Uh oh. You'd best retract this, honor. Because now you're agreeing with me, not EA.
I'm not so sure. After all, I stated I have no problem giving a transparent explanation for the moderator decision. I also said I have no problem creating a rule that says something to the effect that frivolous legal threats/host complaints backed up by actions that can affect the board's existence is a potentially bannable offense. Since that's all honor is calling for in that quote, he might agree with me.
I think it is going to be challenging to write a list that includes every nuance of every circumstance. I think we'll get ourselves in trouble if we try to forsee everything a person could possibly do that might result in a justified banning and refuse to deviate off that list. While the list of bannable things should be small to begin with, we're not going to anticipate every action that in retrospect probably should be a bannable thing. Darrick, after all, didn't break any codified rules that have banning given as a consequence. His banning is based on context information that we might not have anticipated a rule for. In Jersey Girl's case, I think a known precedent was set with Joseph.
If honor also strongly supports the idea that Joseph should be banned even though he also didn't violate a codified rule and also thinks that how Harmony perceives your value as contributors should play a role in how you get moderated, then maybe he'd be agreeing with you.
EAllusion wrote:If honor also strongly supports the idea that Joseph should be banned even though he also didn't violate a codified rule and also thinks that how Harmony perceives your value as contributors should play a role in how you get moderated, then maybe he'd be agreeing with you.
Spirit of the law, EA.
And yes, he repeatedly broke Rule #2.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
It's completely improper to use simple rule violations to underwrite a ban that is motivated for other reasons. Joseph was banned for threatening frivolous DMCA complaints, not because he made personal attacks. Darrick was banned because he has a history of mental instability, engaging in stalking, threatening in real life behavior, and displayed nascent signs of that on this board.
We can't use the rules as a sham justification to push around people we disapprove of for other reasons. That's the path to double standards. Joseph was banned, with good reason, for an issue that isn't listed in the rules. That's Ok.
Lots of people here have repeatedly violated Rule #2. Universal rule #4 gets violated often even more so. You gonna ban them too? Or is this were the Harmony value index comes into play?
It's completely improper to use simple rule violations to underwrite a ban that is motivated for other reasons. Joseph was banned for threatening frivolous DMCA complaints, not because he made personal attacks. Darrick was banned because he has a history of mental instability, engaging in stalking, threatening in real life behavior, and displayed nascent signs of that on this board.
We can't use the rules as a sham justification to push around people we disapprove of for other reasons. That's the path to double standards. Joseph was banned, with good reason, for an issue that isn't listed in the rules. That's Ok.
Lots of people here have repeatedly violated Rule #2. Universal rule #4 gets violated often even more so. You gonna ban them too? Or is this were the Harmony value index comes into play?
Back it down, EA. I'm not going to fight with you here. Just try to keep to the truth, okay? I know... difficult... but still... you want to talk to me, you know where I am (on the moderator's page).
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
We have several posters who have left amidst hostility and returned with new accounts. I fully advocate that way of handling the situation, if she does not disclose for a while who she is. She is not totally without blame.
Someone with some knowledge of psychology should not be egging on those who are obviously mentally unbalanced.
I really think this conversation should take place in mod's forum and by pm and email. I don't think Jersey Girl will take well to people discussing her in public where she is helpless to make her contributions.
Huckelberry said: I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
Jersey Girl who has never been Mormon is best to leave this board alone. If she wants to discuss Mormonism best to go somewhere else where Mormons are gathered in a forum.
It would be like me being on a lutheran board, discussing lutheranism, with people who have basically left lutheranism. I just don't see it working very well.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
gramps wrote: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.
Ya know, maybe if a moderator would have simply closed the thread, that would have resolved the issue.
why me wrote:Jersey Girl who has never been Mormon is best to leave this board alone. If she wants to discuss Mormonism best to go somewhere else where Mormons are gathered in a forum.
It would be like me being on a lutheran board, discussing lutheranism, with people who have basically left lutheranism. I just don't see it working very well.
It's completely improper to use simple rule violations to underwrite a ban that is motivated for other reasons. Joseph was banned for threatening frivolous DMCA complaints, not because he made personal attacks. Darrick was banned because he has a history of mental instability, engaging in stalking, threatening in real life behavior, and displayed nascent signs of that on this board.
We can't use the rules as a sham justification to push around people we disapprove of for other reasons. That's the path to double standards. Joseph was banned, with good reason, for an issue that isn't listed in the rules. That's Ok.
Lots of people here have repeatedly violated Rule #2. Universal rule #4 gets violated often even more so. You gonna ban them too? Or is this were the Harmony value index comes into play?
Harmony wrote:Back it down, EA. I'm not going to fight with you here. Just try to keep to the truth, okay? I know... difficult... but still... you want to talk to me, you know where I am (on the moderator's page).
I think we are looking at semantics, here.
Harmony suspended Darrick for a month. His suspension was for excessive personal attacks in forums other than Telestial, after being repeatedly warned. This is, as Harmony stated, in violation of Terrestrial Rule #2.
After Shades agreed, I actually put the permanent ban on Darrick, and blocked his IP address. The reason for the perma-ban is in real life Threats to Posters.
why me wrote:Jersey Girl who has never been Mormon is best to leave this board alone. If she wants to discuss Mormonism best to go somewhere else where Mormons are gathered in a forum.
It would be like me being on a lutheran board, discussing lutheranism, with people who have basically left lutheranism. I just don't see it working very well.
