board77

hal -

Who is "we" ? Yes, hypothetically it might be resolved in 'your mind' or 'Joe Blow's mind,' but there are several other posters here who do not feel that comfort level, and they have every right to express their own concerns in terms of this board standing up to what it says it will do under these situations.

I no longer will argue this point with you, I am mandated by the trust this board put into me to stand up for the charter as long as I am supposed to be a ranger, no matter how I might agree or disagree with anyone here.

Now, I need to go take a long awaited shower, and I will provide my own comfy robe and fluffy towels, and I am even breaking open a new bottle of secret stash body wash, because I am worth it, and I need it.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on this, and I am not here claiming to spout facts. This is how I feel and this is how I feel it should be handled for a number of reasons.

I suppose you could rationalize never taking any action and just let things die out and move on. Until the next time it happened.
That philosophy makes no sense to me because there are no deterrents and no restraint on unwarranted behavior.

Regardless of this person's intent, to react according to that is putting the cart before the bath water gets thrown out with the monkey. The only reason it needs doing is because it is just under the laws of decency and the structure of this board. What other validation is necessary?

I believe that doing nothing condones his actions to a degree and I can't see myself doing that.

If doing nothing is the way to go then it makes no sense to have any system of justice whatsoever.

Hal says that things have been taken care of as the charter states, and actually that's only half of the truth. democracy left of his own accord, so he kind of banned himself, but at least two members have requested a hearing and as per the charter if (I believe) one or two members request a hearing, then the rangers must decide whether the situation warrants one and then proceed with whatever decision is made. Even I stated that I thought a hearing situation has arisen, so you could say that three members requested one (sort of). Things are being done as the charter says.

Some people might think that this is all pointless since the guy is gone and it isn't a matter of his return that, in my opinion, is important, but that two members blatantly made a request and their request should be considered and decided upon; or else why have a charter to help members if you ignore it? For posters like hal and yova and anyone else (only those two posters stick out in my memory of what I just read) is bored with this situation, you have the freedom of choice to ignore it.

tinwe is right, too, that I thought that democracy's questions and posts were legitimate to begin with which is why I don't necessarily agree that he is to be dismissed as a troll. I wouldn't defend his argument much at this point because of his remarks to TM. In my mind, once you resort to that kind of comment, you've lost the argument.

The question of community membership is in slight flux in this situation. Nothing is in serious danger nor is the challenge that great to answer with urgency. Is democracy a member of the community despite not posting until now? Do you not consider anyone who has left (semi-permanently, or permanently) not a member of the community anymore?

...

What did they do that changed his behavior?
The fact is their actions made him choose to behave even more stupidly, which is now supposed to be ignored. Why bother doing anything in the first place? The process was started and needs to be finished.

This is all irrelevant anyway. The hearing was requested and was unanimously granted by all of the rangers.

...

No I didn't say that. You can express whatever opinions you want. I'm just telling you it is a done deal as far as I am concerned.

As for TM's reaction to all of this, I already know what it is, but will let her speak for herself.

But that too is irrelevant. This bothered me. This offended me. I have a right to not have to read that garbage and i am choosing to take the actions afforded to me under the charter.

Yes this bothered me this much to go through all of this trouble and I truly believe doing nothing is harmful to this board and community.

Quote:

So we're not allowed to express any opinions and try to persuade for what we think is best? Well...alright then.

Definitely not what holby was saying and you know that.

If people want to choose to ignore this they can. Nobody is forcing anyone to get involved or even read any of this. This is what I think is the best thing to do. I'm not asking anyone to agree.

...

Everyone here is entitled to their opinion. Can I stress that enough?

The facts are, get off of the posters who asked for a hearing, the facts are five rangers, who mostly have nothing to gain by doing this, have agreed that the call was a valid one.

To disagree with this is to disagree with five members you all thought were worthy enough to represent you. Of course you can do so, nobody says you can't. But we are acting under the mandates of that charter, not taking sides on anything here. Once this goes to a jury, it is out of our hands entirely.

