|
1201. cazart - 4/3/2000 4:13:56 AM Now. Somebody fucking 'splain to me why CG gets to censor posts? 1202. Seguine - 4/4/2000 6:49:20 AM The following posts appeared in N&Q. I am re-posting them here in case folks wish to continue discussing the topic, as this is probably the better thread for it.
373. Indiana Jones - 4/4/00 10:00:27 PM
This is to announce that cazart's ID was disabled yesterday for his disruption of the Mote Movies thread. I took this action in wabbit's absence based on precedence (she had previously disabled his login when he did the same thing in policies) and the initial list of duties Alistair assigned when appointing me to the position of Gatekeeper. I simultaneously notified wabbit so that she could override my decision if she thought it was in error.
Until wabbit had a chance to respond, I considered the matter closed. But as cazart's status has caused some confusion in the Mote thread at TT, I want to clarify the situation.
Disabling cazart's account was a unilateral decision by me that I judged the best response to his behavior. When wabbit returns, she will as always make the final call.
374. PelleNilsson - 4/4/00 10:29:19 PM
Indiana
With all due respect I consider the banning premature. It was not all that bad and CalGal handled it well. Knowing that there is a lot of bad feelings between you and cazart it could be construed as abuse of power.
375. CalGal - 4/4/00 10:34:57 PM
We might want to move this conversation to Suggestions/Features? or Policies, now that I think of it.
376. Raskolnikov - 4/4/00 10:40:05 PM
Conflict of interest be damned. If Wabbit had delegated admin responsibilities to me, I would have cut off Cazart's access after the first reposting of spoilers.
1203. Indiana Jones - 4/4/2000 7:06:09 AM Pelle: Any exercise of power can be seen as an abuse.
Cazart had spammed the same post about a half dozen times (CalGal says at least 10, but I'm not sure it was that many) with the thread host deleting it each time. I have no doubt given the temperament of the two that it would have continued much longer if allowed to. Perhaps it's unclear from reading the thread, but cazart didn't stop until his ID was disabled (i.e., my action wasn't punitive; it was to stop what was occurring).
Apparently his attempt to log in returns the message that he needs to contact the Gatekeeper to get back in. He hasn't made any such request, so apparently the bad feelings work both ways, as he certainly would have emailed wabbit (and likely has).
Did my personal feelings toward cazart affect this decision? That's cart before the horse. My personal feelings toward cazart grow out of his behavior on this forum, nothing else. I don't know him in real life and don't wish to. Despite his constant lying, I have never corresponded with him. He has never said one true insult about me, and I assure you I'm not nearly as sensitive to false criticism as many here. The only reason cazart has any affect on me whatsoever is that I think he is detrimental to the prospects of this forum.
Do you know why he keeps insisting on "accountability"? Because when someone takes accountability here that is someone he will be able to bully and intimidate. That's why he tried to get the POC for the server. If you say, for example, you are responsible for what goes on at the Mote, you will never hear the end of it from him. You will be threatened and harassed over every perceived slight to him. 1204. Indiana Jones - 4/4/2000 7:06:46 AM (cont.)
I enjoy posting here much more than forum duties. Unfortunately, the only compensation at an all-volunteer forum is posting, so it's inevitable that perceived personality conflicts occur between volunteers and others. If the choice comes down to free interchange between myself and others and no duties or duties and no free interchange, then heck, man, take the duties away.
Bottom line: my judgment is that we had two precedents in which a thread was continually posted to despite requests by the thread host to desist: Rosetta and cazart. In both cases the ID was momentarily disabled.
I do appreciate that your judgment in this instance differs. That's why we have discussion forums. 1205. CalGal - 4/4/2000 7:19:49 AM Indy,
As far as your decision goes, I have no problem with it. I don't know that I would have done it--on the other hand, I left for a two hour meeting and was relieved to come back and not find a mess of spoilers. And it is silly to have to be worried about such things. Why should he be allowed to be so destructive? (There, I have successfully argued myself from one pole to the other.)
I just think it is important that we announce these decisions right away.
1206. Raskolnikov - 4/4/2000 7:23:22 AM The thread host shouldn't be required to hang around endlessly to wage a post war with a pest. A suspension of posting rights was warranted. I do agree that it is a good idea to immediately announce it, though. 1207. Indiana Jones - 4/4/2000 7:23:46 AM Cal: I did announce it to wabbit. I had no idea that she would be "out-of-pocket" this long, and since (as Pelle has noted), my action seemed preemptory, I didn't want to take more authority upon myself.
For all I knew, wabbit would respond immediately and reinstate cazart.
As far as a policy about announcing this, how often does it come up (even for wabbit)? I certainly won't be making this a regular occurrence, but all this second-guessing of every decision made here is what keeps the forum from ever going forward IMO. The people who are trying to build something here should quit worrying so much about what the people who want to run it down think.
