I just today saw that Steve posted his apology here as well as sending it privately to the three of us. So I will also post my response here.
Steve, first of all thank you for your sincere, heartfelt apology. I have always thought that you are a great guy with a big heart, and that you did not intentionally mean to say something hurtful. Nothing that has happened has lessened my opinion of you, and I don't anticipate that anything will.
That having been said, I must point out that even in your note of apology there were parts that I found hurtful and even disrespectful. In particular, this sentence:
I have to say that after all of the time, thought and energy that we put into the arbitration, I found this comment to be almost as upsetting as the original "whitewash" comment (as well as your original comment about looking for the largest rolling eyes emoticom you could find to express your feelings about our decision, which I thought was the most scornful comment that you made, although I let slide at the time because I wanted to avoid more drama).
Quote: My intent was to focus on what I deemed to be a 'perfunctory investigation'
As our decision specifically indicates, we did engage in a significant investigation that went beyond simply just looking at the limited written rules in place. In particular we found that a significant portion of the membership (including you yourself) had either explicitly or implicitly confirmed that there was no rule against revealing non-Invite thread discussions in response to wilko's own direct query about that exact subject. We further found that there had never been a clearly established rule of this sort communicated to the membership. Finally, we reviewed the invite forum discussion about the specific rule that was adopted regarding revealing information from that forum and the reasons why that specific rule was adopted. In short, we reviewed all of the OBJECTIVE evidence available. Based on that objective evidence, there was only one conclusion that we could have reasonably come to.
What we did not do (to your disappointment) is rely on the SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS of some members to create a rule that did not previously exist. To do that, and ignore the objective evidence, would truly have been a perfuctory investigation.
My biggest concern about this is what effect it could have on the system that we are trying to set up. Why would anyone be willing to expend the time and energy necessary to serve as a juror if they knew that in doing so they were opening themselves up to disrespectful, scornful comments (which I certainly considered your comments to be, particularly the rolling eye emoticom comment)?
And I must say that I agree that having these type of comments come from the prospective legal owner of the site makes it much worse. I don't buy the argument that it doesn't matter because you are not the legal owner of the site yet. The procedures that we are trying to set up are designed to apply to the open b77.com site. If people see now that the legal owner of that site might react scornfully if he doesn't like their decision, it is extremely likely that that will affect either their willingness to serve, or their decisionmaking process if they do serve as a juror. And that is not acceptible.
I have thought about this alot, and I have a solution to propose. You offered earlier in this thread to sell the domain name to anyone willing to pay two cents for it. I am willing to take you up on that offer. If it is agreeable to people, I will then set up a non-profit corporation to be the legal owner of the site once it opens. The membership of b77 would all be members of the non-profit, and we would be a truly member-owned site. Because the great bulk of the cost of setting up a corporation is the legal fees to do so, the cost will be minimal, since I am willing to to that pro bono. We could consider having a very small, one time membership fee that would cover the cost of the filing fee for incorporating, as well as the ongoing cost of paying for the domain name and any other ongoing costs (or perks) that we would have. We could consider having the people serving as admins be the board of directors, and if the position of mayor is creating perhaps she (or he) could serve as the CEO of the corporation as well. That way the control of the corporation would never stay with just one or just a few people.
What say you? Lidless and everyone else.