board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm

Locked   Page 3 of 10  [ 182 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 510 »
Author Message
halplm
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Mon 26 Jan , 2009 11:30 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Indeed, I have one offense on my record. It was several years ago, and involved harassement of another member on a trumped up charge that should have applied to many people. You yourself, Holby, have stated both sides were equally to blame, and you did it wrong by just callign a hearing against me.

_________________

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
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Mon 26 Jan , 2009 11:32 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Just to agree that I have no desire to rush the Rangers. I know everyone has real lives they need to live and I can imagine how time consuming this is.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile
vison
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Mon 26 Jan , 2009 11:34 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
I'm here, ready to serve. I would welcome private messages.

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile
Riverthalos
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Mon 26 Jan , 2009 11:35 pm
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
vison, you're on the sauronsfinger Hearing. Next thread over. :)

_________________

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


Top
Profile
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Mon 26 Jan , 2009 11:45 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
: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.)

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile
Ara-anna
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Mon 26 Jan , 2009 11:50 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Tosh,

I think at this point it will take time.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 12:19 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
Loremaster here. :)

First off, Hal, the names of the jurors have been presented. You are allowed to contest two jurors. If you are satisfied with the jury selction please let us know so we can proceed.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 12:22 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Already done :), the 7 there are the 6 jurors plus alternates.

_________________

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: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 12:31 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
Thanks.
I will be taking down my own notes of this hearing.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 2:21 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
Sorry Hal I wasn't able to comment on this:
Quote:
Hal asks:
Quote:
As it stands now, halplm has not engaged in any actions that would qualify him for a banning under the current Charter. Therefore, the Rangers are asking the jury to mete out a punishment that is stern enough to deter this behavior from happening again.


-Rebecca, Holbytla, and Riverthalos
Lurker, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe it is the place of the rangers to suggest or request any type of punishment from a hearing.
I have to agree with Hal here that the words "stern enough" is "leading" the jury to a particular punishment. Please re-write. Thank you.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Riverthalos
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 4:14 am
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
One of the charges laid against hal is that 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. This started with sauronsfinger in the Symposium but spread. sauronsfinger is also answereing to the same charge regarding his behavior in the Symposium. In hal's case, however, the lack of courtesy and disrespect spiraled into the Business Room, briefly flirted with the Turf, and got contained in the Bike Racks.

The trouble in the Symposium started on Jan. 19.
From the Palin thread:
This thread more or less went to sleep on Jan. 9. Then, on Jan. 19, halplm returned from his hiatus to engage sauronsfinger. We're not sure where he was or why he came back. Wejust saw him go and return.
Starting here. The first posts the two of them exchanged, though annoying and aggressive, weren't so problematic. There was baiting going in both directions and finally the bait was snatched:
halplm wrote:
sauronsfinger wrote:
Yup. Happy as a clam. Thats me. Everything I hoped for has happened.

Well, if you invent your own reality, I suppose that's true.
Quote:
Barack Obama defeated John McCain.
I believe it would be more accurate to state that John McCain ran a horrifyingly bad campaign, and was never supported by his own party... but that's probably just splitting hairs.
Quote:
Sarah Palin was exposed as an unqualfied, unintelligent cretin and sent packing back to the iceflow.
If Sarah Palin is unqualified to be Vice President, then Obama is grossly unqualified to be President. Any "exposure" you claim has happened, is outright lies and distortions, or simply people believing that Tina Fey's was repeating Sarah Palin word for word, which is nonsense.

Sara Palin is an "unintelligent cretin?" That's a pretty harsh assesment of someone that is far smarter than you anyway. But the left can't really stand conservative women and have to belittle them at every opportunity they can, otherwise their entire belief system falls apart. You also seem to have a pretty bigotted opinion of alaskans... and others that live in the north. I'm sure it's an enlightened view, though, and founded in strong scientific research about how... you know... cold is bad or something... Or is that warming is bad?
Quote:
The Democrats won big majorities in both houses of Congress.

