board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Sun 27 May , 2018 3:34 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb , 2009 2:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Fall River, MA
hal, you aren't supposed to be posting here. Only answering direct questions. Of course we aren't running this, but we're charged with splitting off irrelevant posts, since we're the only ones who can do that. :shrug:

None of the 3 of us should be posting here, so these posts should be split off.


edit: rather than get pulled into another fight, if any of the jury members or Lurker would suggest what we should/shouldn't split off, we can do that when we're asked.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb , 2009 2:16 pm 
b77 whipping boy
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
Posts: 9079
I AM supposed to be posting here, to present my defense.

YOU and Holby and River should not be posting here other than to answer direct questions.

Threatening to remove my posts that are in reference to my defense is HIGHLY irregular, and can ONLY be seen as an attempt to silence me any my point of view to influence the jury against me.

Get out of this thread!

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb , 2009 5:58 pm 
The man, the myth, the monkey
User avatar

Joined: Tue 01 Mar , 2005 10:16 pm
Posts: 1133
Location: Back in Nashville
EVERYBODY STFU FOR ABOUT 5 MINUTES!!

Thanks.
I'll be back in shortly.
Hold tight til then.

And sorry to have to shout.

_________________
"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion."
-Molly Ivins

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb , 2009 6:42 pm 
The man, the myth, the monkey
User avatar

Joined: Tue 01 Mar , 2005 10:16 pm
Posts: 1133
Location: Back in Nashville
From the initial post:

Quote:
There was no one action of halplm's that warranted any suspension of posting rights. It was the totality of the issue that forced the Rangers to act. Given the numerous PM's and complaints within threads in regards to halplm, the Rangers felt a serious action was required.



Initially, the Rangers felt a 2-week suspension of posting rights in the Symposium was warranted, but given his further disruptions to the board and his extensive history with board disruptions, the Rangers feel further action is needed.

As it stands now, halplm has not engaged in any actions that would qualify him for a banning under the current Charter. Our actions were taken in what we believed would best prevent him from disrupting Board77 and it's membership.



Added later:

Quote:
Added by Riverthalos from the Notice to Convene a Hearing posted in the Bike Racks:

This is a Notice to convene a Hearing against halplm on the following charges:
He has neglected his responsibility to refrain from using PM capability to harass other members of the board.
He has infringed on everyone's right to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status, and the responsibility to treat others likewise.



River,
Why and when exactly was this added?

-----------------------------------------------

Speaking only for myself and not for the jury as a whole:

Estel's reference to specific by-laws were not "charges per se. She simply pointed out which specific parts of the charter she felt were relevant. That's her right as a juror. No, it's her responsibility as a juror to apply the charter to these proceedings. The Rangers asked the jury to determine whether hal had violated the charter, we found by-laws that we feel may have been violated and proceeded accordingly.

If the Loremaster or a majority of the jury disagree, and feel that Estel acted improperly, then we could consider replacing her with our alternate. That's why we have alternates. I see absolutely no need to do that, but it's an option. One thing I don't see as an option is to dismiss the entire case for what is, at worst, a procedural mistake. We're not professional lawyers here, just volunteers.

-----------------------------------------------------

hal,

I've looked through the charter with the Rangers' initial post in mind. I've read through your posts that were cited as evidence with both of the above in mind. I agree with Estel that the by-laws that may apply here are the ones she cited. That's what I, as a juror, will be considering. You should therefore, as your defense, explain why your behavior was not in violation of those by-laws. If the other jurors feel differently than I about this matter, they should say so.

-----------------------------------------------------

To all:

Sorry for the outburst, but this thread was headed into another death spiral and I felt that, as a juror, I should try to stop it. Both the Rangers and hal will, at times, have valid reasons for posting in this thread, but only in discussion with the jury or Loremaster. Therfore, I ask that in the future, the Rangers and hal refrain from addressing each other and direct their posts toward "the court".

_________________
"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion."
-Molly Ivins

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb , 2009 6:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Fall River, MA
Ok, makes sense, Ang. But if you notice we did stfu four hours ago. ;) :blackeye:

I can split off my posts if any of you want me to do so.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb , 2009 6:57 pm 
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Posts: 5205
Location: at a safe distance
Ang, I added that within hours of this thread being opened. There were some questions as to the charges and those were the charges we were working with at the beginning. Estel and the rest of the jury revised those charges in light of what we presented through that day.

