Discussion III about the Suspension List

Quote: Dieter

[If a tree violated the forum rules regarding multiple accounts, I'm unaware of it.

Quote: MrV

Quote: Dieter

[If a tree violated the forum rules regarding multiple accounts, I'm unaware of it.

Oh, I think you don't grasp the subtlety of the dawg's "legal argument."

I believe he is arguing as follows: As the courts will allow attorneys to advocate for "rights" on behalf of inanimate objects, for example, trees, so surely justice warrants mercy and the unqualified right to argue on behalf of those in a higher class, i.e. animate beings.

But him equating someone who is presumably animate with a tree...that's really going out on a limb. *cough cough*

I think the better position is "There are consequences to what we say and do."
link to original post

Quote: gordonm888

I've been away for a few days and have returned to see that many ignored my request to refrain from discussing Nathan and autism.

Regarding MDawg's statement that he is Nathan's representative:

MDawg:
1. Please make your statements and requests/ pleas to Wizard by PM. Wizard is gone for approximately one week; but simply "file your brief" with him on the Personal Message system.

2. If you continue to make public statements representing Nathan on this forum I will immediately suspend you for violation of Rule #16. Statements that represent Nathan should be made privately to Wizard, not publicly on this forum.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

How about actually reading all of what's written and not just a few words.

You (and a few others) said things of Tasha/Nathan here including things that had to do with her actions after leaving this forum.

She asked me to represent her in this matter, and to that end I responded to Gordo's musings here.

Quote: gordonm888

If someone on this forum posts (publicly) that a banned member, such as Nathan, has autism then it might be argued that this forum has some kind of obligation to allow her to return briefly for the purpose of defending herself.
link to original post

Wizard is gone for a short while, I don't know if in his absence his mods have the authority to rule on this sort of thing. Obviously if it is allowed, it has to be allowed with forum admin consent.

We certainly have precedent where it has been allowed. There was a nuked member from whom Wizard relayed a post in the past.
link to original post

Quote: AxelWolf

I just know you are not supposed to relay messages from banned members. That's what you have done.

Quote: ChumpChange

I'm sure I wouldn't want to hear from any of you in the other forum you hang out at because it is so viciously dog eat dog with no moderation over there. Maybe you could set up a thread over there to describe the problem MDawg is describing lately and link to it here when it's set.
link to original post

Quote: MrV

Quote: AxelWolf

I just know you are not supposed to relay messages from banned members. That's what you have done.

Cloaked in the robes of "Tasha's representative" or even "her attorney," does the dawg get immunity from rule 16?

"If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer."

FWIW, and perhaps in his defense, his actions in advocating on her behalf seem very much out of character.
link to original post

Quote: Dieter

Did I miss where a message was relayed?


link to original post

Quote: Dieter

Did I miss where a message was relayed?

Quote: MrV

Quote: Dieter

Did I miss where a message was relayed?

I don't know, did you?

Sure looks like it.

"Tasha/Nathan has appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary."

His reference to Tasha having "appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary" is quite clearly a violation of rule 16:

"Messages from banned members: Do not quote anything, neither public nor private, a banned member has said. If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer."

He says she told him whe wants to post here to defend / present herself, and he in turn violated the rule by telling us what she said.

His attempts to insulate himself from liability by donning the robes of her attorney or representative seem naught but a cheap trick.
link to original post

Quote: Zcore13

Were I in the position to officiate that point, I would not consider that as posting or relaying information on this forum from a banned member.

Quote: Zcore13

Quote: MrV

Quote: Dieter

Did I miss where a message was relayed?

I don't know, did you?

Sure looks like it.

"Tasha/Nathan has appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary."

His reference to Tasha having "appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary" is quite clearly a violation of rule 16:

"Messages from banned members: Do not quote anything, neither public nor private, a banned member has said. If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer."

He says she told him whe wants to post here to defend / present herself, and he in turn violated the rule by telling us what she said.