What seems to be at issue here IS the charter. Please DO start a new thread on this, I cannot nor can anyone else act on something that does not exist.

Well, I thought what Holby said to me about the priorities I have for my friends was worthy of a hearing... did I call for one? I'm perfectly within my rights to do so... but you know what? It wouldn't happen... and it shouldn't happen, because a hearing is not the first thing you do!

The whole concept of being member moderated is not that you ban people that break the rules. It's not that you have a hearing that break the rules. It's not even that you get indignant and demand a person being punished for making you feel like shit.

It's that people get treated with respect, even if they treat you NO with respect. The fastest way to make a troll leave is treat him or her with respect, in accordance with the way the board is supposed to work. Did democracy cause a board-wide disruption? No. Did people's reaction to him? yes.

So where's teh problem? What's the solution? I can garuntee you a hearing is not it.

You know what? This is not addressed to anyone in particular here, but after three days on this job, I will be happy to post the requirements for removing a ranger. In fact, all of those unhappy with me can simply do me the favor of pming me or even posting here and if I get even five requests to step down, I will do so. I am only trying to do what I have been asked to do, and frankly, I do not need the hassles either.

It is hard to try and observe a charter that very few of this community want in place, but I cannot change it, I do not have that authority, and the oddest fact is, by all of these comments here, so many of you are proving "democracy" exactly point on.

I will shut up for now, I need to step away from this for at least 24 hours.

Do what you all want.

Frankly, I wonder sometimes why I care at all.

And in case nobody gets it, yes, I am really ticked off, to the point that I rarely have ever been before.

Personally, I think what we really need to ban is the Business room.

But hal, no one made a personal attack against democracy. He did make a pretty clear personal attack against themary. I think that's really the most relevant fact here. One can argue that some posters didn't react well to him, or against that, but no one treated him the way he treated others here.

On another note, I wish you wouldn't say "fuck you" to people.

Well, having a hearing for the guy does seem a bit like shutting the barn door after the cows are out. Y'know? Like shouting "And Don't Come Back!" when he's already miles away.

But I suppose I understand the idea of documenting the fact that b77 will not tolerate such behavior. So... less a punishment for democracy, who will probably never read any of this anyway, and more a preemptive strike against anyone who would consider such a thing in the future.

And also: whoever said it above is right. Holby and JS have a right to ask for the thing, under the charter, and procedures are being followed appropriately. They have the right to have their grievances addressed.

<sigh>


I feel for you, Watcher. I was on the last jury pool, and while that experience was nothing (!) like your first few days on the job as Ranger, I can understand a bit of the frustration you are feeling. You're doing great, btw! Really, really great. My hat's off to you. This isn't easy stuff.

Faramond wrote:

But hal, no one made a personal attack against democracy. He did make a pretty clear personal attack against themary. I think that's really the most relevant fact here. One can argue that some posters didn't react well to him, or against that, but no one treated him the way he treated others here.

On another note, I wish you wouldn't say "fuck you" to people.

I'm not saying anyone attacked democracy. And trust me, NO ONE here, was more pissed off with what he did to TM than me. But she didn't react, and I said well, if she's Ok with it, I'm not going to start any drama over it.

and then drama happened anyway, so yay me, I'm not the only cause.

The fact still remains, things were handled, at that point where TM did not react. If we had all just accepted that and moved on, there would not be any issues. if democracy did not leave, and persisted in being a proglem, there would be hearings and restrictions, and maybe the banning everyone seems to want to do. But he did leave, and there's no reason to do anything right now. It's not ignoring it, it's recognizing it's over.

The real hero here is TM, who did NOT react the way I and others initial reaction was... but instead just did her job, and ended things before they started.

As for my comments to Holby, well, ask him not to treat me like shit, and we'll have a place to start.

*Anthysm00ch!*