board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm

Locked   Page 5 of 10  [ 182 posts ]
Jump to page « 13 4 5 6 710 »
Author Message
halplm
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 11:11 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
that's fine, as long as it's brief :)

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile
Angbasdil
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 12:52 am
The man, the myth, the monkey
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue 01 Mar , 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Back in Nashville
 
I hate to be this way, but somebody needs to take charge and since I'm a juror, I guess it's gonna be me.

Back off people (that means everybody).

I understand the frustration, but what I want is very simple.

hal,
The Rangers are involved because we the jury asked them to present evidence. That's our right and is actually for your benefit. So step off.

Rangers,
I neither need nor want oodles and gobs of evidence, nor for you to waste hours more of your valuable time. I just want you to point me to the specific charter elements hal violated. I can read hal's posts and decide from there.

Thanks to all for your cooperation.


Top
Profile
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 12:53 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
Hal, I emphatize with Holby eventhough I think he should delete/rewrite parts of what he posted. I suggest that the other personal attacks posted in this thread be deleted as well. :) Thanks.

Hal, The Rangers have already presented their case againts you and no amount rewriting to coincide with Estel's line of questioning is going to change what they have posted. Like Estel have stated if they find you innocent and in fact, the Rangers where in violation of excercising their emergency powers, then another hearing will be presented againts them.

_________________

Caution...You are entering the NO SPIN ZONE.


Top
Profile
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:00 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
For lack of energy to wade through the charter, I'll go with what Estel posted.


Here are the charges we have against halplm. We somewhat answered Estel's questions, so we might as well post at least what we have now, at some point.

1.

Article 9
Quote:
Offenses that Merit a Penalty and Maximum Penalties a Jury May Impose
.........

• A temporary ban of specified duration can be imposed for persistent posting of objectionable content......



2.

Article 2

From Member Rights and Responsibilities - Note, this is NOT from the part that says no penalites can be enforced.
Quote:
1: Rights and responsibilities enforceable by procedures and penalties outlined in the Charter

A. You have the right:
To address personal disputes in the Bike Racks forum, and in other forums to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others.



3.

Article 2

Member Rights and Responsibilities - Note, this is NOT from the part that says no penalites can be enforced.
Quote:
B. You have the Responsibility:
.....

To refrain from using PM capability to harrass other members of the board.




4.

From Article 5: Dispute Resolution in the Outside Forum
Quote:
¶1: The Bike Racks Forum
The Bike Racks Forum is a read and write forum available to all members. It is used for:
• resolving disputes between individual members when these disputes do not involve a violation of board rules;
• off-topic discussions that are derailing a thread but do not warrant a thread of their own;
• restricting posters who have provided invalid email addresses.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Holbytla
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:01 am
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
I split off the offending posts.
The new thread is in the Bike Racks.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:05 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
I beleve those posts were highly relevant to my hearing and object to their removal.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:06 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
Objection noted. If anyone wants to read them they know where to find them.



I edited the first post to include the specific charges.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:22 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
Thanks Rebecca.

I would like to suggest that everybody post in a manner that doesn't violate the charter. Any personal frustrations irrelevant to this case should not be posted. Like Ang has suggested stick to the specifics.

_________________

Caution...You are entering the NO SPIN ZONE.


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:31 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Ok, if those are the official rules that were supposedly violated to convene this hearing (just so we're all clear, this is impossible as Estel came upwith them after the fact), what's the next step, Lurker?

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:35 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
halplm wrote:
I beleve those posts were highly relevant to my hearing and object to their removal.
Hal, I read what was posted and IMHO, it was posted out of frustration and does not necessarily mean the poster doesn't believe in the charter and the rules of this messageboard. Plus the fact, it was the opinion of one Ranger, the emergency measures againts you were agreed upon by all of them at that time, so I don't see it relevant to your hearing.

They have presented their case againts you and as suggested by one of the jurors, it is the specifics which is important.

_________________

Caution...You are entering the NO SPIN ZONE.


Top
Profile
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:55 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
halplm wrote:
Ok, if those are the official rules that were supposedly violated to convene this hearing (just so we're all clear, this is impossible as Estel came upwith them after the fact), what's the next step, Lurker?
No, I read what the Rangers have posted and compared it to what Estel just presented, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Anyways, since both you and the Rangers have presented your side, I think it's now up to the jurors to read what was presented, ask further questions if the want to or call any witness or you can present your own witness to the jury.