Indeed, and they are in exactly the situation they were in back in 1992, except of course with far more liberal leadership in all places... so the party will be exposed for what it really is. congrats!
Quote:
Al Franken - probably the most hated by Republicans of all Senate candidates - won in a recount which will leave a bad taste in the mouth of Republicans for a long time.

It's good to know you would rather corrupt the political system of the country to see "your guy" win at all costs. "A bad taste?" Not likely the election that will do that, but having to listen to Al Franken... ever... in politics or not. That and it's good to see you feel comfortable being gleeful at people you hate feeling bad... very noble of you.
Quote:
Public opinion polls say that 79% of Americans want Obama to be successful.

Yes, how shocking Americans want the President of America to be successful

From this point on, the thread rapidly degenerated as both parties continued attacking each other. After a couple days, holby asked them to disengage: http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f= ... &start=100
A similar back and forth started in the Obama Day thread. Here is a sample I split off. Holby made the same request that they disengage in the Obama Day thread:http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f= ... a&start=80. The time stamp is Jan 21, 12:06 pm by the watch on my computer.
The request was ignored: http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f= ... &start=100.
They also fell to arguing in the Krispy Kreme thread in the Symposium. Here is what I split into the Bike Racks.
Jan. 21 they also staged another slugfest in the California thread, this time about unions:
http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f= ... &sk=t&sd=a
The rate and density of the posts was making it very difficult for anyone else to join these discussions.
Jan 23, hal opened the bipartisanship thread and the same routine immediately began. This is the day that both he and sauronsfinger were banned from the Sympoisum for two weeks for their disruptive behavior. This was the first instance of Emergency Powers used on hal and sf.

The second instance was hal's being locked in the Bike Racks. This occurred in light of disruptions in the Business Room:
http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f= ... &start=880
http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5965
http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5976

To get a gauge on how irritated membership was getting, a poll was posted requesting that hal be banned. We don't vote people off this island in the aether so it was shut down.

hal and sf both demanded a Hearing for their removal from the Symposium. Fair enough, we called to convene the Hearings on the 24th. In that thread, one can also guage the level of irritation within the membership towards sf and hal's posting behavior in the Symposium. However, in the thread demanding the Hearings, hal also made a threat to the board. He subsequently opened up a thread entitled Abuse of Power in the Turf. I sent that thread to the Bike Racks as soon as I saw it and, unwilling to do the experiment and see if hal would try that again, I locked him in the Bike Racks. This sentence is currently indefinite; I was hoping just to contain him until we could get the Hearing process moving and see if he'd cool off. Part of the task of you, the jurors, is to determine when he gets out. This is the second exrcise in Emergency powers to be reviewed in this Hearing.

In the Bike Racks, hal did not cool off. He opened up a number of threads to address issues he saw in the Symposium. They are there int he Bike Racks. I will link them if I must but the place is positively littered. This is not appropriate behavior for the Bike Racks so he had his ability to open new topics curtailed. So that's the third thing for the jury to look at. That happened on the 24th.

Finally, the charge that he has neglected his responsibility to refrain from using PM capability to harass other members of the board.
On the evening of the 23rd (my time), hal sent the following PM:
Quote:
The rangers have decided to restrict my posting rights without appropriate cause, and without a hearing. They have created a new set of rules they claim the power to do things, without convening a committee to change the actual rules themselves.

For those of you around at the begining of B77, you might recall this board was founded to specifically prevent this kind of abuse of power from happening.

It seems, though we have come a long way, it has been a complete circle, as this is where we began years ago.

I request that the rangers receive a hearing for this abuse of power, or they step down willingly, and that my posting rights be restored. If anyone has the desire to see b77 accomplish what it was started to do, please let the rangers know so.

If no one does, I guess that says a lot about message boards.
This went to the following people:
*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

I am not sure what the exact algorithm he used for picking these people was because some of them no longer post here. Sunsilver and Primula_Baggins expressed their distress in the Bike Racks. Others expressed their distress in the Business Room. The Watcher was very upset. Others aren't sure one PM counts as abuse. However, given the number of people affected and the reaction generated, I think it does. In any event, I deemed it unwise to allow such a thing to happen again so I revoked hal's ability to PM. And that's the fourth thing to be reviewed.