His attempts to insulate himself from liability by donning the robes of her attorney or representative seem naught but a cheap trick.
link to original post

Were I in the position to officiate that point, I would not consider that as posting or relaying information on this forum from a banned member.


ZCore13
link to original post

Quote: MrV

Anyway, the issue is clear, let's see what the Wiz has to say when he returns as to whether there are exceptions to rule 16.
link to original post

Quote: MrV

Quote: Dieter

Did I miss where a message was relayed?

I don't know, did you?

Sure looks like it.

"Tasha/Nathan has appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary."

His reference to Tasha having "appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary" is quite clearly a violation of rule 16:

"Messages from banned members: Do not quote anything, neither public nor private, a banned member has said. If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer."

He says she told him whe wants to post here to defend / present herself, and he in turn violated the rule by telling us what she said.

His attempts to insulate himself from liability by donning the robes of her attorney or representative seem naught but a cheap trick.
link to original post

Quote: Dieter

Quote: MrV

Quote: Dieter

Did I miss where a message was relayed?

I don't know, did you?

Sure looks like it.

"Tasha/Nathan has appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary."

His reference to Tasha having "appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary" is quite clearly a violation of rule 16:

"Messages from banned members: Do not quote anything, neither public nor private, a banned member has said. If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer."

He says she told him whe wants to post here to defend / present herself, and he in turn violated the rule by telling us what she said.

His attempts to insulate himself from liability by donning the robes of her attorney or representative seem naught but a cheap trick.
link to original post

There's a lot to unpack there, but I'm going to focus on "Do not quote." I do not think there was a quote.

The WoV Forum would need to have normalized relations with Karen-Nathan to recognize any nominated plenipotentiary representative as such.
Forwarded posts are almost certain to be interpreted as some form of sockpuppetry.

Can mundane mods make decisions in Wizard's absence? Sure.
Are we likely to get scolded if we unilaterally reverse longstanding policy and leave an incoherent mess to sort out next week? Sure.
Do I want to wait? Seems prudent.

In the interim, I seem to recall a longstanding practice which gets paraphrased variously as "don't kick someone when they're down" or "don't antagonize someone who isn't here to defend themselves". (These are under the broader guideline of "try not to be a jerk".)
So... lay off.
link to original post

Quote: gordonm888

The resolution of this incident may conceivably include modifying the wording of some rules, which is something that only the Wizard can do.

Dieter and I are in complete agreement about waiting for Wizard's return and about not wanting any public posts from anybody that report on conversations with Nathan in the interim. We also appreciate our retired moderators, OnceDear and Mission, for chiming in with supportive statements.
link to original post

Quote: Dieter

Quote: MrV

Quote: Dieter

Did I miss where a message was relayed?

I don't know, did you?

Sure looks like it.

"Tasha/Nathan has appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary."

His reference to Tasha having "appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary" is quite clearly a violation of rule 16:

"Messages from banned members: Do not quote anything, neither public nor private, a banned member has said. If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer."

He says she told him whe wants to post here to defend / present herself, and he in turn violated the rule by telling us what she said.

His attempts to insulate himself from liability by donning the robes of her attorney or representative seem naught but a cheap trick.
link to original post

There's a lot to unpack there, but I'm going to focus on "Do not quote." I do not think there was a quote.

The WoV Forum would need to have normalized relations with Karen-Nathan to recognize any nominated plenipotentiary representative as such.
Forwarded posts are almost certain to be interpreted as some form of sockpuppetry.

Can mundane mods make decisions in Wizard's absence? Sure.
Are we likely to get scolded if we unilaterally reverse longstanding policy and leave an incoherent mess to sort out next week? Sure.
Do I want to wait? Seems prudent.

In the interim, I seem to recall a longstanding practice which gets paraphrased variously as "don't kick someone when they're down" or "don't antagonize someone who isn't here to defend themselves". (These are under the broader guideline of "try not to be a jerk".)
So... lay off.
link to original post

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Dieter

Quote: MrV

Quote: Dieter

Did I miss where a message was relayed?

I don't know, did you?

Sure looks like it.

"Tasha/Nathan has appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary."

His reference to Tasha having "appointed me as her representative and requests the opportunity to defend or at least present herself at WOV, either directly or through a plenipotentiary" is quite clearly a violation of rule 16:

"Messages from banned members: Do not quote anything, neither public nor private, a banned member has said. If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer."

He says she told him whe wants to post here to defend / present herself, and he in turn violated the rule by telling us what she said.

His attempts to insulate himself from liability by donning the robes of her attorney or representative seem naught but a cheap trick.
link to original post

There's a lot to unpack there, but I'm going to focus on "Do not quote." I do not think there was a quote.

The WoV Forum would need to have normalized relations with Karen-Nathan to recognize any nominated plenipotentiary representative as such.
Forwarded posts are almost certain to be interpreted as some form of sockpuppetry.

Can mundane mods make decisions in Wizard's absence? Sure.
Are we likely to get scolded if we unilaterally reverse longstanding policy and leave an incoherent mess to sort out next week? Sure.
Do I want to wait? Seems prudent.

In the interim, I seem to recall a longstanding practice which gets paraphrased variously as "don't kick someone when they're down" or "don't antagonize someone who isn't here to defend themselves". (These are under the broader guideline of "try not to be a jerk".)
So... lay off.
link to original post

I can already tell you what Mike's going to say, it's going to be no. I had a conversation with him a few years ago about this, about posting something from somebody who is nuked and he said absolutely not. In fact it's a good way to get yourself nuked. The whole point of it is that person has no way to input anything into this forum and letting somebody speak for them would be circumventing that. Like you said they would be that person's sock puppet.
link to original post

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: gordonm888

The resolution of this incident may conceivably include modifying the wording of some rules, which is something that only the Wizard can do.

Dieter and I are in complete agreement about waiting for Wizard's return and about not wanting any public posts from anybody that report on conversations with Nathan in the interim. We also appreciate our retired moderators, OnceDear and Mission, for chiming in with supportive statements.
link to original post

Nope.

For the longest time, it's not been allowed to relay messages from banned members here. You guys are trying to use some kind of technicality about an exact quoting of what someone said?

It's like we're dealing with unregulated online casinos here, use the technicalities when it suits you either way.
link to original post

Quote: EvenBob

I can already tell you what Mike's going to say, it's going to be no. I had a conversation with him a few years ago about this, about posting something from somebody who is nuked and he said absolutely not.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: gordonm888

The resolution of this incident may conceivably include modifying the wording of some rules, which is something that only the Wizard can do.

Dieter and I are in complete agreement about waiting for Wizard's return and about not wanting any public posts from anybody that report on conversations with Nathan in the interim. We also appreciate our retired moderators, OnceDear and Mission, for chiming in with supportive statements.
link to original post

Nope.

For the longest time, it's not been allowed to relay messages from banned members here. You guys are trying to use some kind of technicality about an exact quoting of what someone said?

It's like we're dealing with unregulated online casinos here, use the technicalities when it suits you either way.
link to original post

As we have already stated, we are not yet ruling on this but have stated our expectation that Wizard will address this situation in about a week. You may also wish to examine the statements that you have made about Nathan in the past two days and consider whether the same charges could be leveled at you. And whether you have been using our forum to defame a private person who is unable to defend herself here and of discussing her personal medical history without permission. But we are not yet ruling on those matters either - you will have to wait a week.

Thank you for your patience.
link to original post

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: EvenBob

I take that as an insult so we're even.

I don't think what I said was a personal insult, however, I'm willing to accept it is, but I don't think there's such a thing as calling it even on here. I suggest we both get 1 week off.
link to original post

Before I even saw this "suggestion", my instinct was 7 days a piece. I seem to recall some mutual history of antagonism which merits penalty beyond the barest minimum.

