unban Jersey Girl

[_MsJack]

I think I agree with you, MsJack. Frankly, Dan Peterson's legal threats against the board were much worse, and far more abusively manipulative, and yet he wasn't banned. Instead, Dr. Shades went ahead and complied with his censorship demands. I suppose the main difference I see is that DCP didn't put a 15-minute timetable out there as a conditional. But still: why perma-ban one and not the other? Perhaps a new rule or precedent is being set, but I'm just saying: past actions aren't exactly squaring with these new developments.

I don't recall what went down with Dan Peterson and when, but I agree wholeheartedly that others have done worse around here and not gotten perma-banned.

Yes, it would have been better had Jersey Girl and everyone else had stopped responding to him once he was clear that he had seriously gone around the bend, but in the heat of the moment it's hard to be clear-headed.

For my own part, I stopped responding to him months ago, maybe even over a year ago, and was disappointed that others kept replying to his threads. He was clearly mentally ill and interacting with him could only make things worse. I was kind of disappointed that he was allowed to stay, as his repeat threads on the exact same pet peeves over and over again were a blemish on this forum, but I understand why our free speech rules made that a tough call for the mods to make.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think I agree with you, MsJack. Frankly, Dan Peterson's legal threats against the board were much worse, and far more abusively manipulative, and yet he wasn't banned. Instead, Dr. Shades went ahead and complied with his censorship demands. I suppose the main difference I see is that DCP didn't put a 15-minute timetable out there as a conditional. But still: why perma-ban one and not the other? Perhaps a new rule or precedent is being set, but I'm just saying: past actions aren't exactly squaring with these new developments.

I don't recall what went down with Dan Peterson and when, but I agree wholeheartedly that others have done worse around here and not gotten perma-banned.

Basically, what happened is that a few posters (not me) began speculating on the reasons why the MDD board went down at the same time that DCP was set to testify in the Brian David Mitchell trial. They wondered aloud if the MDD moderators had shut down the board because there were fears that Mitchell's defense team could "harvest" Dan's posts as a means of discrediting him as an expert witness. This was apparently too much: Dan blew up and sent around a threatening PM in which he demanded that the discussions/speculations be shut down immediately, or else he would "go after the board...to the extent that the law allows." I have a copy of the text of his remarks, which are quite silly and over-the-top (he tosses in a quote from Othello), and also (in my opinion) very manipulative and abusive. I've felt for some time that his message should be made public to the board community, but other parties have felt otherwise, so I've never posted the text. The message was addressed to Dr. Shades, so I guess it is ultimately up to him as to whether it gets posted. Perhaps now is the right time for it to see the light of day? Regardless, it seems to me that there is a big difference between idle speculation on the potential consquences of "The Kingpin"'s many years of bad behavior and the kinds of things that Darrick was saying.

[_EAllusion]

honor -

Joseph was banned because he threatened the mods with frivolous complaints to the webhost if they did not behave according to his dictates and demonstrated that this threat wasn't idle.

Jersey Girl was aware of this precedent, so it is my position that the precedent was established sufficient to enforce it in this case. If you want to argue that it wasn't listed in the rules anywhere and that should be a necessary condition, I have a longer reply to this that I won't share at this time. But, then, I think you have to argue that both Joseph and Darrick should be unbanned as they also didn't violate any codified rule that has banning listed as its consequence. So it's a trickier issue than you think.

Regarding your question, I don't think making inquiries to DreamHost in of itself would ever been interpreted as bannable. The issue here is more about making frivolous legal threats to the mods to force mod action, saying the first step is a complaint to the webhost, then filing an inquiry that could (but didn't) threaten the board.

In any case, I'm going to bow out of this thread for now while final decisions are being made.

Thanks,

EA.

[_gramps]

Hell, I might as well have my say.

I also was online for the whole exchange. I agree with Beastie that it is quite a tragic, painful thing to watch someone completely snap. It wasn't pretty.

But I don't understand feeding the beast, as many did, including Jersey Girl. You all know "the girl from Jersey" routine that she throws around, like it is supposed to scare us or something. She wouldn't have done that with Darrick in real life. Why she did it on the board, if she was panicking from fear, makes no sense to this old guy. If you are going to egg them on, take the consequences. I don't know what she does in real life, but maybe she would have been happy being on the local police force and throwing her badge and stick around. That is the feeling I get from her. As Honor has already noted, playing John Wayne does indeed bring consequences.

I kept thinking, "Why in the hell does she need to take the board down because of this? Just back away and call the police, for Christ's sakes."

But, emotions had taken their course by that time and she went out of control.

I think back through the whole exchange concluding that Bond did a great job trying to defuse the situation without feeding it. It is too bad it didn't work.

EAllusion did exactly what he was supposed to do. No one was under immediate threat. There was no face-to-face encounter. There was still time to just stop feeding the madness and let the moderators do their best in a very crazy situation. I certainly don't think Jersey Girl could have done any better, that is for sure.