What the jury needs to find is if these actions were justified, and if they are, are they sufficient.
If you want more information, let me know.

Last edited by Riverthalos on Tue 27 Jan , 2009 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
edited to flip around a bracket

_________________

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


Top
Profile
laureanna
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 4:16 am
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
Finally off work and reporting for duty.

It is my understanding that I'm last on the list and therefore alternate, and as an alternate I am to remain silent, but keep myself up to speed on everything presented, in case one of the other jurors can no longer serve for whatever reason. Lurker, am I reading the Charter correctly on this one? I would like to participate in the investigation and the deliberation, but will keep quiet if that is the requirement. It would be ironic if, by volunteering to be on the jury, I ended up as the one person on the board who could neither join the jurors, nor contact the jurors with PMs as a "citizen". :P

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 4:47 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
Six jurors and one alternate hear each case. The alternate is there in case a regular juror must leave in the middle of the Hearing. Only six jurors will participate in the deliberation and make the decision.

You can keep yourself up to speed but unfortunately you will not be able to participate in the deliberation and decision making unless necessary.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 10:39 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
I present this refutation of River's case against me. I reserve the right to refute any other evidence against me as well. I welcome any questions about the events or my perspective of them from the jury.
Riverthalos wrote:
One of the charges laid against hal is that 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. This started with sauronsfinger in the Symposium but spread. sauronsfinger is also answereing to the same charge regarding his behavior in the Symposium. In hal's case, however, the lack of courtesy and disrespect spiraled into the Business Room, briefly flirted with the Turf, and got contained in the Bike Racks.
Again, I present the obvious truth that this charge is far too vague to attribute to any poster, as all posters have exceeded this threshold in the board's existence. I would further argue that I have been the target of disrespect and lack of courtesy more than any other poster on the board. As a last resort, I am willing to provide evidence of this, but it will take some time, as I have experienced a considerable amount of this in the years I have posted here.
Quote:
The trouble in the Symposium started on Jan. 19.
From the Palin thread:
This thread more or less went to sleep on Jan. 9. Then, on Jan. 19, halplm returned from his hiatus to engage sauronsfinger. We're not sure where he was or why he came back. Wejust saw him go and return.
Starting here.
My first objection comes to the claim that I returned from my hiatus to engage sauronsfinger. As can be seen clearly in this thread, my first response was to TED. Any claim that I was out to engage SF in some sort of vendetta, or attempt to hijack threads to do such is absurd in this respect, as the evidence clearly shows.
Quote:

The first posts the two of them exchanged, though annoying and aggressive, weren't so problematic. There was baiting going in both directions and finally the bait was snatched:
halplm wrote:
sauronsfinger wrote:
Yup. Happy as a clam. Thats me. Everything I hoped for has happened.

Well, if you invent your own reality, I suppose that's true.
Quote:
Barack Obama defeated John McCain.
I believe it would be more accurate to state that John McCain ran a horrifyingly bad campaign, and was never supported by his own party... but that's probably just splitting hairs.
Quote:
Sarah Palin was exposed as an unqualfied, unintelligent cretin and sent packing back to the iceflow.
If Sarah Palin is unqualified to be Vice President, then Obama is grossly unqualified to be President. Any "exposure" you claim has happened, is outright lies and distortions, or simply people believing that Tina Fey's was repeating Sarah Palin word for word, which is nonsense.

Sara Palin is an "unintelligent cretin?" That's a pretty harsh assesment of someone that is far smarter than you anyway. But the left can't really stand conservative women and have to belittle them at every opportunity they can, otherwise their entire belief system falls apart. You also seem to have a pretty bigotted opinion of alaskans... and others that live in the north. I'm sure it's an enlightened view, though, and founded in strong scientific research about how... you know... cold is bad or something... Or is that warming is bad?
Quote:
The Democrats won big majorities in both houses of Congress.

Indeed, and they are in exactly the situation they were in back in 1992, except of course with far more liberal leadership in all places... so the party will be exposed for what it really is. congrats!
Quote:
Al Franken - probably the most hated by Republicans of all Senate candidates - won in a recount which will leave a bad taste in the mouth of Republicans for a long time.