Since I'm supposed to spell it out...
Axelwolf, 7 days, personal insult.
EvenBob, 7 days, personal insult.
There's plenty in the prior dozen posts, hopefully excerpts and permalinks can be foregone.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

AxelWolf and his constant suspensions are starting to resemble a Greek tragedy.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

A.Wolf has a history of claiming that he "saw this or that suspension coming," and then - after realizing that this is going to be a long or longer one, asking for even more time to make it seem like he's getting a lighter sentence than expected, demanding a martingale or longer sentence for both parties

link to original post

Quote: rsactuary

Let's leave it up to BBB to decide if a one time exception should be made. She bore the brunt of her antics and the nukeable offense if I recall correctly.
link to original post

Quote: MrV

A piquant commentary by former moderator BBB.

She nailed it: Nathan "has no right to return" under the rules.

And yet...she's back, blessed by the Wiz.

Does not compute.
link to original post

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: rsactuary

Let's leave it up to BBB to decide if a one time exception should be made. She bore the brunt of her antics and the nukeable offense if I recall correctly.
link to original post

Yes, I did bear the brunt. Several very abusive posts, including calling me a c### (and many other things) for the first and only time in my life, and being treated very badly by Gordon and a couple others for enforcing rules I didn't make. That whole interaction was most of the reason I left, along withe caretaking my suffering and dying mom. (I'm guessing maybe Gordon as a newer admin might have a little better appreciation with how hard it is to be fair, kind, and honest...now.)

And now I find nathan has been reinstated. I haven't participated much since returning, but that is the straw that breaks my camel's back. She has no right to return, and there is zero reason to believe she won't just be the same problem she has been, including FIFTY or so socks since her nuking, which has lost us dozens of more deserving members for a single instance. What's the point of having admins or rules if it's not going to be equally run?

Best wishes to the rest of you. Play hard, play smart, and goodbye.
link to original post

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: rsactuary

Let's leave it up to BBB to decide if a one time exception should be made. She bore the brunt of her antics and the nukeable offense if I recall correctly.
link to original post

Yes, I did bear the brunt. Several very abusive posts, including calling me a c### (and many other things) for the first and only time in my life, and being treated very badly by Gordon and a couple others for enforcing rules I didn't make. That whole interaction was most of the reason I left, along withe caretaking my suffering and dying mom. (I'm guessing maybe Gordon as a newer admin might have a little better appreciation with how hard it is to be fair, kind, and honest...now.)

And now I find nathan has been reinstated. I haven't participated much since returning, but that is the straw that breaks my camel's back. She has no right to return, and there is zero reason to believe she won't just be the same problem she has been, including FIFTY or so socks since her nuking, which has lost us dozens of more deserving members for a single instance. What's the point of having admins or rules if it's not going to be equally run?

Best wishes to the rest of you. Play hard, play smart, and goodbye.
link to original post

Quote: beachbumbabs

goodbye.
link to original post

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: rsactuary

Let's leave it up to BBB to decide if a one time exception should be made. She bore the brunt of her antics and the nukeable offense if I recall correctly.
link to original post

Yes, I did bear the brunt. Several very abusive posts, including calling me a c### (and many other things) for the first and only time in my life, and being treated very badly by Gordon and a couple others for enforcing rules I didn't make. That whole interaction was most of the reason I left, along withe caretaking my suffering and dying mom. (I'm guessing maybe Gordon as a newer admin might have a little better appreciation with how hard it is to be fair, kind, and honest...now.)

And now I find nathan has been reinstated. I haven't participated much since returning, but that is the straw that breaks my camel's back. She has no right to return, and there is zero reason to believe she won't just be the same problem she has been, including FIFTY or so socks since her nuking, which has lost us dozens of more deserving members for a single instance. What's the point of having admins or rules if it's not going to be equally run?

