references to the content of PM's on the public board (No matter the reason) is grossly in the wrong and places the entire board at risk. Period.


Peace,
Ceeboo

Bump, for Liz.