unban Jersey Girl

[_why me]

Pot meet kettle.

Kettle meet pot.

[_Yoda]

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.

Pot meet kettle.

Why Me....There ARE Mormons in this forum. There is, however, probably a larger ratio of ex-Mormons than current active ones.

Out of curiosity, where do you see yourself in this mix? And why do you choose to post here?

[_Buffalo]

Pot meet kettle.

Kettle meet pot.

You've never been Mormon as most Mormons would describe one. Why do you post here?

[_beastie]

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 have yet to see any post of real substance from you. It's like you have a file of mindless replies that you just copy and paste into a discussion.

[_beastie]

I think I’ve finally caught up on most of what went down, although it’s possible my understanding still has gaps, for which I will accept correction. But here’s my reaction, based on how I understand the situation.

First, I have to say the context to my reaction is a belief that moderating is a tough, thankless job. I was a moderator on the Z board for less than a year, and by the end, couldn’t wait to quit and never do it again. You never please everybody. Someone is always ready to accuse you of ineptitude or bias. Yet the moderators I knew were genuinely trying to be fair, and were people with all the demands of real life who were still willing to devote a sometimes significant amount of time to this thankless job. On top of that, being a moderator sometimes pollutes and diminishes the original enjoyment of participating on the board to begin with. I’ve known EA for a long time online, and it’s not possible for me to believe he was simply incompetent or uncaring.

It’s a particularly difficult situation when only one mod is “on call” during a crisis of some sort. Normally, mods are expected to confer with one another, to get some sort of input before making a significant decision, in order to try and avoid personality affecting the decision. When you’re alone for a period of time, it’s frustrating, especially when the calls for immediate action are loud, and you don’t feel that you’re supposed to take immediate action without the input from other mods. I think this is partly what happened to EA, who, apparently, had been instructed by Shades to let him (Shades) make the final call in regards to the Darrick situation. So I think the fifteen minute deadline put him in an untenable situation. There was no way he could get a hold of Shades within fifteen minutes, and he believed he was supposed to wait on Shades to make the call. I’ll get back to Shades’s role in a minute; right now I want to focus on EA.

So I do understand why EA did not want to ban Darrick on the spot, and reacted negatively to the fifteen minute deadline. He interpreted Shades’s request to make the call on Darrick to be all-encompassing, including a temporary suspension. So I don’t fault EA for this situation.

The larger problem is, as some of us have noted in the past, Shades’s devotion to a libertarian ideal for his board. It’s his board, so he’s free to do as he wishes, but this is the type of thing that happens, and will continue to happen, as long as he is so fiercely devoted to that ideal. The board will attract posters who simply would not be tolerated on any other board without that libertarian ideal, because no one else will take them. I thought Shades summed up his own ideal accurately on his podcast interview along with several other owners of boards. One board, I think FLAK, talked about how rarely they ban people, and only in extreme cases, like the one nut they had who kept sending naked pictures of himself to female posters. Shades said his board would gladly take the nut, and all other outcasts, due to his ideal of allowing people to build monuments to their own stupidity. So the board will always have to deal with the Darricks of the world.

But I decided a while ago that my only choice was to either accept Shades’s board as he has created it, or stop participating. I felt those were my only choices because I was NOT willing to volunteer for mod duty, so didn’t have the right to agitate for changes, as I had in the past. I did seriously think of stopping participation, but there are conversations of value that do occur on the board. At this point in my life, I don’t have much time to devote to any of this anyhow, so it isn’t a major decision I’m investing a lot of emotional energy into.

Now, do I agree with the decision to perma-ban Jersey Girl? No. I think she should be given another chance, as other posters were before her. Seriously, Darrick was allowed to continue participating for as long as he did, and Jersey Girl gets the perma-ban? That really does not feel fair. Do I think some action was justified in response to the fifteen minute deadline? Maybe. It really is a troubling precedent to set for moderators, and if it worked, would doubtless be repeated by others, with perhaps less worthy causes. While dreamhost likely would not have problems with Shades’s board based on any one particular complaint or inquest, it is possible that repeated complaints or inquests may just make them take the easy road, and ask the board to find another host. I certainly felt Joseph should have been banned for threatening to take action that could have endangered the board, so it would be hypocritical of me to reject that possibility in this case. But Jersey Girl was making an inquiry, which is a bit different, which is why I think that she should be given a second chance, if she should so desire. I also think that the Darrick situation provides extenuating circumstances that ought to be taken into consideration.

I obviously think, as I do not hold to libertarian ideals, that Darrick should have been banned long ago. But I also understand that Shades’s vision is not my vision, and it is his board.

[_Yoda]

I think I’ve finally caught up on most of what went down, although it’s possible my understanding still has gaps, for which I will accept correction. But here’s my reaction, based on how I understand the situation.

First, I have to say the context to my reaction is a belief that moderating is a tough, thankless job. I was a moderator on the Z board for less than a year, and by the end, couldn’t wait to quit and never do it again. You never please everybody. Someone is always ready to accuse you of ineptitude or bias. Yet the moderators I knew were genuinely trying to be fair, and were people with all the demands of real life who were still willing to devote a sometimes significant amount of time to this thankless job. On top of that, being a moderator sometimes pollutes and diminishes the original enjoyment of participating on the board to begin with. I’ve known EA for a long time online, and it’s not possible for me to believe he was simply incompetent or uncaring.

It’s a particularly difficult situation when only one mod is “on call” during a crisis of some sort. Normally, mods are expected to confer with one another, to get some sort of input before making a significant decision, in order to try and avoid personality affecting the decision. When you’re alone for a period of time, it’s frustrating, especially when the calls for immediate action are loud, and you don’t feel that you’re supposed to take immediate action without the input from other mods. I think this is partly what happened to EA, who, apparently, had been instructed by Shades to let him (Shades) make the final call in regards to the Darrick situation. So I think the fifteen minute deadline put him in an untenable situation. There was no way he could get a hold of Shades within fifteen minutes, and he believed he was supposed to wait on Shades to make the call. I’ll get back to Shades’s role in a minute; right now I want to focus on EA.

So I do understand why EA did not want to ban Darrick on the spot, and reacted negatively to the fifteen minute deadline. He interpreted Shades’s request to make the call on Darrick to be all-encompassing, including a temporary suspension. So I don’t fault EA for this situation.

The larger problem is, as some of us have noted in the past, Shades’s devotion to a libertarian ideal for his board. It’s his board, so he’s free to do as he wishes, but this is the type of thing that happens, and will continue to happen, as long as he is so fiercely devoted to that ideal. The board will attract posters who simply would not be tolerated on any other board without that libertarian ideal, because no one else will take them. I thought Shades summed up his own ideal accurately on his podcast interview along with several other owners of boards. One board, I think FLAK, talked about how rarely they ban people, and only in extreme cases, like the one nut they had who kept sending naked pictures of himself to female posters. Shades said his board would gladly take the nut, and all other outcasts, due to his ideal of allowing people to build monuments to their own stupidity. So the board will always have to deal with the Darricks of the world.

But I decided a while ago that my only choice was to either accept Shades’s board as he has created it, or stop participating. I felt those were my only choices because I was NOT willing to volunteer for mod duty, so didn’t have the right to agitate for changes, as I had in the past. I did seriously think of stopping participation, but there are conversations of value that do occur on the board. At this point in my life, I don’t have much time to devote to any of this anyhow, so it isn’t a major decision I’m investing a lot of emotional energy into.

Now, do I agree with the decision to perma-ban Jersey Girl? No. I think she should be given another chance, as other posters were before her. Seriously, Darrick was allowed to continue participating for as long as he did, and Jersey Girl gets the perma-ban? That really does not feel fair. Do I think some action was justified in response to the fifteen minute deadline? Maybe. It really is a troubling precedent to set for moderators, and if it worked, would doubtless be repeated by others, with perhaps less worthy causes. While dreamhost likely would not have problems with Shades’s board based on any one particular complaint or inquest, it is possible that repeated complaints or inquests may just make them take the easy road, and ask the board to find another host. I certainly felt Joseph should have been banned for threatening to take action that could have endangered the board, so it would be hypocritical of me to reject that possibility in this case. But Jersey Girl was making an inquiry, which is a bit different, which is why I think that she should be given a second chance, if she should so desire. I also think that the Darrick situation provides extenuating circumstances that ought to be taken into consideration.

I obviously think, as I do not hold to libertarian ideals, that Darrick should have been banned long ago. But I also understand that Shades’s vision is not my vision, and it is his board.

As usual, Beastie, your assessments are spot-on.

My "dog in this whole fight" has been for Jersey Girl and Shades to actually communicate one on one. Shades has some very different views in regards to Jersey Girl's motivations and perceptions, and I feel it is important for Shades to hear them DIRECTLY from Jersey Girl, and not second-hand.

As you pointed out, Shades was willing to work with Joseph, and has worked with other posters when there has been questionable behavior. I simply feel that Jersey Girl is owed the same treatment.

At the end of the day, after Shades and Jersey Girl have communicated, whatever is decided is fine by me as long as both parties have had the opportunity to really understand what the other person was trying to get across.

[_Fifth Columnist]

I agree with Shade's vision for the board and I agree with how he and EA have handled this situation. I think you guys have done a great job under tough circumstances.

As for Darrick and Jersey Girl, I could care less whether either of them is perma-banned. There are good reasons to go either way. I rarely read either of them so I could care less if they are gone.

I agree with Beastie that Shade's libertarian vision leads to some lower quality posters, but it is easy enough to ignore them.

[_Hoops]

Shades's libertarian vision leads to some lower quality posters, but it is easy enough to ignore them.

[_why me]

I have yet to see any post of real substance from you. It's like you have a file of mindless replies that you just copy and paste into a discussion.

I hardly ever past anything into my posts. I usually just write my opinions based on my experience. You must got the wrong guy.

[_why me]

My "dog in this whole fight" has been for Jersey Girl and Shades to actually communicate one on one. Shades has some very different views in regards to Jersey Girl's motivations and perceptions, and I feel it is important for Shades to hear them DIRECTLY from Jersey Girl, and not second-hand.

This forum is very american. People threaten to sue one another on a somewhat regular basis. I haven't seen this happening anywhere else but on this forum. If I were shades, I would say: screw it, I have better things to do with my life. But this is what happens when the board starts out cowboyish with everyone eating pots of beans.