Best wishes to the rest of you. Play hard, play smart, and goodbye.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

BeachBumBabs made a dozen posts in 2023, just under a half dozen in 2022, only a couple in 2021 (but posted constantly in 2019 and 2020). Hardly supports a January 2024

Quote: beachbumbabs

goodbye.
link to original post

post implying that she is leaving now for good because Nathan has returned. She pretty much already left this forum 4 years ago.
link to original post

Quote: beachbumbabs

Yes, I did bear the brunt. Several very abusive posts, including calling me a c### (and many other things) for the first and only time in my life, and being treated very badly by Gordon and a couple others for enforcing rules I didn't make. That whole interaction was most of the reason I left, along withe caretaking my suffering and dying mom. (I'm guessing maybe Gordon as a newer admin might have a little better appreciation with how hard it is to be fair, kind, and honest...now.)

And now I find nathan has been reinstated. I haven't participated much since returning, but that is the straw that breaks my camel's back.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

It's hard to search for and find something on this forum even when you recall what was posted, but a few years ago I ran across the post BBB made when she was made a moderator and the thrust of it was that she intended to moderate / rule with a light hand.

Next thing you know people were getting suspended right and left by her, including for long periods at a time. So either people were getting worse and worse at violating the rules or she was getting heavier and heavier with her enforcement.

She bailed on the forum right around when Wizard announced the "new more moderate moderation" at WOV, and the martingale went by the wayside, in January 2021, maybe that is just a coincidence.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

It's hard to search for and find something on this forum even when you recall what was posted, but a few years ago I ran across the post BBB made when she was made a moderator and the thrust of it was that she intended to moderate / rule with a light hand.

Next thing you know people were getting suspended right and left by her, including for long periods at a time. So either people were getting worse and worse at violating the rules or she was getting heavier and heavier with her enforcement.

She bailed on the forum right around when Wizard announced the "new more moderate moderation" at WOV, and the martingale went by the wayside, in January 2021, maybe that is just a coincidence.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

It's hard to search for and find something on this forum even when you recall what was posted...

link to original post

Quote: MDawg

I did not insist - you did. I gave you the opportunity to withdraw your claim before the challenge was confirmed.
link to original post

Quote: darkoz

Quote: MDawg

I did not insist - you did. I gave you the opportunity to withdraw your claim before the challenge was confirmed.
link to original post

Now that has to be the biggest lie ever spouted on this forum.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

I will accept a retraction of your statements, as untruthful (you made it all up), right now. I don't believe there is any such person anywhere who made such a claim, let alone had such a claim debunked.

Quote: darkoz

There was a gambler who claimed to beat baccarat every day of every week of every year

Eventually that claim was debunked.
link to original post

Or, we may let the Wizard rule on a Coach's Challenge.
link to original post

Quote: billryan

Don't write a check that you can't cover. You said something. It was obvious who you were referring to. Back it up or accept the consequences. I'm not sure why that is difficult.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

Quote: darkoz

Quote: MDawg

I did not insist - you did. I gave you the opportunity to withdraw your claim before the challenge was confirmed.
link to original post

Now that has to be the biggest lie ever spouted on this forum.
link to original post

Right here " I gave you the opportunity to withdraw your claim before the challenge was confirmed."

Quote: MDawg

I will accept a retraction of your statements, as untruthful (you made it all up), right now. I don't believe there is any such person anywhere who made such a claim, let alone had such a claim debunked.

Quote: darkoz

There was a gambler who claimed to beat baccarat every day of every week of every year

Eventually that claim was debunked.
link to original post

Or, we may let the Wizard rule on a Coach's Challenge.
link to original post

And in the very next post, you "just busted a gut laughing at that."

Then the very next post (the next day), Wizard confirmed the challenge.

How is what I posted a lie?

You don't seem to be laughing much now, you still can't over that you lost keep bringing it up.

And you should be suspended for calling me a liar.
link to original post