My final defense against the specific charges against me.
So, the specific charges were as follows:
1.
Article 9
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.)
3.
Article 2
Member Rights and Responsibilities - Note, this is NOT from the part that says no penalites can be enforced.
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.
4.
From Article 5: Dispute Resolution in the Outside Forum
¶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.
2.
Article 2
From Member Rights and Responsibilities - Note, this is NOT from the part that says no penalites can be enforced.
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.