Shades wrote:I'm sorry, but I simply can't live with the Sword of Damocles hanging over my neck 24/7. I simply can't risk having the bread taken out of my children's mouths the next time some wing-nut pisses her off 15 minutes prior to my logging in to the board.
As long as you have a tolerance for wing nuts of Darrick's severity to post on your board, you run the risk of legal ramifications.
It seems to me that a bigger lesson learned from this might be applying a little more caution in whom we allow to post here.
And I am not talking about some arbitrary "I like him, I don't like him..."
I am referring to application of common sense.
Let's face it. You allowed principle to override common sense in the case of Darrick.
Agreed. There should be a "no nutcases" clause in the forum rules.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I have a fear of buttons. Am I allowed to post here?
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
Spurven Ten Sing wrote:Liz, I have a police record. Am I unwelcome to post here?
Quit being a smart ass.
Well, smart ass or not STS makes an interesting point.
Where does one draw the line in terms of determining what level of 'nuttiness' determines who can or who can't post here?
Do police have to have been involved for instance?
In my opinion, Shades has handled this difficult situation impeccably. As he always does.
He may not always be right, but he has integrity and professionalism and knows when to do things in public and when to do things in private.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
I am a member of a cult that has a history of swearing vengeance, secret societies, sending out assassins, physically and mentally threatening people and taking blood oaths. I participated in secret rites where I swore unfailing allegiance to this organization. Fear the apron!
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
First, I deleted my original comments because I was informed I had a detail incorrect, and wanted to give Jersey Girl a chance to correct the detail.
I had time off of work last week so took some time to read – more than once – the involved threads. I really wanted to understand what had happened. I have known Jersey Girl, Shades, and EA a long time online. I couldn’t understand what had gone so badly wrong as to necessitate permanently banning Jersey Girl.
Because of my feelings of friendship, respect, admiration, and affection for everyone involved, I really bent over backwards to try and be fair and objective, as much as humanly possible, in evaluating the evidence.
I do not agree with Shades's basic libertarian philosophy. I think more active moderating would be good. However, I am not willing to volunteer my time to do so, so no longer feel I have any rights to make such a demand. I think Darrick should have been banned long ago, although, truth be told, I may have a hard time pointing to one piece of hard evidence proving that, within the current guidelines of the board. I'd like to see the Telestial kingdom gone for good. But it's not my board. I don't want a board. I don't want to help run a board. So I participate on MD knowing the "cost" of that. Sometimes I get fed up with the personal attacks and stay away for a while, but I come back because there are some interesting people on this board, and some interesting discussions at times. (although I’ve been around so long I’ve got very little left to say on some subjects, and I’m just tired of other subjects)
So, despite my philosophical differences with Shades, I understand that it’s his board, and my participation comes at the cost of my accepting that his philosophy is what matters, although he has modified his stance somewhat over the years in response to the board’s wishes.
I wish that EA had been willing to go ahead and temporarily ban Darrick based on his outrageous behavior. I know that he felt he had been instructed by Shades not to do so, but I suspect Shades would have been ok with it as an emergency reaction. But I understand he did not feel it within his purview to do so. So I do not fault him for that. Nor do I fault him for sticking to his guns and not allowing himself being coerced into doing something he felt he wasn’t supposed to do on his own.
I think that if Jersey Girl had done what others did, and stated that Darrick's participation was so threatening and unacceptable that she would no longer participate with him around (like the boycott thread), she would not have been banned. I think the one thing that got her banned was threatening to initiate a process that could have resulted in legal challenges to Shades (with his liability). I believe that Jersey Girl did not intend to personally file any lawsuit. She has stated that adamantly. That would be insane, and a waste of her own money. She has stated that all she expected dreamhost to do was to force Shades to ban Darrick. She had earlier clarified that she said she would INITIATE the legal fight, not PARTICIPATE in it. When I asked how she could initiate a legal fight and not participate in it, she said that dreamhost would have taken it from there.
But the problem that remains is that she did, undeniably, use language that implied, or even outright stated, that she was going to use LEGAL means. Normally people interpret that to involve the law, not just a server making its customer do something. So her language doesn’t quite make sense in the context of just expecting dreamhost to make Shades ban Darrick. I thought it made sense in the context of her expecting that maybe dreamhost would take legal action, but she says that is not correct. So I’m at a loss at how to explain her words.
I think that part of what occurred here was due to the “fog of war” – not to minimize war, but it’s an apt analogy. In the heat of the moment, people sometimes use stronger language than they actually intend, due to adrenaline clouding their judgment. I suspect that’s what happened. I know Jersey Girl and think there is no way she’d ever go out and hire a lawyer herself to sue Shades and the board over this issue. I think she was talkin’ tough to try and force EA’s hand.
As much as it pains me to say it, because I care for Jersey Girl as a friend and hope this does not cost me our friendship, and she has been kind enough to assure me it will not, I think he was right to ban Jersey Girl. I don't think it's reasonable to expect any person hosting a board with no financial gain and considerable "pain in the arse" factor to risk that sort of reaction from a poster. I don’t think he can afford to play the “mind-reading” game and say, well, they didn’t really mean it.
I sympathize a great deal with people who run these sorts of boards. Religion is a hot topic anyway, and you mix in believers with exbelievers, and it’s a powder keg ready to blow. People get upset. Some people are unstable, anyway. It’s hard to predict what people will and will not do. We think we “know” people online, but we really only know one side of them, the side they choose to show in a limited format.
Years ago, I was on the original exmormon email group that later spawned the exmormon board. I knew Eric personally, and had met him several times. He is a great guy – very considerate, gentle, kind. But the board, as it grew, drove him nuts. He began to feel that he could be at financial and legal risk if something bad happened. (in particular, the deep pockets of the church is a disturbing image) So, If I recall correctly, while it’s still nominally “his” board, there is a board of members that takes care of running it, and would assume liability if need be. At least that’s how I understood what happened. He was actually thinking of taking the board down, how much easier his life would be without it. But he didn’t because he knew it was a community of people, and didn’t want to let them down. The board was big enough to offer a solution. But this board isn’t, really. So it’s pretty much on Shades’s shoulders, and he has the right to protect himself.
I'm sorry, Jersey Girl. I know you acted with the best interest of others at heart. At one point I had hoped that Shades might reconsider, based on extenuating circumstances (Darrick’s problems and your long relationship with the board and posters), but I think too much damage has been done at this point.
Last edited by Tator on Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