It's good to know you would rather corrupt the political system of the country to see "your guy" win at all costs. "A bad taste?" Not likely the election that will do that, but having to listen to Al Franken... ever... in politics or not. That and it's good to see you feel comfortable being gleeful at people you hate feeling bad... very noble of you.
Quote:
Public opinion polls say that 79% of Americans want Obama to be successful.

Yes, how shocking Americans want the President of America to be successful
If this is an example of some sort of "attack," then every single post I've ever made in the symposium has been "attacked."

While SF's post was intended to be gloating and condescending, I proceeded to approach each point he made as a serious idea. Granted, I was aware he had no intention of actually discussing anything, but I have every right to defend my point of view, even if he is simply being an ass.
Quote:
From this point on, the thread rapidly degenerated as both parties continued attacking each other. After a couple days, holby asked them to disengage: http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f= ... &start=100
Yes, if by "both parties" you mean myself, SF, Ara-anna, Tosh, Holby, and River. Sure, SF was constantly gloating and trying to shoot the thread off topic, but the absolute worst you could accuse me of in this instance was trying to keep the thread on topic. The rangers were no help of course, although given the past history, I did not request that the rangers try and keep the thread on topic. Such requests have generally resulted in myself being blamed for "boardwide disturbances."

Overall, though, this thread could hardly be called a great disturbance. Other posters than myself and SF were engaged in the thread, and though the rangers decided to lock it for no reason, much more contentous arguments have previously gone on for extended periods in the bikeracks. I submit that this thread is in no way an example of any wrongdoing on this board, unless you're willing to say the rangers locked it without reason.
Quote:
A similar back and forth started in the Obama Day thread. Here is a sample I split off.
Indeed, in the split off portion of the thread, there are comments from Feredir, myself, SF, Alatar, and CG. Not split off, but intertwined were relevant comments from Eruname, and Ara-anna. Hardly a one on one affair. One could also notice that all of my responses were to highly inflamatory and/or insulting comments from others.

There is no rule whatsoever to prevent someone from defending their point of view.
Quote:
Holby made the same request that they disengage in the Obama Day thread:http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f= ... a&start=80. The time stamp is Jan 21, 12:06 pm by the watch on my computer.
Indeed, and from the start of your split, to Holby's angry post ( pointed at SF specificly, I might add), the following people were involved in the thread: Myself, SF, CG, vison, Alatar, Ara-anna, LalaithUrwen, Tosh, Feredir, Eruname, Riverthalos, jewelsong, Estel, Holbytla, TED, Dave_LF, *E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R*, Marco/Jude, and Crucifer. If that's evidence of myself monopolizing a thread, we can go home.
Quote:
I'm not at all sure what you are referring to in this case. The discussion continued. In the remaining FOUR pages of that thread, I responded to SF twice. I certainly could have responded more, but it seems the thread went on quite remarkably without my "board disruptions."
Quote:

They also fell to arguing in the Krispy Kreme thread in the Symposium. Here is what I split into the Bike Racks.
Ah yes, this was when Rebecca started accusing me of spamming threads with hate for some reason. There was no reason for this thread to be split, except of course, for the people going on about how they wanted to ignore me. A violation on their part, no, but pretty darn rude.
Quote:
Jan. 21 they also staged another slugfest in the California thread, this time about unions:
http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f= ... &sk=t&sd=a
The rate and density of the posts was making it very difficult for anyone else to join these discussions.
Hmm... yes, 11 posts between the two of us over a 3 hour period. How could anyone have ever posted their own opinion in that time frame. I mean, it must have been horrendous trying to get a word in edgewise... with you know... 20 minutes to think about.

I apologize for the sarcasm, but this accusation always angers me, as it's nonsense.
Quote:
Jan 23, hal opened the bipartisanship thread and the same routine immediately began. This is the day that both he and sauronsfinger were banned from the Sympoisum for two weeks for their disruptive behavior. This was the first instance of Emergency Powers used on hal and sf.
Yes, this was a thread that I started, meaning to discuss current events with Obama. SF never once engaged in the topic of the thread, although several others did. Is it now against the rules to start a thread, or to try to keep your own thread on topic?