_________________
"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb , 2009 7:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
Ok, listen to the gun crazed monkey. Dang it! I can't stop looking at that avatar....seriously. :D

Kidding aside, I don't think Estel acted improperly. She was within her rights as a juror.
I think I've discussed this situation to both parties by PM, I thought both sides are happy now. :)
Please if you don't have anything to contribute to this discussion refrain from posting in this thread. You have written what you guys have to say so just stay put and let the jury decide.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb , 2009 7:37 pm 
The man, the myth, the monkey
User avatar

Joined: Tue 01 Mar , 2005 10:16 pm
Posts: 1133
Location: Back in Nashville
Lurker,
I'm under the impression that hal is not done defending himself. If not, we need to let him finish. And I'm likely to have follow up questions for him. I recognize the need for timeliness here, but I also want to be thorough.

_________________
"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion."
-Molly Ivins

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb , 2009 8:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
Ang,
I would have to agree with you on that.

Hal,
If you want to defend yourself, then do so NOW, so Ang can ask his questions. We are running out of time.
Again, I know you are frustrated but this not the thread to post it, use the bike racks if you have to. Since you cited a real courtroom in your post, your actions is not helping your case, if you know what I mean. Never ever volunteer irrelevant information that can be used againts you. Keep that in mind.

Rangers,
Again, please refrain from posting in this thread until told to do so as not to agitate the defendant.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb , 2009 8:06 pm 
b77 whipping boy
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
Posts: 9079
Thank you, Ang, Lurker. I will post my defense specific to the by-laws Estel listed as soon as I am able, which will be late today or tomorrow.

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb , 2009 5:12 pm 
b77 whipping boy
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
Posts: 9079
My final defense against the specific charges against me.

Estel wrote:
So, the specific charges were as follows:

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......



The key word here is "content." There is no doubt that many or most people on b77 think that I have behaved objectionably, or that my style of posting is objectionable. But to claim that the "content" of my posts has ever been objectionable is to redefine the intent of having a board lacking "objectionable content." It would be catagorizing some ideas, some points of view, and the ability to rigorously defend said ideas as "objectionable."

If my ideas and point of view are "objectionable," then I am guilty, and I make no apologies for it.

If not, then this offense does not apply to me.

(note, I'm going to answer Estel's 2nd charge last, as I feel it is the crux of the matter.)


Quote:
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.



I think I've already made the case against this one pretty well, but to reiterate: One PM, polite, the only intent of which was to inform, sent to a limited group, can in no way be considered harassment either in its nature, or in its volume.

Quote:
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.



This charge is a bit confusing to me. I assume that the charge is that I have violated a rule by doing something other than these three specific uses. I do not see anywhere that the Bike Racks is restricted specifically to these and only these uses. In fact, if that were the case, then a ranger restricting someone's posting rights to this one forum for the purposes of punishing them, would be a violation as well, as that is not listed as one of its uses.

But we'll concede for the moment that a ranger restricting someone to the bikeracks to prevent "boardwide disruption" is a viable tactic if done fairly. This in effect limits the exposure of said troublemaker to the rest of the board (if we're pretending for the moment that b77 members aren't drawn to drama and conflict like moths to a flame). However, if said poster is going to be punished for then proceeding to post in the bikeracks forum after being restricted there, then in essense we are saying the rangers can at will silence someone completely and allow them no voice of their opinion any longer.

If this is supposed to be the case, why bother restricting them at all? Why not just remove their posting rights completely? The only conclusion is that the restriction is supposed to allow them to continue posting, only in a location people can choose to ignore if they like.

That is all I did. I did start multiple threads, but this was for the purpose of allowing people I was still discussing issues with to know where I was posting my responses. Furthermore, I did not see why the discussions I was involved with should die due to what I considered an unfair and unjust restriction. A simple look at all the threads in the symp that I was trying to respond to... and you can see they're all dead now, and will likely never get back on track. That begs the question, which is worse, heated and thriving debate... or no debate?

There is no rule in our charter that I have broken with respect to the bikeracks, and I don't think this by-law should apply to me in any way in this hearing.

Quote:
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.



The more I have thought about this supposed violation, the more I am floored by the irony. I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

The accusation appears to be, that I have engaged in a personal dispute that has disrupted forums other than the bikeracks. I am assuming this is specifically the back and forth that SF and I frequently get into. The insanity is, nine times out of ten, the back and forth is a result of ME tryign to get SF to stop making personal arguments, and get back on topic discussion the ideas I have presented.

I have literally begged the membership and the rangers to do something about this. I have started LONG threads discussing this very issue, and more specifically the use "ad hominem attacks." The only result has been the board utterly rejecting any restriction on their use. And now I am being accused of making things personal?

I have started threads repeatedly (as the others were locked, usually for no good reason) to discuss this very problem on this board, as it is rampant and not limited to just SF or myself. Many posters react to others (and me more specifically) on a personal level, rather than engage in the ideas or arguments that have been put forth. This is by definition, making things personal, and could easily be seen as turning many many heated debates into personal disputes.

And I have been trying to get people to see this for a very long time.

I have tried to make the case that this is SF's specialty and a tactic he successfully employs to draw people away from the topic or ideas I have presented, and get everyone arguing over semantics. I make no apologies for objecting strongly to this, or for pointing it out when it is done.

As this "right" is presented in the charter, it is something that should have been enforced in some way (an effort I have also tried to see done), so that I woudl get this "right" as well, without being jumped on personally, every time I get into a debate.

Instead, incredibly, I'm being accused of violating it enough to be punished.

I won't insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that I have never made a post that got personal. Indeed, I've probably gotten personal just as much as anyone else on the board. But that's just it, I don't believe it has ever been excessive on my part, because I generally only react when things get heated. I'm not sure how long it would take to gather evidence of this, but we can go back to earlier in this thread when TOSH made that same observation. If I'm reacting, and I break past the "personal" barrier, then it is likely in response to someone else doing it to me.

That doesn't excuse it by any means, but it is important to remember another fact. In the past, I have taken these issues to the rangers, and to the business room. I have been repeatedly told by several sets of rangers, and many members in the discussion threads, that things were NOT taken too far by the people I was complaining about, and posts would NOT be edited or split off. Furthermore, I would then often get in trouble for bringing these issues to the rangers and the business room and making a big deal about it, and for "instigating" trouble. How then, can you blame me for learning to simply skip that step, take it to heart that these tactics were acceptable, and simply give as good as I got?

So, I'm thrilled the outcry is to eliminate this making of things personal outside the bikeracks, I just think a whole lot more people might need hearings on the matter.

The simple fact of the matter, with regards to this hearing... is that I do not HAVE a personal dispute with SF. There may be a couple of people on the board I have personal issues with, but I can usually avoid them. I do not know SF personally, I only know him for his ideas and ideology. This is why it is impossible to resolve our differences in the bikeracks (which I have also tried). My issues with him are not personal (I was going to say "our," but I can't speak for him).

All I have ever wanted to be able to do in the symp, is present my opinions and ideas, and have them treated with respect, and agree or disagree, argue them on their own merits... don't make it about me personally.

On the other hand, if arguing with people to stop making things personal, and to stay on topic... IS a personal dispute... well then more people should have listened to my complaining about it.





I'm pretty sure that's all I want to say in reference to the specific charges. If jurors have questions for me, I will be happy to answer them. I wanted to thank all the jurors for taking the time to hear me out, and to thank Lurker for keeping things on track.

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb , 2009 5:39 pm 
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar

Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 6910
Location: Silly Suffolk
Thanks hal.

Quote:
I'm not sure how long it would take to gather evidence of this, but we can go back to earlier in this thread when TOSH made that same observation.

Could you give a link or quote? Thanks.

_________________
Image
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb , 2009 5:49 pm 
b77 whipping boy
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
Posts: 9079
From page 3 I believe, bolding mine:

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
:D to vison.

I went through hal's posts from Jan 19 to Jan 26 very fleetingly - in other words I didn't open each post to read it in its entirety - and counted 209 posts that were about his arguments with the board or with its members. There were a handful of others that related to the subject of the thread. To be fair to him he was usually responding to what someone else had posted to him, and those posts were usually critical of him. It brings up the chicken and the egg factor. Others were about his confinement but I thought it fair to include them in the 209.

I copied down parts of his posts which stuck out by their aggressiveness but again to fair to him it could be called cherry picking as they are not in context but at least give a flavour of his style of posting. I can bring these forward in the Jury Room but it is not my role to be a prosecuting figure. I am ready to listen to hal's point of view too. It's just that we need something to get our teeth into at some point.

(I copied this to a Ranger to circulate to keep them informed but by then realised they were preparing to submit something so it would be better for me to wait on that.)

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb , 2009 6:48 pm 
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar

Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 6910
Location: Silly Suffolk
Thanks. That makes it easier to refer to.

_________________
Image
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb , 2009 8:19 pm 
The man, the myth, the monkey
User avatar

Joined: Tue 01 Mar , 2005 10:16 pm
Posts: 1133
Location: Back in Nashville
*edited at Loremaster's request*

_________________
"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion."
-Molly Ivins

Image


Last edited by Angbasdil on Tue 03 Feb , 2009 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb , 2009 11:39 pm 
The man, the myth, the monkey
User avatar

Joined: Tue 01 Mar , 2005 10:16 pm
Posts: 1133
Location: Back in Nashville
hal,

*redacted at Loremaster's request*

Quote:
The key word here is "content." There is no doubt that many or most people on b77 think that I have behaved objectionably, or that my style of posting is objectionable. But to claim that the "content" of my posts has ever been objectionable is to redefine the intent of having a board lacking "objectionable content." It would be catagorizing some ideas, some points of view, and the ability to rigorously defend said ideas as "objectionable."


Is it your contention that the word "content" applies only to the opinions and ideas one expresses and not to the manner in which those ideas are expressed?
If so, wouldn't that mean that we are not held responsible for the manner in which we post our ideas on this board?

_________________
"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion."
-Molly Ivins

Image


Last edited by Angbasdil on Tue 03 Feb , 2009 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb , 2009 3:10 am 
b77 whipping boy
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
Posts: 9079
I typed up a couple of responses to your first post, but ultimately did not know what to say, as I'm not entirely sure what's relevant. The bikeracks has been redefined and reinterpreted several times since the charter was updated with regards to it. To hold people responsible to an undefined interpretation of what is or is not allowed in the bikeracks is unfair, and it is impossible to expect people to all agree on that interpretation. The bikeracks has been used as a "strictly for disputes" area, an area for any off topic discussions split off, an area of knock down octagon of doom matches, and an area for holding troublemakers...

Given whichever interpretation you take, different sets of ideas of what is or is not allowed is presented in the charter, and in some cases, are completely undefined. In this instance, the "hold a troublemaker" interpretation was the only one that applied, and it is the least defined use of the bikeracks of them all. To say that an ill-defined interpretation can be governed exclusively by rules written specifically for other very different interpretations is problematic.

In case of a lack of specifics, it seems like the only rules that can apply would be general guide rules. I mean, if a member is locked in the bikeracks for something they feel is inappropriate, and they go to the charter and search for an hour on what position they are currently in, and they can find nothing at all that governs that situation... what are they supposed to do?

Angbasdil wrote:
Is it your contention that the word "content" applies only to the opinions and ideas one expresses and not to the manner in which those ideas are expressed?
If so, wouldn't that mean that we are not held responsible for the manner in which we post our ideas on this board?


Not at all. It is just that this specific by-law is not what holds us responsible for the manner of posting. For instance, there are other by-laws discussing personal attacks, which I would argue is a manner of posting, rather than objectionable content. You can be insulting, condescending, and hurtful to one poster, without posting any content another would find objectionable. Trust me, I've experienced that one.

This also goes back to Tosh's chicken and the egg comment. I've "objected" to MANY elements of several poster's styles and their "manner of posting" over the years... and in virtually every case, my objections have fallen on deaf ears, and this by-law was never mentioned. To redefine it now, to apply only to ME, for using the same manners of posting that have been deemed acceptable to use against me... well, I just don't know what to say to that.

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb , 2009 3:47 am 
The man, the myth, the monkey
User avatar

Joined: Tue 01 Mar , 2005 10:16 pm
Posts: 1133
Location: Back in Nashville
Thanks, hal.

Okay, I'm ready to deliberate.

_________________
"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion."
-Molly Ivins

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb , 2009 7:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
May I remind members of the jury to present their opinions in the deliberation room only. This thread is just for questions and clarifications. Thanks.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb , 2009 11:56 pm 
b77 whipping boy
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
Posts: 9079
I have a question I need to ask Lurker in private but have no way to do so.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group