quote:I'm posting this because the email to Lalo is blocked. I don't post much anymore here nor do I think I will frequent this place as much I used to, sometimes reconciliation is not a viable option for either side of a conflict, and my case is certainly one as gauged from the hostility of the thread this problem arose in. I have no grudges against anyone at this board, and, whether I deserve it or not, I certainly have no concern to waste my time attempting to fill the demonic role many of you relagate me to.
Lalo/Eddie/Daedalus: For the record yes I reported John for the obscene pictures that violated more than 7 terms of the user's agreement. The main problem with the picture is not that he posted it, but that he has posted it on more than 4 seperate occasions over his time here, each time having the mods delete it because he refused to even though I asked him privately via email each time. I don't know if this is why he was banned, but I know that extremely offensive images of myself kept and fervently reposted over and over again in a quasi-stalkerish fashion really creeps me out.
Also, please stop spreading the lie that I made death threats to any members of the board. One it's not true as there would have been serious legal implications if there was any shred of truth to it and two: the situation you're talking about started out with Slash inviting me to fight him because I apparently pissed him off, and because I did not overtly and abase myself to him it was interpreted as hostility, which over time morphed with the lovely Modus Operandi of gossip into a death threat against first him, and then John after the first time I asked John to remove the picture. Whether or not you believe this is immaterial as, at the very least, there is no documentation to support anything like a threat on my part at all. I know you personally dislike me to the point of demonizing me more than anyone can count on this site but I hope you are honest enough to realize you are taking this too far.
I've asked John, and he claims he's posted it more than once including this time, but not four times. And frankly, I'm more inclined to trust John's integrity than anyone else's -- and far more than I'm willing to trust you. You seem to have squandered the trust Hatrack placed in you the last time you posted here.
I seriously doubt John is "fervent" about your picture, nor am I particularly convinced that he considers either you or your picture in a "quasi-stalkerish fashion." I hazard a guarantee that John's not likely to stalk you anytime soon, nor do anything regarding you but the occasional annoyed reaction to your once-offensive presence. No need to be afraid.
If you haven't made death threats, I've seen forged items in your name. I don't particularly dislike you, but neither do I like you, and I certainly don't trust you -- I'm inclined to believe the evidence held by trusted friends than I am to believe your newfound accusation of John's passion for stalking you.
I submit that John, annoyed and offended by your previous lies, reacted angrily to your renewed presence on Hatrack and posted an insult in his passion. Which, while certainly immature and juvenile, is no grounds for a banning, much less legal charges. Though if you feel obligated to take John to court, by all means, I encourage you to contact a lawyer and settle this out of Hatrack. I wish you luck.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I give this discussion a giant If the admins leave us to fight each other in the dark over issues we're clueless about, we should at least have the sense to realize our predicament and STFU.
Lalo, reread the first page, it IS technically copyright violation, unless it is a parody, in which case you have a moral obligation to post it (with the face blanked out if desired) for communal laughter.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, its not the first time someone beloved by half and hated by the rest has been "kicked off" Hatrack. By all means, it won't be the last. We may "make" Hatrack what it is, but we don't "own" any of it.
I for one trust that the Moderators had their reasons, acceptable by us or not. These kinds of "how could you" threads are almost a ritual to the banning. More than once I know of participants that were actually "saved" when many voices asked them to be "banned." As such, I believe that the Moderators are far more tolerant than this one incident might seem to indicate. Also, it adds a credibility to their reasoning (even if we don't know what that is) for banning anyone because it is so rare where there are so many times it would seem far more necessary.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not questioning the decision. I'm questioning the fact that (1) all information pertinent to evaluating their decision is gone (2) more generally, the mods are not public figures with posting styles, reputations, temperaments, and so on up for examination. This rubs against the preferences I've developed as a member of a (very!) wide range of forums, newsgroups, and listserves. It was fine when we were small, but there have been a half dozen threads recently complaining about moderator actions, thread deletions, and other meta-topics that have no business occupying so much mentation on a well-run forum.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Frankly, this is their kingdom. It's not up for a vote. Those who don't like can, and have, make their own forum.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I'm with you! I think we should also move to get the ralphie/mack wedgie smiley added, along with a big foam middle finger. Then Hatrack would be the biggest love fest on the internet!!
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I like John, I think he's a pretty reasonable, honest man. I never really had a problem with him.
But, unjust or not, he was banned. I could be banned. Any of you could be banned. We're all lucky we can even be here. Sure, we would all like to know what's going on, but the owners of the site choose not to disclose that information, all we can do is... well, nothing. No matter how we protest, we have virtually no power or rights here. We are allowed to converse with each other. I love that privilege (not right), and I hope we can all continue this community. But if the moderators take that privilege away, that is their prerogative to do so, regardless of how any of us feel. We can argue and whine all we want, but it's all rather futile don't you think?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
fallow, you never ever have to ask me first if you need to ask me a
favor
question
OK? Just cut to the chase if there is one. *********************** edit: Nick, of COURSE it's futile. But how could hatrack be the above-mentioned love fest if we all didn't argue in order to make up with each other?
quote: Nick, of COURSE it's futile. But how could hatrack be the above-mentioned love fest if we all didn't argue in order to make up with each other?
You know, you really make my head spin.
Maybe that would make an interesting smiley. Not that I think it should be here of course, but it would be interesting...
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We can argue and whine all we want, but it's all rather futile don't you think?
I suppose a small part of all of us believes that the admins are real people who are not completely immune to constructive advice. If that's not the case...
posted
We could ask Leto on GreNME how he feels about it and what happenned exactly if the mods don't want to tell us, and THEN argue about it. I guess Lalo did, but I for one didn't. Usually I trust the mods for not banning people like that - they've been more than tolerant with OSC-fan, for exemple. We shouldn't judge anyone before we really know what happenned.
[ April 29, 2004, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If some people want to talk about it but are afraid to make Hatrack a less welcoming place or to become mean against our moderators, maybe they could meet on AIM. Like "LetoII Chat" ?
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the standard AIM client do multiway chats? Not last time I checked. I'm a little hard-pressed to run an IRC daemon at the moment, but we could always meet "in public" at some appointed #hatrack.
That's all way, way, beside the point. We shouldn't have to go behind people's backs to avoid offending sensibilities. That suggests that either we're doing something morally wrong, or our forum is not as open as we imagined. With the possible exception of continuing to distribute a (from what I've inferred) derogatory picture, I don't think there's any wrongdoing here.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Download trillian. Paramater your AIM account. Then add yourself as a buddy and right click on your name. And click on "send chat invitation" then replace the standart chat room name by LetoII Chat.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Hatrack Chat is fine but for this particular story I though we would need anoter place in order not to disturb people who would like to talk about something else.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I would like to defend Ced, but even John L admits to using the picture more than once, according to Lalo's post. Now, if the picture was a problem the first time he posted it, and the Mods deleted it, then why post it a second time unless you don't care about being banned.
Also, if their was an implied threat to Ced, or if he felt that there could be one, then Hatrack could be held responsible, but only if they did nothing after being notified of it. Juries have found sites guilty of negligence before, even though most of those cases are still tied up in court due to the first amendment.
At the very least he was being foolish, and at worst hateful. Not that he doesn't have a reason to hate Ced, but it is in violation of the user agreement. Even if Hatrack won in court, it would have legal bills, and it probably would have resulted in the site shutting down.
That being said, I think that we were better off with John L here than Ced; I don't know why he would want to come back here, as I can't think of a single person who wants him to be here. And I was here for the BS that happened last time. Sometimes saying you're sorry isn't enough, and you are better off somewhere else where you can start over without all the negativity.
I know that I like this place better without you around, and I think most of the people here would agree with me on that. Take it for what it's worth.
I thought kacard addressed this in the OSC feedback thread just last week...I'd make a link, but I'm pretty new in cyberspace (this is the first computer I've ever owned myself) so I'm afrid that I don't know how ...
Kwea (edited due to the fact that I somehow signed my name twice....)
posted
While I do have a grudging respect for Leto, and actually like him quite a bit from time to time, I've got to say, that I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to our esteemed hosts here.
The Cards and their kin have never been Draconian in enforcing their rules and have done everything in their power to be hands-off with our little conversational gathering here. They let us speak our minds and even openly criticize them... without repercussions.
Think about that, please. How many times have some folks here railed against one of OSC's columns to the point of actually calling our host here bigotted or naive? And people got away with that incredible breach of propriety...
If the Cards felt that what Leto did was worth banning him, then I can only say that their reasons must have been well-founded. They have certainly proved themselves to be completely unvindictive and extremely lenient.
If there is an issue between the hosts and Leto, please allow John to work this out for himself, if he chooses to. It is not OUR good graces he would need to get back into, but the good graces of our host. And that is something best left between Leto and our hosts...
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"seriously doubt John is 'fervent' about your picture"
Well, let's be reasonable about this. John DOES post a link to it pretty much every time Ced's name comes up.
And let's face it, Lalo: you and John both get away with a lot more than most posters would, if only because you've been around long enough that we regulars tend to make excuses for you.
John's known for a while that his behavior was pushing the envelope of forum policy. I'm not at all surprised that a ban was forthcoming, but would be very surprised indeed if it were a permanent one. (That said, I'd be surprised if John, having been banned, would return; he doesn't strike me as the type.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My favorite part about Cedrios posting again is his insistence that he won't frequent the forum as much as he used to Talk of egregious violations is also amusing.
----
John wasn't a bully. You are adults capable of defending yourselves if you like. If he was so fearsome in an online message board, then I suggest the problem is not his agression, but your own weakness. Man up, as the saying goes. KMA, fallow, and quit your frelling whining, Pooka. Is that your only setting? Whine?
---
If what is reported about John's actions is accurate, it was a bannable offense. The moderators are well within their rights to do so-it is, as has often been said, their forum, and not really ours (when the metal meets the meat, so to speak). That is fine, neither I nor anyone else shoud in any way be offended by that-we don't pay for diddly, after all.
What upsets me is that a selfish, cowardly, insignifigant little...person...like Kevin hides behind the rules and protection of the community and the moderators. Kevin got what was coming to him. What he's really got coming to him is a good butt-kicking, but of course he'll make death threats (and yes, Kevin, we all know you did) online, but he'll scurry like a cockroach away from a personal confrontation.
---
It's been my experience that John says what he means and does what he says. I'll take that over courtesy six days a week and twice on Sundays, even though it agitates me a great deal sometimes.
I guess I just don't care that he posted a doctored picture of Kevin, even though I admit that doing so was a bannable offense.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"he was so fearsome in an online message board, then I suggest the problem is not his agression, but your own weakness."
Well, no. While I firmly agree that Ced is one of the few people banned from Hatrack that should genuinely have been permanently banned, and I still can't quite understand why he's been permitted to post again, I think anyone saying that John's only insulting if you're too weak to take it is, in fact, being a little naive.
John IS insulting. Period. He's also fairly hostile, and completely unforgiving of what he considers stupidity. This has nothing to do with people being "weak;" John will insult strong people just as readily. Moderator action should not depend upon the reaction of the insulted person; that would, by definition, be inconsistent and whimsical.
I think John's a great guy, and a brilliant poster -- but surely this ban doesn't come as a surprise to HIM or to anyone who knew him well. He has regularly danced at the very edge of what was acceptable behavior, and has freely admitted to not caring about how he's perceived. *shrug* Eventually SOMETHING had to be the last straw; it's just ironic that it's Kevin, of all people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
My point is, someone is a bully only if you let them be. I've been bullied and-to my shame, in elementary school-been a bully twice, and on both sides of that equation, it was only because someone permitted it to happen.
You're right, though: he is insulting on an objective level, insofar as such a thing can be objective. And it bothered me many times. But I don't go whining, "You bully!"
Moderator action on Hatrack is, in fact, inconsistent and whimsical-and I understand why. Not getting paid, full-time lives, etc., and we largely police ourselves.
No, I'm not surprised and in fact I can't even criticize the mods for doing it. It was, in fact, a highly bannable offense.
It's just aggravating because it was a) over Kevin, and b) something Kevin richly deserved.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
If the admins leave us to fight each other in the dark over issues we're clueless about, we should at least have the sense to realize our predicament and STFU.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
Just cut to the chase if there is one.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
...