I submit that in the past I have asked the rangers to remove off-topic posts from threads I have started, and in almost all cases, the request has been disapproved, dispite this being a "routine" power of the rangers.

And a correction on River's statement. The powers the rangers used were not the "Emergency Powers," they were the "extraordinary powers," as I explained previously in this thread. The "emergency powers" do not give the rangers the power to do what they did. Only the "extraordinary powers" do, although as I have contended, there was no such need.
Quote:
The second instance was hal's being locked in the Bike Racks. This occurred in light of disruptions in the Business Room:
http://www.board77.org/viewtopic.php?f= ... &start=880
Is it the contention of the rangers that demanding the hearing which they should have called for before any suspension of posting rights, is a "disruption" of the business room? What other purpose of the business room and the contacting a ranger thread is there? They're doing something completely outside of the powers the charter gives them, and when I ask for a hearing before they do so, that's "disruption?" Sigh...
Quote:
If defending myself from attacks from the rangers and members not involved when no hearing has been called is "disruption," then I am guilty. Convict me on it if you wish. I cannot possibly see how I'm supposed to just accept false characterizations of myself and my motivations, though.
Quote:
To get a gauge on how irritated membership was getting, a poll was posted requesting that hal be banned. We don't vote people off this island in the aether so it was shut down.
Yes, this has been done before, and despite it's nature as a personal attack, no action has ever been taken about it, and it is constantly referred to by those that dislike me personally.
Quote:

hal and sf both demanded a Hearing for their removal from the Symposium. Fair enough, we called to convene the Hearings on the 24th. In that thread, one can also guage the level of irritation within the membership towards sf and hal's posting behavior in the Symposium.
This is compltely irrelevant, and another example of the ranger's pejorative position against me.
Quote:

However, in the thread demanding the Hearings, hal also made a threat to the board.
Under no circumstances can this be considered a threat. A threat requires the power to back it up. I have no such power. I was simply refusing to accept the Ranger's abuse of power in trying to silence me. I still refuse to do so.
Quote:
He subsequently opened up a thread entitled Abuse of Power in the Turf. I sent that thread to the Bike Racks as soon as I saw it and, unwilling to do the experiment and see if hal would try that again, I locked him in the Bike Racks. This sentence is currently indefinite; I was hoping just to contain him until we could get the Hearing process moving and see if he'd cool off. Part of the task of you, the jurors, is to determine when he gets out. This is the second exrcise in Emergency powers to be reviewed in this Hearing.
To this point, the rangers had given NO indication they would call a hearing. In fact, in the past, I had been specifically told by these rangers that Hearings were not possible for any reason (see the extensive personal attacks of SF against me a couple of months ago). There is no way I could possibly know they would grant my request for a hearing. In the past, I have been chastised repeatedly for starting threads in the business room, and I make no apologies for starting it in the turf so that people would see it.

Once again, I must point out, the locking of me in the bikeracks was not an excercise of "emergency" powers, but of "extraordinary powers" which were in no way justified. In fact, nothing even in "emergency" powers remotely gives rangers the right to do this for this reason.
Quote:
In the Bike Racks, hal did not cool off. He opened up a number of threads to address issues he saw in the Symposium. They are there int he Bike Racks. I will link them if I must but the place is positively littered. This is not appropriate behavior for the Bike Racks so he had his ability to open new topics curtailed. So that's the third thing for the jury to look at. That happened on the 24th.
There is no rule against someone confined to the bikeracks starting anything they want to. This is a new "rule" invented by the current rangers. There is no such thing as "appropriate behavior" for the bikeracks, other than any other appropriate behavior for the board. If such evidence of my inappropriate behavior is to be presented, I will discuss that in turn.
Quote:

Finally, the charge that he has neglected his responsibility to refrain from using PM capability to harass other members of the board.
On the evening of the 23rd (my time), hal sent the following PM:
Quote:
The rangers have decided to restrict my posting rights without appropriate cause, and without a hearing. They have created a new set of rules they claim the power to do things, without convening a committee to change the actual rules themselves.

