I would say that referring to R & E as the 'urine board' in a comment to someone else's comment about it was casual, although Poppet felt otherwise.  I'm not blaming, but merely asking about that going forward.

As to Ken, he violated the terms of service twice, but is free to post at will over here, nothing but posts removed?  I don't like or in any way agree with that.  I don't give a flying fig about his 'intentions,' he violated the TOS egregiously.  If you were being FAIR, you would ban him for that.

But apparently he gets a pass.  Oh well...

Pikes Peak 14115 wrote:

greenman wrote:

I would say that referring to R & E as the 'urine board' in a comment to someone else's comment about it was casual, although Poppet felt otherwise.  I'm not blaming, but merely asking about that going forward.

As to Ken, he violated the terms of service twice, but is free to post at will over here, nothing but posts removed?  I don't like or in any way agree with that.  I don't give a flying fig about his 'intentions,' he violated the TOS egregiously.  If you were being FAIR, you would ban him for that.

But apparently he gets a pass.  Oh well...

Intraboard discussion belongs here, not there. My judgement was poor to not do that. 
That said, too many stirs cooked the R&E pot over the last week, and recent days especially. 
Never the less discussion of that belongs here if anywhere. Not the threaded version. 

Merlin raised a point he wanted deleted. But it's a valid point. 
is grass on the R&E side of the fence really greener than on the CGD side?

Begs the question from me, if our views are to be attacked by CPD posters with
intent to take back their board and drive us out, as they expressed with encouragement
on CPD, can we stop it? Should we stop it?

Ken wants balanced left and right discussion about religion and ethnics. He's not going
to get it from the CPD crowd. Without our presence, R&E can be expected to be just a
replica of CPD. Should they not post on R&E for the same reason Merlin raised?

Mondo won't change. Yome, jb, SES, GOG, Deanna, Ted, et al won't either. 

Ultimately that's not our business or concern. Ken must deal with this. 
 

Am inclined to agree.  It's his problem now, and he frankly deserves it.

Asking requested the DNR with both Greenman and I.  It was pretty bizarre. 

Asking suggested that Merlin, Greenman, and Amadeus were child-molesters in multiple posts on R&E.  I was quite annoyed by that, so a few posts later, I made a similar, very sarcastic remark to Asking, suggested that he might be a kiddie diddler. 

He had the NERVE to complain to Ken about it and cite it as a good reason for a DNR against me !!  I couldn't believe it.  I TOLD Ken that Asking had done that to Merlin, Greenman, and Amadeus but I don't think that he saw it.  He was awfully busy at that time.  The answer to my complaint about Asking even daring to request it in the first place was something along the lines of "How would you like it if someone suggested you were a kiddie diddler ??"  I was so flabbergasted that I just left it at that.  It wasn't worth arguing about since HAVING a DNR with Asking suited me just fine.  However, it was the AUDACITY of the AH for complaining about someone doing to him what he'd JUST DONE to 3 others.

I'm not sure of the reason why Asking requested it against Greenman.  You'd have to ask him since the reasons aren't public, so I simply don't know.  But that's why mine exists with Asking.  It was not ME who requested it.

That is the reason I've suggested to Ken that he ask someone (NOT me) to help him out there.  It's a big job with all of the trolls and he can't possibly have time to read every exchange to notice when someone is violating rules or acting like an AH unless someone sends him a link.  Lots of folks simply post complaints to the post, expecting Ken will see it.  But why WOULD he ??

I was unhappy to see that Teddikins had showed up there.  He's a royal PITA with his baby talk and attitudes.  All I can say for him is that at least he's not usually vulgar or vicious like others from CPD. 

Truth be told, however, I care less and less every day about what goes on there because of the influx of venomous snakes from a board I chose to leave 12 years ago so I wasn't surrounded by snakes all day.  It's a real bummer, but hey, it is what it is. 

I do agree with your assessment on the 7 month ban for Greenman and GOG getting off scot free for doing EXACTLY the same things.
 

Pikes Peak 14115 wrote:

Regarding your exchange with GOG, Ken should either have banned you both, or neither. 
 

Maybe you did not see all the DNR violations by greenman.  Maybe you did not see that greenman was the one who started the feud that day, and GOG was only replying to violations by greenman.  I believe posters should be allowed to reply to DNR violations. 

Greenman violated the DNR with GOG once, then I deleted it without saying anything.  Then greenman violated the DNR rule 7 more times on that day.  GOG only violated the DNR rule once that day, and he did it after greenman started the feud.  greenman was the one who started the problems that day.   All that happened on the day greenman re-started posing after he had already been previously banned for violating the DNR rule. 

Violating a rule once could be an accident.  Violating a rule 8 times in one day is not an accident.

 

Siagiah wrote:

Ken did NOT intentionally post personal, real life information.  Plus... Well, you know.
 

He actually did just that, Sia.  He posted TWO of my personal e-mails to him from off-board.  He did that "intentionally" when he pushed the button.  He may not have "intended" to post my name (actually an alias, so fortunately that's not at issue although HE didn't know that) but he DID post personal info.

Is he going to be subject to the TOS like myself and everyone else, or not?  Just wondering.

Ken C wrote:

greenman lied when he said he never requested the DNR with GOG.  Greenman did request the DNR in an email he sent to me.  I posted that email here to set the record straight.  I accidentally included his real life first and last name in that email.  That was a mistake.  I apologize for accidentally posting his first and last name here.  I only made that mistake once, and now I have apologized twice.

Violating a rule once could be an accident.  Violating a rule 8 times in one day is not an accident.

I am posting here in reply to things that were said about me here.  That is not "stalking".

 

I have to reluctantly answer the stalker, since he continues to post lies about me.

Ken, I've never denied that I INITIALLY ASKED FOR A DNR against GOG.  I've also posted the followup e-mail where, after you inquired if I still wanted it,  I said "No, forget about it."  A couple of days later, you then IMPOSED a DNR on both of us for no reason (none you gave, anyway).  It was only after you let GOG continue to post his conspiracy theories about the pandemic, DESPITE telling him he was banned from doing so, that I said 'Oh well, go ahead and let it stand' in  another subsequent e-mail to you.

I don't give a damn how many times you apologize, I reject further contact with you and your board, and continue to ask that you be banned for a reasonable time on the threaded Blue Board for posting e-mails WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, which is a TOS violation.

Please stop posting and lying about me in future.  I really don't want anything more to do with you.

Okay, let's back up here for a minute.

Personal, real life information means:
real names, real residential addresses, real family ties, real job names and addresses.  Things that can cause someone to be exposed to harm in their real lives by trolls or lurkers who scoop up like kind of thing. Things like HH exposing Sprout's real name when his name is NOT one he uses or deliberately shares online.

THAT KIND OF THING

NOT emails about disagreements.

I'm gonna think about all this for a while.
I don't really have a clear picture or vision of anything. 

None of these communities have much chance to grow
and attract new blood and thought with this fighting. 
We may be relics- dinosaurs of the MSNBC board era,
dying due to trolls, false identities, and risk of personal
harm from discovery of real identity. 

While Mondo says my identity is all over the Internet,
and as a working professional it is, the fact he knows
this and said it is evidence of his unwanted, unwarranted
felony stalking. What possible business does he have or
want with me through efforts to find me all over the Internet?
He and he alone made the allegations now subject to 
civil lawsuit following criminal stalking investigation. Many 
people saw his posts with my real name and the libelous
accusations, and some contacted me about them. 

The biggest problem in these communities is civil misconduct-
trolling virtually demands identity protection. It is because of
people like Mondo, SES, and GOG that we must do that. I am
not one person here and somebody else in RL. Mondo on the
other hand used dozens of false names and different IP addresses
to get around bans in order to troll. 

The fact he, and anyone can do that here is the least attractive
aspect of participation on these boards. While many if not most
don't, it only takes one jerk to wreck it for everyone. 

 

I would further note that Ken DID post what he believed to be my name, which, according to your definition, Sia, IS a violation of the rule.  Will he face any consequences for THAT?

Or for continuing to post to and about me after I've asked him to STOP?

Thanks.
 

So, no punishment for Ken.  Thanks.  I will take that into consideration.  Very disappointing, but it's your board.

greenman wrote:

So, no punishment for Ken.  Thanks.  I will take that into consideration.  Very disappointing, but it's your board.

WHAT do you expect ??  That we punish him for making you angry ??  I really don't know what you expect from us … or him. 

THIS isn't only about what went down on Blue the other day.  This is nearly all about what happened on R&E and that is NONE of the Blue Board's business.


 

greenman wrote:

 I can't help but wonder how, for example, Poppet would respond to someone posting her personal e-mails without her permission, no matter WHAT they contained. 

Allow me to clear up any possible doubt about that: if I use private email for a communication with someone on these forums (which I rarely do), it's for good reason. If a conversation is something I want appearing in the forum, I'll post it in the forum. I would view public posting of private communication as betrayal of an implicit trust.

I would not react well to that.  Please, folks...don't test me on this.

 

Poppet wrote:

greenman wrote:

 I can't help but wonder how, for example, Poppet would respond to someone posting her personal e-mails without her permission, no matter WHAT they contained. 

Allow me to clear up any possible doubt about that: if I use private email for a communication with someone on these forums (which I rarely do), it's for good reason. If a conversation is something I want appearing in the forum, I'll post it in the forum. I would view public posting of private communication as betrayal of an implicit trust.

I would not react well to that.  Please, folks...don't test me on this. 

It IS a complete betrayal of implicit trust.  Not for a second have I suggested that posting private emails is "good form".  At the same time, it's not even remotely what the TOS was written to apply to.  That was the point.

In all fairness, the REASON he did it was to defend himself from accusations made against him by Greenman.  I think that Ken chose badly in sharing private emails doing that.  He simply didn't think it through to how others might interpret him sharing private emails to defend himself. 

If he'd merely denied Greenman's claims and mentioned that he had emails as proof, simply to challenge Greenman's claims, then no one would care. 

This is simply a MESS that is not of our own making and I resent ANYONE trying to force the rest of us to take sides we don't want to be forced to take.  It is NOT fair nor is it right. 

 

Ken C wrote:

Pikes Peak 14115 wrote:

Regarding your exchange with GOG, Ken should either have banned you both, or neither. 
 

Maybe you did not see all the DNR violations by greenman.  Maybe you did not see that greenman was the one who started the feud that day, and GOG was only replying to violations by greenman.  I believe posters should be allowed to reply to DNR violations. 

Greenman violated the DNR with GOG once, then I deleted it without saying anything.  Then greenman violated the DNR rule 7 more times on that day.  GOG only violated the DNR rule once that day, and he did it after greenman started the feud.  greenman was the one who started the problems that day.   All that happened on the day greenman re-started posing after he had already been previously banned for violating the DNR rule. 

Violating a rule once could be an accident.  Violating a rule 8 times in one day is not an accident. 

In all fairness, it really doesn't matter "who started it".  GOG did EXACTLY the same things that Greenman did.  Greenman gets a 7 month ban and GOG gets to stay, no punishment, no nothing ??

Not that it matters, but IMHO, either both get some punishment or no one does.  If Greenman got 7 months because he started it, then why didn't GOG get 5 months for participating, even if he didn't start it ??  He was NO INNOCENT VICTIM, he was an active participant who thoroughly enjoyed it.

From an outside view, it appears that you punished Greenman so harshly in retaliation for his harsh attacks on you.  If that's your reason, hey, that's your business, but own it.  Claiming that it's somehow FAIR to punish Greenman so harshly and let GOG off the hook appears to be GROSSLY UNFAIR, even if Greenman was the initiator. 

Take it or leave it, but that's exactly how it LOOKS to outsiders.  It is precisely what mongo did on his board when he banished certain individuals for reasons that he let so many others off the hook for.  That is the REASON why Greenman is SO ANGRY.  Anyone would be.

I've defended you from attacks about this, so it's only fair to defend Greenman's position on this too.  BOTH of you share blame in what happened, IMHO.

That's the last I will say about that publicly.  I wouldn't have said even that if you'd not brought it up.