I am just here to oversee that the proceedings are done in an orderly and timely manner and doesn't violate parts of the charter. That's why I asked that irrelevant posts from this thread be striken out from the record.

_________________

Caution...You are entering the NO SPIN ZONE.


Top
Profile
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:58 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
Should we still post in response to Estel's questions? We haven't finished them completely, but I'd rather give you what we have than absolutely nothing, since I took the time to write it/find posts.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 2:12 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
I think you should for the benefit of the other jurors not just Estel.

_________________

Caution...You are entering the NO SPIN ZONE.


Top
Profile
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 2:22 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
It will take some time for us to finish/make the post legible.

We want this over as soon as possible, so we'll try not to take a long time. Also trying to not burn out any more than we already are, though.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Angbasdil
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 3:20 am
The man, the myth, the monkey
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue 01 Mar , 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Back in Nashville
 
Maybe it's because I'm unfamiliar with the charter. Maybe it's because I'm a technician and want to connect all the dots. Or maybe I'm just slow. Whatever it is, I'm finding the information overload here difficult and distracting. That's why I've asked for specifics.

Rebecca,
Thanks for distilling it down to those few points.

hal,
Estel's post was not after-the-fact accusations, just clarification as to which particular parts of the charter were pertinent to the original accusations. Just because Estel was clearer in how she said it doesn't nullify the fact that it was said before.

Lurker,
I have no further questions or requests at this time and am ready to proceed to whatever follows the jury's initial requests for evidence whenever the rest of the jury is also ready.


Top
Profile
Holbytla
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 3:44 am
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
In response to Estel's request, we have completed the first section
Estel wrote:
1. In relation to Article 9 - Persistent posting of objectionable content.

First, How many board members PMed the rangers to object about Hals posts, how many multiple complaints there were, and how many board posted complaints there were?

Second, in the current instance, when was the behavior first noticed and how many warnings, both in PM and out in the threads, were given before the initial act to remove permissions from the Symposium was taken?

Third, when was the behaviour outside of the Symposium noticed, and how many warnings, both in PM and out in the threads, were given before the decision was made to remove all permissions other than that of the Bike Racks?
First, How many board members PMed the rangers to object about Hals posts, how many multiple complaints there were, and how many board posted complaints there were?
In the "Sensitive Information" hidden forum, two Rangers (excluding Holby, River, and Rebecca) posted complaints. One was in regards to hal, the other to drama in general.

In the Krispy Kreme thread, Dawnnamaria responded to hal here and further in the thread. Most other posters responded sarcastically to hal, but did not expressly complain. This thread was later split to here.

In the Coverage from around the world thread, hal came in and began arguing over politics. Freddy, the thread starter expressed his displeasure with the direction the thread had taken in this post. The majority of hal's post in this thread were not on-topic, despite Freddy's request. Later Eru also asked that the thread stay on topic. Later, dawnnamaria posted requesting they stop: Hal, sf, anyone else... PLEASE stop. If you guys want to discuss this stuff please take it somewhere where I can ignore it because I'm trying to keep myself away from things that annoy me and it's hard when they appear in a thread that I'm interested in. You've been asked a couple of times, both by Freddy and others. Ara-anna also asked why he bothered to bring up certain issues.

In the Obama day Jan 20. thread, Estel voiced her displeasure of the negativity. As did Jewelsong and Eruname on the same page as was linked to. On page 5 of the same thread Eruname again voiced her displeasure.
The thread continued to devolve from there and was eventually split off. We have provided specific links and examples, but a truer picture can be seen by reading the entire thread and seeing the recurring comments.

hal started The Era of Bipartisanship thread, where Alatar requested they stop arguing: Ok, I've had enough. As an ordinary member I'm asking that the Rangers consider suspending posting rights for both SF and Hal in the Symposium until they BOTH agree to act like grown ups. He repeated his request here and some discussion with hal followed.

Holbytla (with regards to complaints about this incident received via the PM feature) - Personally I will not reveal any information regarding pm's sent to me. To me that would defeat the entire purpose of the pm feature. People use pm's rather than post in threads to protect their anonymity and I won't endanger that. So I will not release any pm's from anyone even with their permission. I will tell you that the amount of pm's I have received during this incident are numerous and are from no less than 6 individuals. It is up to you whether you want to take me on my word for that or not as I will not provide any proof other than my testimony.



----------------------------------------------------------
Second, in the current instance, when was the behavior first noticed and how many warnings, both in PM and out in the threads, were given before the initial act to remove permissions from the Symposium was taken?
The behavior was first noticed on Jan 19 in the Pretty'n up Palin thread. It subsequently spread to the Obama Day thread (linked is what River split off), the Krispy Kreme thread (again, linked is what River split off), the California thread, and on Jan. 23 hal opened up a bipartisanhsip thread that fell apart before it even began. This was the day he and sf were locked out of the Symposium.

River asked hal to stop here.
Rebecca reminded hal to post to the topic here.
Holbytla twice urged sauronsfinger and halplm to disengage or face consequences:
Holbytla's first warning.
Holbytla's second warning, which was repeated here to make sure they saw it.
Holbytla's third warning was posted almost immediately after.
Another warning was found by Holbytla here


----------------------------------------------------------
Third, when was the behaviour outside of the Symposium noticed, and how many warnings, both in PM and out in the threads, were given before the decision was made to remove all permissions other than that of the Bike Racks?

Yes, the disruption continued outside of the Symposium. Some of them were concurrent with the disruptions in the Symposium and others continued after. This was because we told hal that his posting rights were restricted, but due to difficulties with the Administrator Control Panel, he still had the ability to post in the Symposium.

These were posts made by hal:
Suspension of Posting Rights RE: Halplm and Sauronsfinger -- He posted many times in this thread after this post.
Need to Contact a Ranger? -- He posted many times in this thread after this post.
He also posted in the Charter Committee 2008 thread, despite not being a member of the committee. River split the post into the hal's place thread to keep the committee on track. hal also posted a nasty note in the Charter itself. River deleted that post. She did not take a screen capture or make any other record. She subsequently locked the Charter.

These were threads started by hal:
The Abuse of Power thread started in the Turf.

He received no warning regarding his behavior outside the Symposium. We had reason to believe he knew what he was doing. We felt a restriction was necessary to prevent further disruptions. Riverthalos restricted halplm to the Bike Racks following his posting of a thread in the Turf which was moved to the Bike Racks. She did not feel it necessary to give warning as fellow board members had requested hal to disengage in the Business Room and she felt it was more important that the disturbance be contained as quickly as possible.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:35 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
As for Estel's second set of questions, I don't really see any difference between them and the first set. Well, I suppose we could have pulled out examples better to make each fit more exactly, but I think we answered both Article 9 - Persistent posting of objectionable content and how it effected the membership as outlined in Article 2 - Members Rights and Responsibilities (Violation of the right for members to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others) above.

If you'd like us to just copy and paste the answers, I can, but I'm not going through and picking out which was persistent posting of objectionable content and which posts effected the members' rights to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others. I have faith that you can read what we posted above and judge them for yourselves. :)



Just for a reference, here is Estel's second question.
Estel wrote:
2. In relation to Article 2, Members Rights and Responsibilities
Violation of the right for members to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others.


First, How many board members PMed the rangers to object about the ongoing dispute between Hal and SF, how many multiple complaints there were, and how many board posted complaints there were?

Second, in the current instance, when was the behavior first noticed and how many warnings, both in PM and out in the threads, were given before the initial act to remove permissions from the Symposium was taken?

Third, did the disruptions continue outside of the Symposium? If so, when was it noticed, and how many warnings, both in PM and out in the threads, were given before the decision was made to remove all permissions other than that of the Bike Racks?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:41 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
Here is our answer for the third set of questions:
Quote:
3. In Relation to Article 2, Members Rights and Responsibilities
Violation to refrain from using PM capability to harass other members of the board


First, How many members recieving the PMs emailed, PMed or posted complaints about receiving the PM?

Second, Was a warning given to Hal, either on the board, by email or through PM before the PM privileges were revoked?
First, How many members recieving the PMs emailed, PMed or posted complaints about receiving the PM?
The mass PM in question was sent to:
*Alandriel* Berhael Leoba gimli_axe_wielder Dindraug Erunáme truehobbit Estel Rodia Lidless Lady_of_Rohan Jaeniver Nin *E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* Holbytla Jnyusa halplm Axordil Sunsilver Primula_Baggins Elian Iavas_Saar MariaHobbit vison Voronwë_the_Faithful Anthriel Wilma Marco yovargas LalaithUrwen Rebecca Alatar sauronsfinger Ara-anna Silwen The Watcher TheEllipticalDisillusion ToshoftheWuffingas MaidenOfTheShieldarm Pippin4242 Riverthalos Sidonzo Amrunelen TWT TheMary cemthinae elfshadow Cenedril_Gildinaur Dawnnamira Crucifer

This is 50 members (49, not including halplm).

Primula_Baggins posted here, which I took to be a complaint.
Nin posted here in response to the PM and further stated here that she felt harassed by it.
Estel posted her thanks for this action and Eruname expressed her irritation in the Business Room.
The Watcher expressed her distress at the PM multiple times in this thread.
Marco/Jude made some comments hinting at his own annoyance in both of the aforementioned threads. Crucifer also seemed unhappy.

We didn't like it. It'd be one thing if it was just the Rangers. We've gotten used to it. But this was general membership as well.


----------------------------------------------------------
Second, Was a warning given to Hal, either on the board, by email or through PM before the PM privileges were revoked?
No warning was given. When River took that action, she was afraid it would just happen again, due to past behaviors and specifically these comments:
"I will continue to voice my opposition to the the majority opinions expressed here, as long as I am able." here
"You had better ban me now, I will never forgive this shit." here
"I'm telling you, you cannot stop me with a suspension." here
"Oh, this will stop nothing" here
"I don't know, is it a threat? I'm under constnat thread of shut up or we'll make you shut up. I will not be shut up easily." here

Sorry if they aren't in order, but it's a lot to go through. These statements helped lead us to the opinion that halplm would continue misusing his PM abilities, so River restricted his ability to send more.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 1:53 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
Estel wrote:
4. In Relation to Article 5,]¶1: The Bike Racks Forum

First, a violation may have occurred when threads were started in response to threads outside the Bikeracks Forum. What were these threads?
Were any of them split, thus causing there to be more of these threads than originally started by the posters?
If there were threads split, can you link to each thread, separating them into those originated by Hal, and those originated by the Rangers through the splitting process.

Second, A violation of use may have occurred when multiple threads dealing with the same issue were started.
What were these threads?
Were any of them split, thus causing there to be more of these threads than originally started by the posters?
If there were threads split, can you link to each thread, separating them into those originated by Hal, and those originated by the Rangers through the splitting process.

Third, a violation of use may have occurred when multiple threads were started that did not involve resolution of disputes.
What were these threads?
Were any of them split, thus causing there to be more of these threads than originally started by the posters?
If there were threads split, can you link to each thread, separating them into those originated by Hal, and those originated by the Rangers through the splitting process.

Forth, how many violations of this sort occurred before the Rangers made the decision to restrict posting rights?

Fifth, Was a warning given to Hal, either on the board, by email or through PM before posting privileges were revoked?
First, a violation may have occurred when threads were started in response to threads outside the Bikeracks Forum. What were these threads?
Were any of them split, thus causing there to be more of these threads than originally started by the posters?
If there were threads split, can you link to each thread, separating them into those originated by Hal, and those originated by the Rangers through the splitting process.

As far as I know, no threads were split after hal was restricted to the Bike Racks.
Many threads were started by hal after his restriction to the Bike Racks. These are the threads that he started:
For the bipartisan thread
Palin book thread
The "relaxed thread"
TED leaving thread
Abuse of power
(these may not be in chronological order, I listed them in the order they appear as I’m looking currently, with the last on the list being the latest with an update. Hal has also changed the titles of some of his threads, so they may no longer be accurately titled).

He also started threads about his permissions and restrictions:
Permissions for reading member forums
Removal of PM privileges

There are many split threads in the Bike Racks, but I believe these were all split before hal's permissions were restricted to the Bike Racks. Before restricting hal’s permissions so he could not post in the Symposium, we split many threads in an attempt to keep the topics free from personal attacks and osgiliations.
This thread (hal's place) was split out of the Charter Committee thread by RIver, where hal continued to post.

----------------------------------------------------------
Second, A violation of use may have occurred when multiple threads dealing with the same issue were started.
What were these threads?
Were any of them split, thus causing there to be more of these threads than originally started by the posters?
If there were threads split, can you link to each thread, separating them into those originated by Hal, and those originated by the Rangers through the splitting process.

The only multiple thread started was the Abuse of power thread started in the Bike Racks after River moved and locked the thread with the same title in the Turf. He used the Abuse of power thread to air the same complaints, but we let him keep that one as a formal show of his disagreement with our actions.


----------------------------------------------------------
Third, a violation of use may have occurred when multiple threads were started that did not involve resolution of disputes.
What were these threads?
Were any of them split, thus causing there to be more of these threads than originally started by the posters?
If there were threads split, can you link to each thread, separating them into those originated by Hal, and those originated by the Rangers through the splitting process.

In our opinion, most of these threads were not involved with the resolution of disputes, but rather to continue disputes that were happening elsewhere, where hal was restricted from posting. These are the threads that we believe were meant to continue the arguments:
For the bipartisan thread
Palin book thread
The "relaxed thread"
TED leaving thread

This thread was split from the Charter Committee thread hal's place by River, moving hal’s post to a new thread where hal continued to post.

----------------------------------------------------------
Forth, how many violations of this sort occurred before the Rangers made the decision to restrict posting rights?
After all the actions that led to hal being locked out of the Symposium and then restricted to the Bike Racks, we admit that our patience with halplm was running out. He started the threads mentioned above and made many accusations against the rangers, saying, for example, "the rangers that have personal grudges against me are going to pursue them to the end" which we felt was untrue and a mischaracterization of our motives.

Holby then posted this in the hal's place thread:
I am also ending these discussions going on in here. This forum is not meant for this purpose. The threads will be locked and if you continue starting new threads in here that are not with the purpose of resolving a conflict then your posting rights to this forum will be removed.
Holby then proceeded to lock the 4 threads mentioned above that were started in response to threads in other forums. Holby also locked the "hal's place" thread, but after discussing the matter with Rebecca, unlocked it a few minutes later so hal could have a place to post (also leaving the "Abuse of Power" thread for hal to air his disagreements about the Rangers).

----------------------------------------------------------
Fifth, Was a warning given to Hal, either on the board, by email or through PM before posting privileges were revoked?
Holby had warned hal to stop in this his post in hal's place:
I am also ending these discussions going on in here. This forum is not meant for this purpose. The threads will be locked and if you continue starting new threads in here that are not with the purpose of resolving a conflict then your posting rights to this forum will be removed.
After this warning, hal continued responding to posts in other forums by starting this thread:
TED leaving thread

Jewelsong requested here that hal stop abusing the Bike Racks.
Marco (Jude) seconded her request here.
Amrunelen posted here expressing her dislike of the multiple threads.

After this, River and Rebecca discussed the matter privately before River removed hal's ability to start new threads, as we saw no indication that he would comply with our request to not start new threads in response to threads that he could not respond to due to his posting restrictions.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 2:03 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
In closing, after numerous requests from the Rangers that halplm and sauronsfinger modify their disruptive posting behavior and warnings that we would act if they did not correct themselves, sauronsfinger and halplm had their posting rights in the Symposium revoked for two weeks starting Jan. 23.

This required us to invoke Special Emergency Powers and as a result, Hearings were convened for both parties.

hal then went on to behave in a disruptive and even threatening manner in the Business Room and Turf, and as a result we again invoked Emergency Powers to confine him to the Bike Racks. hal continued his disruptions even then, first by spamming the membership through private messaging and then by opening multiple threads in the Bike Racks. To curtail and contain the continuing disruptions, we blocked hal's PM privileges and denied him the ability to start new threads.

All of this behavior was noticed by the general membership, who relayed their complaints to the Rangers and later relayed thanks for the actions we took. Many members have posted, sent PM's, and other messages to convey their appreciation and support for our actions. We did what we thought was necessary to provide a board where the members could post free of disruptions and was in the best interest of the board and its members.


We apologize if the information presented is overwhelming, but it is hopefully a clear indication of the events that transpired and our reasonings behind the actions taken.


-Rebecca, Riverthalos, and Holbytla
(together the three of us worked on all the posts above to answer Estel's questions, since we worked together as much as possible while taking actions mentioned previously. We tried to show who took what action, but for the most part we discussed the matters before taking action.)

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 5 of 10  [ 182 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 13 4 5 6 710 »
Jump to: