board77

The person who should be banned is me. It's because I might, if I genuinely believed it was in the interest of peace and understanding, share information from posts on Board77 with people outside it. This is exactly what wilko185 threatened to do, and I understand that many here feel he should have been banned for it, and that the arbitrators in his case made a grave error.

This is your chance to rectify the error.

I have never breached a confidence in my life, and don't intend to start now. However, if I genuinely believed it was the right thing to do, I would not hesitate. I certainly cannot and will not promise unconditionally that I would never reveal something I have read here.

I therefore request arbitration against myself. I request that the jury in question be composed of Lidless, Estel, and Eruname.

Quote:

This is exactly what wilko185 threatened to do, and I understand that many here feel he should have been banned for it, and that the arbitrators in his case made a grave error.

Do many really feel this way? Have you polled these many?

Ethel, I would have done the same thing as you, and would do it in the same circumstances.

I don't think that "many" feel that way, TED, but there has been some strong disagreement on this regard over the last few days.

Ethel, I might do the same as you under the circumstances you describe.

I don't think personnally that a hearing for a hypothetical action should be undertaken, in fact I strongly oppose to it.

I also oppose this because I'm in the same boat as you and so I would have to also request arbitration... and I happen to like posting here - so I'd rather stick around.

Ethel wrote:

It's because I might, if I genuinely believed it was in the interest of peace and understanding, share information from posts on Board77 with people outside it. This is exactly what wilko185 threatened to do

Wasn't it wilko's threat to reveal information specifically from the invitation threads, that was determined to be the problem, and isn't that what was addressed in his arbitration? Wasn't it determined that this was the problem because board policy specifies that the invitation threads (but not anything else) be treated as confidential? Although some people initially reacted very strongly to wilko's threat, I don't recall many people maintaining, in the ensuing discussion, that everything said on board77 should or realistically could be kept confidential.

Ethel, are you saying that you might reveal information from the invitation threads, if you thought it was the right thing to do? In that case, it seems the proper response would be the same as for wilko, and you would essentially be disqualifying yourself from having access to the invitation threads.

I feel small, insignificant and ignored because I've regularly shared information learned on B77 with former Torcers who are not B77 members and have been vocal about it here and no one's ever threatened to ban ME!

Perhaps I should be the one requesting a Ban hearing... but I wont because there was never a rule in the first place saying I couldn't tell people about what I read here. There still isn't. And I will continue to pass on tidbits of information to my family whenever I feel like it, if I think it's something they'd find interesting.

I am sory my thred has caused people to feel this way. I think it is very clear to me thatwe should either open the board now as it is, or have it as read only as it is. That way we would not have to deal with any of these issues.

Quote:

It's because I might, if I genuinely believed it was in the interest of peace and understanding, share information from posts on Board77 with people outside it. This is exactly what wilko185 threatened to do

If you believed it was in the interest of peace and understanding, then that's fine. I'm not sure what wilko threatened to do was purely for peace and understanding.

I don't think any arbitration is necessary.

Hey, I would qualify for a hearing to since I discussed Anthy's personal issues to my father.

Has the idea of going read-only been seriously discussed before? I would be all for it.

Cerin wrote:

Ethel wrote:

It's because I might, if I genuinely believed it was in the interest of peace and understanding, share information from posts on Board77 with people outside it. This is exactly what wilko185 threatened to do

Wasn't it wilko's threat to reveal information specifically from the invitation threads, that was determined to be the problem, and isn't that what was addressed in his arbitration? Wasn't it determined that this was the problem because board policy specifies that the invitation threads (but not anything else) be treated as confidential? Although some people initially reacted very strongly to wilko's threat, I don't recall many people maintaining, in the ensuing discussion, that everything said on board77 should or realistically could be kept confidential.

Ethel, are you saying that you might reveal information from the invitation threads, if you thought it was the right thing to do? In that case, it seems the proper response would be the same as for wilko, and you would essentially be disqualifying yourself from having access to the invitation threads.

No. I am saying that I might reveal information from elsewhere on the board, if and only if I believed it would help rather than hurt people to do so. This is what wilko threatened to do, and for the same reason. (We both have friends from TORC who feel massively hurt over this closed board.) I specifically agree not to do this with the contents of the Invites forum, however.

During the arbitration we asked wilko if he was prepared to promise that he would not reveal anything from the Invites forum. Since he would not make that promise, we recommended that his access to the forum remain restricted.

However, this was not a satisfactory conclusion for some. They interpreted the ruling to mean it was now okay to cut and paste anything, from any thread, to anyone at TORC or elsewhere.

My request for a hearing on my banning was inspired by this post:

TheLidlessEyes wrote:

I disagree fundamentally with the whitewash of an arbitration ruling. Completely. Totally. Wholeheartedly. As we had no rule in situ, I would have looked at what the board is. Closed and private. Now it appears that copy/pasting is officially sanctioned unless it is the Thinking Of England and Invites Forums. That's just wrong.

In this thread: http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77

I want to give Lidless and those who agree with them the opportunity to rectify what they see as "just wrong."

I have only been on the boards sporadically and rarely for the past couple weeks because I wanted to avoid the immense amount of drama I always find here. I will not return to the boards only to participate in an extension of that drama.

That said, I understand the point you are trying to make Ethel, however, I don't believe this is the best way to make your point. Both you and Lidless have taken things too personally in this whole thing. What happened to working things out peacefully.

I request that you and Lidless take your discussion to the Bikeracks, where those who want to get involved can, and those who don't, don't have to be affected. A course of action which might work things out between you two, and others interested, rather than this Request for a Ban, which technically affects the whole board.

Why is it so incredibly hard for members to agree to say as little as possible about posts made by other members on the boards to non-members until the board opens and it doesn't matter anymore? It's such a little thing, but people are letting friendships get ruined over it. It's really pissing me off that people are letting themselves get so offended over such a small thing, that they're willing to give up relationships with people they know and love over it.

I'll be back on the boards regularily when I can spam with impunity with my friends.

Estel, are you saying that, as a B77 admin, you officially refuse my request?

Thank you, Estel, for the most intelligent solution proposed thus far.
I agree. The difference of opinion between Ethel and Lidless should be taken to the Bike Racks.

I really don't want to see this blown out of proportion.

And I strongly disagree that the arbitration hearing resulted in the majority believing that cutting and pasting from any forum other than invites was now officially sanctioned.

Okay. I'll speak only for myself. I don't believe it is now implicit that cutting/pasting has been officially ( or unofficially) sanctioned by the ruling in the arbitration hearing.

Ethel wrote:

Estel, are you saying that, as a B77 admin, you officially refuse my request?

Ethel, as a b77 admin, I cannot comply with your request. The rules in place for this topic specifically say that an admin can't serve on a panel for a hearing on a ban.

Nice to see you completely ignore my post, and everything I said, except what you wanted to see. Always makes discussions so much more productive when that is done. This isn't Manwe you know

D'oh!! I keep using that term lately. Estels post is correct!!!!

Oh Fudge I need some



ETA: I apologize for blowing this dren out of proportion since I kind of started it.

ETA Sassy is correvt too!!

Alassante_Estel wrote:

Ethel wrote:

Estel, are you saying that, as a B77 admin, you officially refuse my request?

Ethel, as a b77 admin, I cannot comply with your request. The rules in place for this topic specifically say that an admin can't serve on a panel for a hearing on a ban.

You are quite right, Estel. I stand corrected. Let me alter the request, then. I would like a hearing on a ban, on myself, in order to clear the air and establish clarity around privacy expectations at B77. I request that Lidless, Eruname and Iavas_Saar serve as the jurors.

Please Ethel, it is my fault I am so sorry I blew this up.

Wilma wrote:

Please Ethel, it is my fault I am so sorry I blew this up.

Please do not worry, Wilma. You had every right to post what you did. I admit that I am upset for being called morally deficient for my role in the arbitration, but I honestly believe that more clarity on the privacy issue is essential at this point.

I did ask that the people who disagreed with the ruling make the privacy expectations explicit by putting it to a binding vote. This has not been done, partly, I suspect, because those who disagree think it's something that should go without saying.

If the arbitration panel was wrong, a hearing on my banning is an opportunity to correct that wrong.