...
Anyhow, Moteheads, I'm off to San Clemente for tonight. Hopefully, the more benevolent dictator can return soon and you won't have Indy Jones to kick around anymore.
1208. CalGal - 4/4/2000 7:28:40 AM Indy,
I'm not second guessing you. If you have the ability to disable IDs, then you should just do it and be done with it. Wabbit can always come in and issue a reprieve without it reflecting on you.
San Clemente? Are you local? 1209. 109109 - 4/4/2000 7:32:03 AM Indiana
A brief word.
Speak no more of this. If you justify, you will get nit-picked to death. You did what you did, hopefully, wabbit will make the banning permanent on the reasonable basis that cazart represents 99% of social/interactive problems at this site. Moreover, justification of your decision will lead every minor democrat on these threads to wax eloquent about the rules ("I have great difficulty with the intemperate decision without consultation to blah, blah, blah").
Cazart and others live for a long discussion of the propriety of various actions by well-meaning hand-wringers. Everyone should shut the fuck up about it, and if wabbit reinstates him, then he can be reinstated. Do not make one more post on this topic. That is my advice, and I'm following it. 1210. CalGal - 4/4/2000 7:33:06 AM As far as a policy about announcing this, how often does it come up (even for wabbit)?
It really doesn't matter how often it comes up. When it does come up, it's not good for people to wonder whether someone is blowing smoke about being banned or not. If we commit to announcing it, then there is no need to wonder.
But as I said, I'm not second-guessing your decision. I think the charge that we err on the side of leniency is probably accurate. And his spamming and general unpleasantness isn't missed. 1211. Seguine - 4/4/2000 8:32:36 AM I am pleased to see CalGal advocating for greater transparency of operations.
And I second this from Rask: "The thread host shouldn't be required to hang around endlessly to wage a post war with a pest."
The sky will not fall if semi-draconian decisions are made here occasionally. (Or more frequently, or less so.)
1212. CalGal - 4/4/2000 9:30:23 AM I am pleased to see CalGal advocating for greater transparency of operations.
????
Unless this refers to our earlier confusion about the definition of "transparency" (I did go back that time to reread and saw where you had made the distinction), I don't understand. I have always been an advocate about forum management decisions being "transparent", to use your term. I only oppose requiring transparency of identity.
I think our disagreement arose because you didn't think that the original decisions had been handled openly, whereas I felt it had. That's certainly a good area for discussion (and lord knows, it was discussed), but I don't think I ever advocated keeping everyone in ignorance.
And in the specific case of announcing administrative decisions or who the decisionmakers are, I am more conscious than most about appearances. 1213. Seguine - 4/4/2000 9:48:11 AM Oh please, please stop before my LOATHE function is reactivated. 1214. Raskolnikov - 4/4/2000 10:56:56 AM Indy:
My mantra - "It is easier to get forgiveness than permission".
People have put up with Cazart's impression of a tsetse fly for too long. Well done. 1215. PelleNilsson - 4/4/2000 2:13:32 PM Indiana
I didn't observe that cazart posted the same shit several times.
Consequently I withdraw my earlier remark. You did right. 1216. CalGal - 4/4/2000 3:08:47 PM Seguine,
Stop making comments about me, then. You had no reason to make the first remark, and it was inaccurate. I'm really quite fed up with your bullshit, and your LOATHE function can go to red alert for all I give a fuck.
1217. Seguine - 4/5/2000 12:31:35 AM CalGal,
My comment was not a slight, you self-obsessed psychotic. And who really cares what you're fed up with? 1218. Seguine - 4/5/2000 12:57:09 AM For the record, my opinion is:
1. Cazart has behaved as Raskolnikov has characterized him: a pest.
2. CalGal dealt with Cazart appropriately in her thread.
3. IndianaJones dealt with Cazart appropriately; as he has pointed out, Wabbit may overrule him if she sees fit.
4. It was appropriate for CalGal to ask Indy to announce his decision publicly.
5. In future, as a matter of policy, all such decisions should be announced.
1219. CalGal - 4/5/2000 2:21:55 AM I didn't say it was a slight. I said it was inaccurate. I corrected it, then I got the "oh, please", etc. And I don't think anyone cares any more about my being fed up than they do about your "LOATHE function"--and yet, we both announce it because it makes us feel better.
That being said, I agree with your 1218, and I hope we can all drop the Caz issue. 1220. Seguine - 4/5/2000 3:34:52 AM "I didn't say it was a slight. I said it was inaccurate. I corrected it, then I ...."
Thank god someone has set out to determine once and for all whether an energetic enough drill can drive a loose screw all the way to China.
|