No one should have the right to threaten to take down the board. I see her "inquiry" to DreamHost the same way EAllusion does.

About a perma-ban: I am sure she is working things under the tables, so to speak, to avoid such a thing. That is her style, whether she professes otherwise or not.

However, because of past inconsistencies in moderation procedures, I think a new rule should be put in to place about threatening to take down the board. Try it, and you are out of here. No matter how much you think you were doing it for the team. No matter who you are.

Let her back in. She should apologize for her inability to control her emotions that could have led to all of us losing the privilege to hang out here. She should agree to the new rule. And from now on - no exceptions. Threaten the board = sayonara!

[_honorentheos]

Great post, Gramps, with perfect pitch as always.

ETA - EA I want to make clear that I personally support your level-headed approach to moderation. I prefer someone who will take a step back and consider the evidence seperate from personal feelings when it comes to touchy issues like this. So please don't read my earlier questions as being critical of you or any other mod.

I don't feel the need or have the perspective to really question any of the mod's behaviors or opinions as I don't know the behind-the-scenes issues or history that may be involved. I'm glad you guys are dialoging on it as it seems to be an important question that deserves consideration and judgement rather than reaction. My comments were only to suggest that whatever the outcome, a clear statement of the rule that was violated with equally clear direction for the future would be helpful. What Gramps outlined above seems like a good approach for doing this.

[_marg]

My 2 cents:

When someone reports to a mod an individual or individuals posting inappropriate posts by that I mean, essentially derailments to an opening post..unprovoked unnecessary verbal attacks/harassment ...the mods should err on the side of the complainer..and move those posts to telestial. This would have the effect of helping to curtail continued harassment. It would then be up to the individual/individuals who complained about harassment or inappropriate attack posts to continue or not..in telestial but if they do continue ...whatever is said to them becomes their responsibility.

In this case for example, anyone who continued to reply to Darrick's moved posts to telestial would be responsible for what was said, because the choice to continue interacting would be theirs.

The tipping point for me as to why I have virtually no interest in participating here is that I disagree with Shades and his handling of the moderation. That's not to say I disagree with everything but in my opinion he errs too heavily in favor of protecting harassers.

As far as Jersey Girl goes, I suspect she didn't feel the moderation was something she could rely upon to act..and frankly I'd agree with that position based on past experiences. I know as does Jersey Girl, that sometimes it takes enormous amount of time and posts trying to get Shades to see how moderation has failed to rightfully protect an individual..stemelbow, MsJack are examples. I think Jersey Girl overreacted by threatening to contact Dreamhost, but I believe I understand where the anger came from, and that it's not from this one experience.

So if it were my choice, I'd unban her, I'd even consider unbanning Darrick. And I'd post 2 rules...that anyone contacting Dreamhost to voice a grievance without adequate time (a day) to review a matter would be banned and anyone trying to reveal in real life information of a poster on the board in private be banned. I'd move repetitive type posts such as Darrick's with the same complaint to Telestial. I'd also encourage moderators to err on the side of the complainer being harrassed as opposed to the harasser. It is not as if posts moved to telestial are deleted..so the harasser's post will still exist but not as part of a discussion.

[_LDSToronto]

My 2 cents:

When someone reports to a mod an individual or individuals posting inappropriate posts by that I mean, essentially derailments to an opening post..unprovoked unnecessary verbal attacks/harassment ...the mods should err on the side of the complainer..and move those posts to telestial. This would have the effect of helping to curtail continued harassment. It would then be up to the individual/individuals who complained about harassment or inappropriate attack posts to continue or not..in telestial but if they do continue ...whatever is said to them becomes their responsibility.

In this case for example, anyone who continued to reply to Darrick's moved posts to telestial would be responsible for what was said, because the choice to continue interacting would be theirs.

The tipping point for me as to why I have virtually no interest in participating here is that I disagree with Shades and his handling of the moderation. That's not to say I disagree with everything but in my opinion he errs too heavily in favor of protecting harassers.

Apparently you don't disagree with Shades enough...

H.

[_LDSToronto]

For the record, I don't think the mod team has gone far enough. Banning's are for pussies. I support executions, and slow torturous executions at that.

Who's with me? Bring back eviscerations! Bring back the lash! Hot pincers and the iron lady! Blood atonement!

H.

[_Kishkumen]

Good rule of thumb: don't taunt the mentally ill.

We have a couple of people around here who are clearly unbalanced. Best to leave them be. If they try to draw you into their madness, just back away.

[_harmony]

My comments were only to suggest that whatever the outcome, a clear statement of the rule that was violated with equally clear direction for the future would be helpful. What Gramps outlined above seems like a good approach for doing this.

Uh oh. You'd best retract this, honor. Because now you're agreeing with me, not EA.