THE JERSEY GIRL MEGATHREAD

[_Chap]

Dr Shades has, once again, set out in detail a position that is clear, credible and reasonable. Most people who have commented on this thread think he is right.

Jersey Girl's position has been expressed at length on this thread. Not many people seem to agree with her.

Has anybody anything to say that does not simply amount to rehashing previously stated positions? If not, then ...

[_Alter Idem]

Sorry, Paul, better put me on ignore. Beastie asked for clarification on this point and Jersey Girl posted this in answer:

In another post, beastie is asking if the portion of time I was unbanned, was when Shades was getting his fact together...or something to that effect.

No.

I was banned for a week to 10 days...cannot recall exactly how long.

I was then unbanned for 1-2 days when I had complete and open access to the board.

I was then permanently banned.

[_Alter Idem]

I think Jersey Girl's concern about Darrick yet having privileges to post and PM here was that he was fishing for in real life information re Jersey Girl from other posters, one of whom could have provided it to Darrick. Ban Darrick, and you cut off his use of MDB to fish for this information from other posters. Darrick had, as I understand it, just before Jersey Girl's request, started making in real life threats and asking for in real life information about Jersey Girl, as well as DCP and one other person I cannot now recall. So, it seems that Jersey Girl's request to ban Darrick was one to cut off his use of MDB to find another poster who might give him that in real life information. In this context, time was of the essence as just one other poster that had the in real life information could have provided it in a matter of minutes in response to Darrick's request.

You are correct, Sockpuppet. This is what she has explained was her motivation.

[_hobo1512]

Once again, in the interest of time (and length) I'll refrain from addressing every point with which I disagree and instead respond to overarching themes that need to be corrected.

POINT ELEVEN:

According to Shades, attempts to go after the board are okay with him.

NO. Suing the board as a legal entity is understandable if grievances need to be redressed. This doesn't mean I grant carte blance to "go after the board" (her words) however one wishes.

Shades, in his own words, has indicated that he has no problem with posters attempting to take the board down.

WRONG! . . WRONG! . . WRONG! . . WRONG! . . WRONG! . . WRONG!

Jesus Christ Almighty, I can't imagine a worse misinterpretation of my words. Look, I said that I don't mind if someone sues the board as a legal entity. I DO INDEED MIND EVERYTHING ELSE. This is because if the board itself gets sued, then attorneys wrangle it out behind-the-scenes and board functionality is unaffected. In other words, if someone sues the board, then the board continues humming along like normal and nobody is any the wiser.

Good God, of course I damn well care if someone takes the board down, spams the board, hacks the board, does a DDOS (dedicated denial of service) attack against the board, etc. etc. etc. How could I *NOT* care? I wouldn't be much of a board owner if I cared nothing about whether it continues to exist or function or not.

Sheesh. A little common sense is in order, methinks.

POINT TWELVE:

People have brought up the SeattleGhostWriter situation and contrasted it against the Jersey Girl situation, saying that they both tried to get the board taken down, so why were they treated differently? Herein lies the difference: SeattleGhostWriter merely wanted to get a single image removed from the board, so he delivered a DMCA takedown notice to DreamHost, asserting unauthorized use of his copyrighted image (which was true). DreamHost got an itchy trigger finger and shut the whole board down instead of just notifying us first and giving us a few minutes to take care of the problem. SeattleGhostWriter asserted that he never intended to take the whole board down, that he wanted the image removed ONLY. DreamHost forwarded us the text of his notice, and what do you know, the wording made it VERY clear that he was telling the truth about his relatively benign intentions.

Therefore, I saw no need to punish him for a result that he didn't intend.

Jersey Girl's messages to LDSToronto, on the other hand, made it VERY clear that her initial goal was to get the whole board shut down entirely. Every other moderator in the world would consider that alone to be an immediately bannable offense.

POINT THIRTEEN:

Alter Idem and Jersey Girl still labor under the delusion that she (and, according to Alter Idem, everyone else) is/was not protected from dangerous individuals. When discussing what I had to do to protect myself, she asks, "What about ME?" Well, we DID INDEED protect her (and others) by. . . drumroll. . . BANNING DARRICK! We banned Darrick, which is precisely what she wanted! She got precisely what she asked for! What the Hell else does she or Alter Idem want? harmony gave him a temporary suspension, and when I got online and was brought up to speed, I agreed with a perma-ban of him and a blocking of his IP address. If Alter Idem doesn't think that counts as "protecting" the posters here, then I'd really like to know what does.

POINT FOURTEEN:

Jersey Girl has feigned innocence, asserting her right to protect herself by whatever means necessary. She and Alter Idem ask what else she could've done to protect herself (at least, I think that's what one or both of them asked at one point). Well, a good place to start would've been to **NOT** poke, prod, and goad Darrick into flying off the handle the way he did. In other words, if she wanted to protect herself, she could've avoided creating the situation in the first place by leaving him well enough alone. Logging off the computer or switching to another thread would've been good starting points, too.

So, for those people who think that Jersey Girl was an innocent, unknowing puppet on Darrick's strings, tragically forced into threatening lawsuits entirely against her will, then logic demands that they also conclude that Darrick was an innocent, unknowing puppet on Jersey Girl's strings first, tragically forced into flying off the handle entirely against his will, too. I for one reject both premises, but if you accept the first of them, then consistency demands that you accept the second of them, too.

POINT FIFTEEN:

Some people assert that Jersey Girl didn't really mean what she said, that she was panicking and can't be held accountable for her words. Well, as her messages to LDSToronto prove, she wasn't panicked at all; she was calm, cool, collected, and calculating throughout the entire process. . . and therefore 100% accountable for, and serious about, everything she said.

POINT SIXTEEN:

Alter Idem extends Jersey Girl every possible benefit of the doubt because she had to protect herself from what she perceived to be a real-life threat. Well, if that's the case, then I too had the right to protect myself from what I perceived to be a real-life threat. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. . . or do you disagree, Alter Idem?

POINT SEVENTEEN:

It's been mentioned a couple of times that if EAllusion had simply informed the board that Darrick had been suspended pending review, then Jersey Girl would've stopped in her tracks. Well, we don't announce bannings or suspensions on this board, because it's a form of "kicking a person when he or she is down." As a former moderator herself, she should've known this. If she was curious, she could've easily asked EAllusion or harmony whether he'd been banned or suspended before she followed through on her threats. Nothing was preventing her from asking.

POINT EIGHTEEN:

Alter Idem says that Jersey Girl was temporarily unbanned before being perma-banned. This indicates, in his mind, that all was forgiven for at least a short time. That's not how I remember it; my recollection is that we gave her a temporary ban until we could all hash out what should be done about her, but the temporary ban expired before we were finished discussing the issue. Once we were finished and I made the final decision, the permanent ban went into effect.

POINT NINETEEN:

Alter Idem thinks that merely contacting the board host is a bannable offense. This isn't true. As I've painstakingly attempted to make perfectly clear, it was her threat to sue us (as opposed to the board as a legal entity) that was the bannable offense. Once again, she didn't say she would END with filing a complaint. She said she would BEGIN with filing a complaint. Here on Planet Earth, "begin" means "begin." Alter Idem, in the bizarro alternate universe that you inhabit, does "begin" mean "end?"

+1000

[_Alter Idem]

Once again, in the interest of time (and length) I'll refrain from addressing every point with which I disagree and instead respond to overarching themes that need to be corrected.

Jesus Christ Almighty, I can't imagine a worse misinterpretation of my words. Look, I said that I don't mind if someone sues the board as a legal entity. I DO INDEED MIND EVERYTHING ELSE. This is because if the board itself gets sued, then attorneys wrangle it out behind-the-scenes and board functionality is unaffected. In other words, if someone sues the board, then the board continues humming along like normal and nobody is any the wiser.

Good God, of course I damn well care if someone takes the board down, spams the board, hacks the board, does a DDOS (dedicated denial of service) attack against the board, etc. etc. etc. How could I *NOT* care? I wouldn't be much of a board owner if I cared nothing about whether it continues to exist or function or not.

Sheesh. A little common sense is in order, methinks.

What you are missing is the fact that if someone contacts the webhost, then during the inquiry process the board WILL very likely be taken down temporarily. You can't have it both ways. If you don't have a problem with people filing inquiries or complaints with the webhost, then you must expect that the board will most likely be taken down for a while. That is what Liz was referring to when she said you were okay with the board being taken down.

POINT TWELVE:

People have brought up the SeattleGhostWriter situation and contrasted it against the Jersey Girl situation, saying that they both tried to get the board taken down, so why were they treated differently? Herein lies the difference: SeattleGhostWriter merely wanted to get a single image removed from the board, so he delivered a DMCA takedown notice to DreamHost, asserting unauthorized use of his copyrighted image (which was true). DreamHost got an itchy trigger finger and shut the whole board down instead of just notifying us first and giving us a few minutes to take care of the problem. SeattleGhostWriter asserted that he never intended to take the whole board down, that he wanted the image removed ONLY. DreamHost forwarded us the text of his notice, and what do you know, the wording made it VERY clear that he was telling the truth about his relatively benign intentions.

Therefore, I saw no need to punish him for a result that he didn't intend.

Jersey Girl's messages to LDSToronto, on the other hand, made it VERY clear that her initial goal was to get the whole board shut down entirely. Every other moderator in the world would consider that alone to be an immediately bannable offense.

Incorrect; SGW's and Jersey Girl motives in contacting the webhost were the exact same--to GET YOU TO act in protecting them from one of your posters!!! The way to do this involved shutting the board down temporarily. I don't know about SGW--he might have wanted it closed permanently at the time, but I've heard Jersey Girl's explanation and she only wanted it closed temporarily--IF no one was willing to remove Darrick from the board.

What you are calling an 'itchy trigger finger' by Dreamhost was part of the process. It's completely reasonable to assume that when they get a complaint (whatever it is)--if they think it may be valid, they will most likely take the board down while they look into it. Fact is, what Jersey Girl did and what SGW did are the same thing. Jersey Girl's actions didn't even move into the level of 'complaint' so the board wasn't even affected! She DIDN'T get the board taken down, SGW did--yet she was banned and he was invited to join!!!

SGW was telling the truth and there was no way to challenge his claim- which represented a threat to the board's continued viability, if you didn't do anything about it--that is why you complied with his request. It wasn't some magnanimous gesture on your part.

POINT THIRTEEN:

Alter Idem and Jersey Girl still labor under the delusion that she (and, according to Alter Idem, everyone else) is/was not protected from dangerous individuals. When discussing what I had to do to protect myself, she asks, "What about ME?" Well, we DID INDEED protect her (and others) by. . . drumroll. . . BANNING DARRICK! We banned Darrick, which is precisely what she wanted! She got precisely what she asked for! What the Hell else does she or Alter Idem want? harmony gave him a temporary suspension, and when I got online and was brought up to speed, I agreed with a perma-ban of him and a blocking of his IP address. If Alter Idem doesn't think that counts as "protecting" the posters here, then I'd really like to know what does.

You did not protect her from Darrick while he was a threat. Jersey Girl felt he was fishing for information on her and she wanted his access to others on the board halted. She went to the mods for help and was ignored.

For 12 hours her concerns were ignored and during this time she felt Darrick was a threat to her and her family. Later we found out that EA didn't ban him because HE COULDN'T!!! YOU had told your mods not to touch Darrick, but to let you handle him.

Fortunately for you, Harmony didn't get the memo on this and when she came on the board and found out what was going on, she banned Darrick temporarily.

You blew it Shades, and you won't admit it. You wouldn't even be able to claim his timely banning if Harmony had known Darrick was protected by YOU.

POINT FOURTEEN:

Jersey Girl has feigned innocence, asserting her right to protect herself by whatever means necessary. She and Alter Idem ask what else she could've done to protect herself (at least, I think that's what one or both of them asked at one point). Well, a good place to start would've been to **NOT** poke, prod, and goad Darrick into flying off the handle the way he did. In other words, if she wanted to protect herself, she could've avoided creating the situation in the first place by leaving him well enough alone. Logging off the computer or switching to another thread would've been good starting points, too.

Wow, that's the same as telling a rape victim; 'If you didn't dress so trashy, then maybe you wouldn't have been assaulted'.

So Shade's answer is that Jersey Girl should change her personality so that she doesn't goad unstable people into getting mad at her. Thanks for the advice--I'll pass it along.

So, for those people who think that Jersey Girl was an innocent, unknowing puppet on Darrick's strings, tragically forced into threatening lawsuits entirely against her will, then logic demands that they also conclude that Darrick was an innocent, unknowing puppet on Jersey Girl's strings first, tragically forced into flying off the handle entirely against his will, too. I for one reject both premises, but if you accept the first of them, then consistency demands that you accept the second of them, too.

Once again, Jersey Girl did not threaten a lawsuit and you knew that at the time. I know you knew it. I've seen the evidence.

POINT FIFTEEN:

Some people assert that Jersey Girl didn't really mean what she said, that she was panicking and can't be held accountable for her words. Well, as her messages to LDSToronto prove, she wasn't panicked at all; she was calm, cool, collected, and calculating throughout the entire process. . . and therefore 100% accountable for, and serious about, everything she said.

She meant what she said. She was not panicking. She was talking about initiating a complaint or inquiry with the webhost to have the legal contractual agreements you signed looked at to determine if the webhost could force you to remove a threatening poster. She was demanding that you take responsiblity for what happened on your board.

She did not say she was going to sue you and you knew that. Apparently you spent weeks mulling it over (and probably discussing it behind the scenes with others) and came to the conclusion that her threats could be construed as a lawsuit. Then you permanently banned her.

POINT SIXTEEN:

Alter Idem extends Jersey Girl every possible benefit of the doubt because she had to protect herself from what she perceived to be a real-life threat. Well, if that's the case, then I too had the right to protect myself from what I perceived to be a real-life threat. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. . . or do you disagree, Alter Idem?

You did not perceive her as a 'real life threat'--i.e. thinking she was going to file a lawsuit against you until weeks later.

I believe you may now actually have deluded yourself into thinking she was going to sue you and so you're sticking to it.

POINT SEVENTEEN:

It's been mentioned a couple of times that if EAllusion had simply informed the board that Darrick had been suspended pending review, then Jersey Girl would've stopped in her tracks. Well, we don't announce bannings or suspensions on this board, because it's a form of "kicking a person when he or she is down." As a former moderator herself, she should've known this. If she was curious, she could've easily asked EAllusion or harmony whether he'd been banned or suspended before she followed through on her threats. Nothing was preventing her from asking.

You don't announce bannings and suspensions? You don't even let someone know by PM what you are doing? How very MADB of you, Shades.

And why would she have asked a question of EA or harmony when I'm pretty sure she could see with her own eyes that Darrick had not been banned or suspended.

I'm at a disadvantage because I don't have all the information on this--it was Jersey Girl this happened to, not me, but since she can't post, I'm doing my best to try to answer for her.

I don't know the timeline on whether or not Darrick had been banned when she followed through on her threats (to contact the webhost), but nothing was preventing EA from taking the time to tell her if the threat was gone. Seems to me, that would have been the most reasonable thing to do. Tell her she no longer needed to worry.

POINT EIGHTEEN:

Alter Idem says that Jersey Girl was temporarily unbanned before being perma-banned. This indicates, in his mind, that all was forgiven for at least a short time. That's not how I remember it; my recollection is that we gave her a temporary ban until we could all hash out what should be done about her, but the temporary ban expired before we were finished discussing the issue. Once we were finished and I made the final decision, the permanent ban went into effect.

First off, I'm a 'her'. Apparently this is not common knowledge. Maybe this will explain why I don't appreciate the misogynist jokes on this board.

No, I didn't believe her temporary unbanning meant 'all is forgiven'--the unbanning bolsters Jersey Girl's claim that you KNEW her intentions were not to sue you. If you'd believed she was suing you, from the start, you would have moved quickly to permanently ban her--It wouldn't have been temporary in the first place!

You knew her intentions were to contact the webhost and force you to abide by the legal contractual agreement you had with them--to protect other posters from someone who was threatening.

This 'sue' claim only came around later, when you needed to justify the harsh action taken against her; an action which has only been used a couple of times here.

POINT NINETEEN:

Alter Idem thinks that merely contacting the board host is a bannable offense. This isn't true. As I've painstakingly attempted to make perfectly clear, it was her threat to sue us (as opposed to the board as a legal entity) that was the bannable offense. Once again, she didn't say she would END with filing a complaint. She said she would BEGIN with filing a complaint. Here on Planet Earth, "begin" means "begin." Alter Idem, in the bizarro alternate universe that you inhabit, does "begin" mean "end?"

[/quote]

Shades, I stand by what I said; From what you've done to Jersey Girl, merely contacting the board IS a bannable offense. Because that's all she did and she was banned.

You insist she was going to sue you, then prove it. Where is the proof that she was suing you?
You can't provide it because so far what you've used to make this claim is her words--which DO NOT prove she was suing you.

One more thing I need to say; Shades, I want to thank you for allowing me to defend Jersey Girl on the board. That is one way that you are totally not like MADB and I acknowledge and commend you for it. MADB NEVER would allow this and I respect you for letting some of us challenge what was done to Jersey Girl.

I also don't think you are a terrible person. My responses on this post have been written from the perspective that you are completely in control of what goes on here, but I'm not sure that is the case. I know you are the 'face' of this board, but you most likely don't make all the decisions. I know there are apparently 'phantom' owners and I've never been able to figure out their motives for financially supporting the board and just how much influence they wield on the board or if they even post here, but some of what I find hard to understand about what's been done to Jersey Girl, may have to do with forces outside of your control. There are cliques on the board who have influence and there's Scratch...there's a lot going on that we never see.

Though I've been unrelenting in my condemnation of her mistreatment, I do realize that you may not be solely responsible. Jersey Girl was your friend and I've been hard pressed to understand how you could think she would sue you. I've always felt that maybe there are others who have influence here who viewed her as an enemy and took the opportunity that arose when she reacted by contacting the web host, to get rid of her.

[_LDSToronto]

Quick and simple question:

Did Derrick have Jersey Girl's in real life information?

H.

[_LDSToronto]

Jersey Girl has feigned innocence, asserting her right to protect herself by whatever means necessary. She and Alter Idem ask what else she could've done to protect herself (at least, I think that's what one or both of them asked at one point). Well, a good place to start would've been to **NOT** poke, prod, and goad Darrick into flying off the handle the way he did. In other words, if she wanted to protect herself, she could've avoided creating the situation in the first place by leaving him well enough alone. Logging off the computer or switching to another thread would've been good starting points, too.

Wow, that's the same as telling a rape victim; 'If you didn't dress so trashy, then maybe you wouldn't have been assaulted'.

So Shades's answer is that Jersey Girl should change her personality so that she doesn't goad unstable people into getting mad at her. Thanks for the advice--I'll pass it along.

No. A rape victim is never complicit in his or her assault. Jersey Girl was complicit. A more apt analogy is poking a hornet's nest. You can choose to poke a hornet's nest, but you can't blame the hornets for the inevitable and predictable stinging.

Jersey Girl is a bit of a crap disturber and she took pride in that. She wasn't an innocent victim.

H.

[_Yoda]

Quick and simple question:

Did Derrick have Jersey Girl's in real life information?

H.

At the time, he did not have it, but he was fishing for MCB's in real life identity at the time; he already had Dan Peterson's in real life information, and was on record for threatening him and his family. He had made a physical threat in Jersey Girl's direction, so it was not a stretch that he was attempting to find it. None of us were really certain what Darrick's computer or search capabilities were. But we have certainly seen Scratch and others obtain in real life information and use it against people. So why is it so "out in left field" that Jersey Girl would be concerned about someone who has a violent history finding out what her information was?

[_LDSToronto]

Quick and simple question:

Did Derrick have Jersey Girl's in real life information?

H.

At the time, he did not have it, but he was fishing for MCB's in real life identity at the time; he already had Dan Peterson's in real life information, and was on record for threatening him and his family. He had made a physical threat in Jersey Girl's direction, so it was not a stretch that he was attempting to find it. None of us were really certain what Darrick's computer or search capabilities were. But we have certainly seen Scratch and others obtain in real life information and use it against people. So why is it so "out in left field" that Jersey Girl would be concerned about someone who has a violent history finding out what her information was?

So the answer is, "No, Derrick did not have Jersey Girl's in real life information".

See, that's real interesting. Jersey Girl is an anonymous figure on the interwebs (except for those that know her), Derrick doesn't have her in real life information, yet she claims she felt that her safety and her family's safety was threatened. Does Jersey Girl not trust her friends to keep that information sacred and secret?

Now, why should we give that threat any more credence than the threat Shades felt towards his livelihood when Jersey Girl allegedly threatened him with legal action?

hmmmmmm.....

H.

[_Ceeboo]

Does Jersey Girl not trust her friends to keep that information sacred and secret?

H.

If she did, I bet you that she doesn't anymore!

Peace,
Ceeboo