For those of you around at the begining of B77, you might recall this board was founded to specifically prevent this kind of abuse of power from happening.

It seems, though we have come a long way, it has been a complete circle, as this is where we began years ago.

I request that the rangers receive a hearing for this abuse of power, or they step down willingly, and that my posting rights be restored. If anyone has the desire to see b77 accomplish what it was started to do, please let the rangers know so.

If no one does, I guess that says a lot about message boards.
This went to the following people:
*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

I am not sure what the exact algorithm he used for picking these people was because some of them no longer post here. Sunsilver and Primula_Baggins expressed their distress in the Bike Racks. Others expressed their distress in the Business Room. The Watcher was very upset. Others aren't sure one PM counts as abuse. However, given the number of people affected and the reaction generated, I think it does. In any event, I deemed it unwise to allow such a thing to happen again so I revoked hal's ability to PM. And that's the fourth thing to be reviewed.
There is no earthly way one PM could be considered spam or harassment. Indeed, i purposefully limited the number of people I sent it to, to avoid spamming people that haven't posted here as much. I did not limit it to people I don't see, as I don't know who lurks, and I don't know who cares. I know there are some that never post, and never lurk, but still in fact care about the board. Given that IMHO, the charter was being ignored completely, I felt it perfectly acceptable to let these people know what was going on.

I found my answer of course, as well.

If people feel so horrible for receiving a single PM, they are welcome to use the board tools to prevent such PMs from being sent to them. I have used such tools myself. I meant no harm, I caused no harm, and no rules can possibly be considered to be broken for sending a single PM.
Quote:

What the jury needs to find is if these actions were justified, and if they are, are they sufficient.
If you want more information, let me know.
Personally, I would ask this jury to find the actions completely unjustified and abusive towards me, but I do not expect as much, as that is not the purpose of the jury, nor would anything be accomplished by such a finding.

All I ask is that the jury not judge me for personal feelings they might have towards me, and only judge me against the rules we have in place for this board, those being laid out in the Charter, while having them applied to me in exactly the same way they are applied to everyone else...

I will happily answer any questions the jury has for me.

_________________

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: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 12:27 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
Lurker wrote:
I have to agree with Hal here that the words "stern enough" is "leading" the jury to a particular punishment. Please re-write. Thank you.
I edited the first post.
Rebecca wrote:
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.

I thought that was the post where we were making our case (sort of, I know there weren't examples) and saying our reasonings. So what if I'm "leading" the jury, since I'm not in any way in charge.... we were presenting our case, our reasonings, and our opinions. But whatever.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 1:33 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
So, the specific charges were as follows:

Please note, I have included specific questions for the Rangers, for Hal below and for the board in general below. Questions for the board in general may be answered in a PM to one or all of the jurors.


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.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________




A number of questions for the Rangers:

You may answer these questions individually or as a group.

These questions are for the Rangers only. If you are not a Ranger, please do not comment on them, or on the Rangers answers.

If anyone who is not a Ranger comments on their questions or answers, I will ask the Rangers to remove that response in order to keep the information clear.

Hal, there is a set of questions for you as well. Please do not comment or respond on the Rangers questions or answers. You will have a chance to refute or defend against them at a later time.

These questions are for information gathering purposes only.


Please note, some of these questions will be exactly the same, and have the same answers, but because they are for different violations, I would appreciate if the Rangers would answer them seperately in the order the questions are asked.

Also, some of the same links I will ask to be posted by both the Rangers and Hal. Even if the other has already posted the link, I would appreciate it if both parties could do so in order to verify that they are identical, and resolve the issue if they are not. These links have specifically to do with the questions regarding the Bikeracks.



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?




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?



3. In Relation to Article 2, Members Rights and Responsibilites

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?



4. In Relation to Article 5,]¶1: The Bike Racks Forum

First, a violation may have occured 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, seperating them into those originated by Hal, and those originated by the Rangers through the splitting process.

Second, A violation of use may have occured 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, seperating them into those originated by Hal, and those originated by the Rangers through the splitting process.


Third, a violation of use may have occured 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, seperating them into those originated by Hal, and those originated by the Rangers through the splitting process.


Forth, how many violations of this sort occured 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?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



A number of questions for HAL:

These questions are for Hal only. If you are not Hal, please do not comment on them, or on Hal's answers.

If anyone who is not Hal comments on his questions or answers, I will ask the Rangers to remove that response in order to keep the information clear.


Rangers, The set of questions for you is above. Please do not comment or respond on Hal's questions or answers.

These questions are for information gathering purposes only.


Please note, some of these questions will be exactly the same, and have the same answers, but because they are for different violations, I would appreciate if Hal would answer them seperately in the order the questions are asked.

Also, some of the same links I will ask to be posted by both the Rangers and Hal. Even if the other has already posted the link, I would appreciate it if both parties could do so in order to verify that they are identical, and resolve the issue if they are not. These links have specifically to do with the questions regarding the Bikeracks.


1. In relation to Article 9 - Persistent posting of objectionable content.

First, How many board members PMed or emailed you to object about your posts, how many multiple complaints there were, and how many board posted complaints there were?

Second, How many warnings, both in PM, email and out in the threads, did you receive before your Symposium permissions were revoked?

Third, once your permissions for the Symposium were revoked how many warnings, both in PM, email and out in the threads, did you recieve before you were limited to the Bikeracks?

Forth, as this is a member moderated board, how many and what warnings/complaints/comments did you receive through PM, Email or on the board itself other than from the poster you were in dispute with and other than Rangers?




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 or emailed you to object about the ongoing dispute between you and SF, how many multiple complaints there were, and how many board posted complaints there were?




3. In Relation to Article 2, Members Rights and Responsibilites

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 to you about receiving the PM?

Second, Was a warning given to you, either on the board, by email or through PM before the PM privileges were revoked?

Third, what is the exact number of members who you PMed




4. In Relation to Article 5,]¶1: The Bike Racks Forum

First, a violation may have occured when threads were started in response to threads outside the Bikeracks Forum. How many of these threads did you start?
Were any of these threads started because of splitting action taken by the Rangers? If so, please link to those you did start, and those that were started by splitting, separating them into two categories listed as such.



Second, A violation of use may have occured when multiple threads dealing with the same issue were started.
How many of these threads did you start?
Were any of these threads started because of splitting action taken by the Rangers? If so, please link to those you did start, and those that were started by splitting, separating them into two categories listed as such.



Third, a violation of use may have occured when multiple threads were started that did not involve resolution of disputes.
How many of these threads did you start?
Were any of these threads started because of splitting action taken by the Rangers? If so, please link to those you did start, and those that were started by splitting, separating them into two categories listed as such.



Forth, Did you recieve a warning, either on the board, by email or through PM before posting privileges were revoked?


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A number of questions for the Board Membership as a whole:


These questions are for the board Membership only. Board members may respond via PM to the jurors. These will all be Yes or No questions.

Rangers and Hal, The set of questions for you is above. Please do not comment these questions.

These questions are for information gathering purposes only.


1. In relation to Article 9 - Persistent posting of objectionable content.

First, Did you feel that this violation occured?

Second, Would you be willing to be called as a witness to your answer, whether it be yes or no, in the Hearing thread?

Third, If you did post a warning or complaint on the board in regard to this, and you are willing to be called as a witness, can you come prepared with links to your posts?

Forth, Did you PM or email the Rangers with a complaint, and if so, would you be willing for the fact that you did so to become public?



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, Did you feel that this violation occured?

Second, Would you be willing to be called as a witness to your answer, whether it be yes or no, in the Hearing thread?

Third, If you did post a warning or complaint on the board in regard to this, and you are willing to be called as a witness, can you come prepared with links to your posts?

Forth, Did you PM or email the Rangers with a complaint, and if so, would you be willing for the fact that you did so to become public?



3. In Relation to Article 2, Members Rights and Responsibilites

Violation to refrain from using PM capability to harass other members of the board

First, Did you feel that this violation occured?

Second, Would you be willing to be called as a witness to your answer, whether it be yes or no, in the Hearing thread?

Third, If you did post a warning or complaint on the board in regard to this, and you are willing to be called as a witness, can you come prepared with links to your posts?

Forth, Did you PM or email the Rangers with a complaint, and if so, would you be willing for the fact that you did so to become public?




4. In Relation to Article 5,]¶1: The Bike Racks Forum

First, a violation may have occured when threads were started in response to threads outside the Bikeracks Forum.
    • First, Did you feel that this violation occured?

      Second, Would you be willing to be called as a witness to your answer, whether it be yes or no, in the Hearing thread?

      Third, If you did post a warning or complaint on the board in regard to this, and you are willing to be called as a witness, can you come prepared with links to your posts?

      Forth, Did you PM or email the Rangers with a complaint, and if so, would you be willing for the fact that you did so to become public?


Second, A violation of use may have occured when multiple threads dealing with the same issue were started.
    • First, Did you feel that this violation occured?

      Second, Would you be willing to be called as a witness to your answer, whether it be yes or no, in the Hearing thread?

      Third, If you did post a warning or complaint on the board in regard to this, and you are willing to be called as a witness, can you come prepared with links to your posts?

      Forth, Did you PM or email the Rangers with a complaint, and if so, would you be willing for the fact that you did so to become public?

Third, a violation of use may have occured when multiple threads were started that did not involve resolution of disputes.
    • First, Did you feel that this violation occured?

      Second, Would you be willing to be called as a witness to your answer, whether it be yes or no, in the Hearing thread?

      Third, If you did post a warning or complaint on the board in regard to this, and you are willing to be called as a witness, can you come prepared with links to your posts?

      Forth, Did you PM or email the Rangers with a complaint, and if so, would you be willing for the fact that you did so to become public?




PLEASE NOTE:

Any answers given by people who are not willing to be witnesses will not be taken into account.

If you know for sure that you are not willing to be a witness, either for Hal or against him, then please do not bother answering these questions.


Top
Profile
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 1:54 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
I would like to point out that of "The Rangers," only River, Holby, and I ever participated in any way over this issue. The other 3 didn't make any posts in public forums over any of these issues, IIRC.


I also have a question, before I look for posts to answer Estel. Are we only looking at posts and information from a certain time period? I only ask because I think there have been complaints made regarding hal's behavior in the past (and I don't mean over the entire history of the board, but within the past few months), so I wanted to know what time frame we're limiting ourselves to.


Thanks for writing this up, Estel, it does seem like it will make it easier to keep things clear and easy to understand. I will work on my responses soon.


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 2:30 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Only the information on violations from the time period of 10 days before the hearing thread was started would be considered valid in this case.

However, in the charter, Article 5, part 9, there are references to "first offense" multiple times, and what to do if it is not a "first offense" as well as references to "persistent posting." Defining "First offense" and "persistent posting" is just about the only instance where the Charter is vague :suspicious:

Some would be at one end of the spectrum and consider a first offense anything that would require a Ranger to take some sort of action / post some sort of warning. Others would go to the opposite end of the spectrum and consider a first offense to be being involved in a hearing. I take the middle ground and would consider a first offense one where Rangers were forced to take action beyond giving a warning, editing a post or splitting a thread.

Because of this, I would say that instances where the Rangers used extraordinary emergency powers against the poster could be taken into account as a first offense - not the reasons why the powers were used, or the events surrounding it, just the number of instances when it occured. That I would leave up to the consensus of the jury, however. It is not a decision that one person can make.


Top
Profile
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 2:40 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
I'm not quite sure I understand quite all of this, but maybe River and Holby do and can help me with this.

At the moment, I'm just going to compile what I think was wrong and my reasonings for what we did without all the legal mumbo jumbo. I've just waded through too much of it to continue doing so. Sorry.



edit:
Is it ok with the jury if River, Holby, and I compile our answers and just make one post? It seems like it would be easier for you guys to read and definitely easier for us.


Top
Profile
Ara-anna
Post subject: Re: Hearing on disruption of the Symposium Forum against halplm
Posted: Tue 27 Jan , 2009 3:46 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Can the rest of the board see the questions that Estel posted for them? I am just curious, because I can't remember if this thread is closed to the rest of the board.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 3 of 10  [ 182 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 510 »
Jump to: