What's the Hullabaloo?

[_sock puppet]

Liz did nothing wrong. You are suggesting she used her position as a moderator to find information on scratch, that's apparently not true since she believed Pahoran had identified Scratch and you all insist he's wrong--so she CAN'T have identified him. This is where you all need to tread lightly. If you want to accuse Liz of using her moderator powers to expose scratch, then you also have to admit Pahoran got it right with when he identified the person in question. Can't have it both ways, you know.

And you are placing the burden on the victims, Scratch and Jason. Morally, that's usually thought to be a bad idea.

But that is the approach of religionists (e.g., the Inquisitions) as opposed to jurists where one is innocent until proven guilty. I think this is perhaps why so many lawyers apostatize from CoJCoLDS.

[_sock puppet]

You probably aren't aware, but Liz was threatened by Scratch to silence her and she pushed back. That's why he's mad and why he wants you all to do his dirty work and not only get rid of her as a mod, but make you all feel that it was your 'christian duty' to get rid of her. Some are so easy to manipulate.

I eagerly look forward to you naming names as to who called for Liz's impeachment as a moderator, and what evidence you have that (1) anyone is calling for this, and (2) that this anyone is doing so because Scratch got them to do it.

Silly lawyer. Asking a religionist for evidence.

[_Chap]

...

It is, rather, that she took an action that broke a fundamental rule of this board, in using that in real life information in a way that might be seen as designed to tell a poster that his cover was blown, so he had better watch out.

Such a warning could have been explicitly sent to Scratch by PM, without the 'other way' seen as joining Pahoran's outing party....

Just for the record, that was me, not Alter Idem.

Sending Scratch the note about Democrats Abroad in Taiwan by PM might still have been an unpleasant threat to reveal what Liz thought to be Scratch's in real life identity if he did not back off from bothering her friend DCP, but so far as I know it would not have been a breach of board rules.

The fact is, however, that she brandished the information under his nose in an open post, under circumstances where it was clearly meant to refer to him.

I have done the experiment of looking for male names associated with Democrats Abroad in Taiwan, and then Googling those names with 'LDS' included. You get to an obvious person (Jason Echols) pretty fast. So Liz's post amounted to 'outing' Scratch on the board - at least, that what she should have realized she was doing, on the assumption that she had the information right.

[_sock puppet]

I have been a moderator of a professional message board for several years. I had enjoyed posting my opinions on various legal issues raised on that board for about 8 months before that admin there asked me to be a mod. I accepted, and noticed that it was no longer as enjoyable to post. The admin and I have discussed this at length. He has observed that most passionate posters, those with a clear vision of the law and thus how it ought to be applied in individual issues, are not happy mods. He told me that he was disappointed that having made me a mod there had muted my advocacy of certain positions on points of law. At his suggestion, I tried a sock puppet there, but the old 'magic' simply never returned. The admin there has indicated that he is having trouble finding new, active mods there because what draws people to his board in the first place is the opportunity to express opinions and enter the fray--but making them a mod takes that away.

It's not easy being an active poster of contended positions, and being a mod or admin. It is like walking a high wire. For me, I would not accept a mod position again. I enjoy being a poster unencumbered by the conflict of being a mod too.

[_sock puppet]

It is, rather, that she took an action that broke a fundamental rule of this board, in using that in real life information in a way that might be seen as designed to tell a poster that his cover was blown, so he had better watch out.

The quotes get confusing when nested within each other when composing a response. My apologies Chap.

The point you make there is what the motivation for the in real life information outing was, whether made by PM or openly on the board? Was it to have a chilling effect on Dr Scratch from continuing to make posts aimed at DCP's mopologetic shenanigans? I don't see a board rule implicated there, so it hardly is a justification.

[_Chap]

It is, rather, that she took an action that broke a fundamental rule of this board, in using that in real life information in a way that might be seen as designed to tell a poster that his cover was blown, so he had better watch out.

The quotes get confusing when nested within each other when composing a response. My apologies Chap.

The point you make there is what the motivation for the in real life information outing was, whether made by PM or openly on the board? Was it to have a chilling effect on Dr Scratch from continuing to make posts aimed at DCP's mopologetic shenanigans? I don't see a board rule implicated there, so it hardly is a justification.

I take it that you mean 'it is hardly a justification' for Liz breaking this rule:

Universal Rule 7:
Do not reveal personal or "in real life" information about any poster on this site that he or she has not explicitly revealed here. This includes avoiding mention of his/her actual first or last name, even if he or she has made it available on some other website.

[_sock puppet]

I have done the experiment of looking for male names associated with Democrats Abroad in Taiwan, and then Googling those names with 'LDS' included. You get to an obvious person (Jason Echols) pretty fast. So Liz's post amounted to 'outing' Scratch on the board - at least, that what she should have realized she was doing, on the assumption that she had the information right.

What remains a mystery--and unanswered--are Pahoran's "reasons" for assuming that Scratch=chino blanco in the first place. I don't want those reasons aired, but it seems that it is based on nothing more than the vain hope of finding Dr Scratch's in real life identity and grasping at straws. LDS detractor chino blanco outs himself, ergo that must be Dr Scratch? Really?

And then for DCP, liz and Alter Idem to apparently join in Pahoran's assumption without evidence. DCP's taking down the two Saturday posts from patheos screams of the fact that he had no idea why Scratch might = chino blanco, other than Pahoran said so. Otherwise, DCP would not have retracted so quickly on a mere denial from chino blanco what DCP had just hours before posted publicly online.

Pahoran has, in this entire episode, been the one that has led DCP, liz and Alter Idem down the primrose path. Perhaps they did not scrutinize Pahoran's claim before acting on it because they so thirst for Dr Scratch's in real life identity.

[_sock puppet]

It is, rather, that she took an action that broke a fundamental rule of this board, in using that in real life information in a way that might be seen as designed to tell a poster that his cover was blown, so he had better watch out.

The quotes get confusing when nested within each other when composing a response. My apologies Chap.

The point you make there is what the motivation for the in real life information outing was, whether made by PM or openly on the board? Was it to have a chilling effect on Dr Scratch from continuing to make posts aimed at DCP's mopologetic shenanigans? I don't see a board rule implicated there, so it hardly is a justification.

I take it that you mean 'it is hardly a justification' for Liz breaking this rule:

Universal Rule 7:
Do not reveal personal or "in real life" information about any poster on this site that he or she has not explicitly revealed here. This includes avoiding mention of his/her actual first or last name, even if he or she has made it available on some other website.

yes.

[_just me]

This whole thing is lunacy.

[_Bret Ripley]

This whole thing is lunacy.

I'm stealing that:

Echols is not Scratch
This whole thing is lunacy
Patheos defiled