Discussion III about the Suspension List

All this drama over Nathan?

Nathan?!?!!

Nathan and all his/her/their socks should be perma-nuked and that should be that.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: OnceDear

I invite Mike to elaborate as a courtesy to you. Please authorise him to reveal whatever private comms are salient.
link to original post

That is fair. I checked 125 pages of old messages in my private message in box as well as other methods of communication I have with BBB. Unfortunately for me, I did not find the message in question. My best explanation is that I deleted it.

However, I have been accused of false quoting, which I take seriously. That said, without any evidence to back up my claim, I would like to add the qualifier "as I recall" to my claim. I believe this happened very confidently, but I also know that people can remember things incorrectly, especially that happened over a year ago.

If BBB wishes to press charges for false quoting, despite my rewording, I will serve time for the statement. I also apologize for making a claim, which I still maintain, that I can't back up.
link to original post

Thanks Mike, Fair answer. I personally won't press you much further on what seems potentially embarrassing. However, your response implies that she did not say 'do what you want' in a recent and topical conversation on the matter, but that you are remembering a non-recent conversation? Non recent enough for some misremembering or false memory to be in play.? I don't believe you are being dishonest, I do believe that BBB would not have given much of a green light to welcoming Kentry back. At best a women's type reply (NOT QUOTE ) "Do what you want: You will anyway"

Do you really delete messages so arbitrarily? I only ever delete oldest messages and total trivia when I reach quota. I never hit quota on this forum. Therefore I personally never delete

Quote: ams288

All this drama over Nathan?

Nathan?!?!!

Nathan and all his/her/their socks should be perma-nuked and that should be that.
link to original post

Let's not blame Karen for being Karen. She has no moderator privileges here.

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: ams288

All this drama over Nathan?

Nathan?!?!!

Nathan and all his/her/their socks should be perma-nuked and that should be that.
link to original post

Let's not blame Karen for being Karen. She has no moderator privileges here.
link to original post

MDawg didn't represent Kentry for nothing he has his motives.

Quote: OnceDear

Thanks Mike, Fair answer. I personally won't press you much further on what seems potentially embarrassing. However, your response implies that she did not say 'do what you want' in a recent and topical conversation on the matter, but that you are remembering a non-recent conversation? Non recent enough for some misremembering or false memory to be in play.? I don't believe you are being dishonest, I do believe that BBB would not have given much of a green light to welcoming Kentry back. At best a women's type reply (NOT QUOTE ) "Do what you want: You will anyway"

Do you really delete messages so arbitrarily? I only ever delete oldest messages and total trivia when I reach quota. I never hit quota on this forum. Therefore I personally never delete
link to original post

No, it was not recent. I was during the quiet period. My best guess is it was about a year ago.

I delete about half my private messages on a fairly arbitrary basis. You can imagine how many I get. Currently I have 470 pages of messages in my in box.

Quote: MDawg

If she had posted something closer to the truth - that she was consulted in advance, and was noncommittal (deferred to the Wizard) - would have obviated most of this drama.

What would have happened to anyone else who had posted something like that, that did not quite ring true to what transpired?
link to original post

I’m not particularly concerned about whether or not a PM from a year ago exists or is available as I believe that memories are fallible, and as such, both parties likely believe what they are saying.

That being the case, and Wizard also stating that any such PM would have been about a year ago, does anyone plan to take any sort of action since the post quoted above directly accuses BBB of posting something insufficiently close to the truth?

Really, I don’t think either BBB or Wizard did or said anything wrong, but now we know that BBB definitely wasn’t asked about this recently, so her accounting appears to be 100% true.

I also don’t understand why anyone would feel the need to attack the veracity of what she says to begin with. There have been a few things BBB and I haven’t agreed on over the years, but I’ve certainly never known her to misrepresent or overstate the case of something, much less to lie.

I also don’t have any particular animosity towards MDawg; it just seems a high percentage of forum content is geared towards pointless rules lawyering and trying to get people three and seven day suspensions for what seems to be no good reason. I say might as well add the above to the list; there’s absolutely ZERO proof that anything BBB has said on this matter is anything less than 100% truthful.

This is terrible. I know both Mike and BBB. Both have been very kind to me outside of this forum. Knowing both of them, a misunderstanding occurred. One that BOTH Wiz and BBB should treat as water under the bridge.
I can say this with certainty. If Mike was thinking specifically about BBB when reinstating Nathan, and he was thinking that BBB would REQUEST he not reinstate her, he wouldn’t have.
I know how much Mike respected BBB. Heck, he made her a moderator!
And to my friend BBB. Please don’t leave ‘forever’. You are an AP, and have a good point of view to comment on many of the threads this forum was SPECIFICALLY started for. Just avoid Nathan’s corner.

One other thing that I’d like to add, even though it’s not perfectly relevant, is that BBB was excellent to work with when we were the de facto main Administrators of this forum.

Behind the scenes, I always found her to be an excellent communicator; I also recall her running any out-of-the-ordinary decision by both Wizard and myself to let us know what action she had taken. I don’t recall disagreeing with her about very much when we were the de facto head Administrators and, even when we did, as she stated in her recent post, we always presented a united front.

While I did strongly disagree with her on the DarkOz situation (I was no longer an Admin), I always felt like she did a fine job as an Administrator overall and, like me, wasn’t afraid to defend her decisions against any criticism, fair or otherwise.

Anyway, that’s why I felt the need to defend her against any allegations of being anything less than truthful. I’ve never known her to be anything but honest.

They can't both be right.

What I posted, chronologically coming after Wizard gainsaid what BBB had posted (and before BBB doubled down on her claim), makes perfect sense and is absolutely truthful based on that Wizard came in and said that No, I did consult with her and, Yes, she did assent.

Since then neither one has rescinded his point of view.

Quote: Wizard

I also apologize for making a claim, which I still maintain, that I can't back up.
link to original post

At this point, having heard the BBB double down, this doesn't mean that I do not believe that BBB believes she is right, but who is to say that she is not the one who is mistaken in her recollection, versus Wizard?

If I'm on a jury and I'm put to a vote, I choose to believe Wizard. My reasoning includes that even if Wizard isn't recollecting the exchange precisely, it seems unlikely unless he is flat out lying that he could mis-recollect something that did not happen. In other words, given that I believe that he has testified credibly, I choose to believe that there was some discussion of this matter between the parties. Once I accept that there was some exchange, the balance tips in the Wizard's favor versus BBB's account of that this was not discussed whatsoever.

Parole evidence in favor of Wizard's account too is his habit of discussing matters with his moderators before taking action on more serious forum wide matters, and his practice of rarely reversing the decisions of his moderators.

If the currently active moderators were consulted on this matter, that would be even more evidence supporting a verdict in Wizard's favor.


When you think about, given the dearth of times (as both you and I pointed out, only about 20 times in past few years) BBB has even been on this forum during the period relevant to this matter, I assume she has very few PMs in her inbox. She could probably find that PM herself much easier than Wizard, and settle this matter.

Quote: MDawg

The existence of a “Do what you want” PM from BBB to Wizard regarding Nathan reinstatement would settle this matter.
link to original post

I don't post here much but I just wanna say Wizard did consider BBB regarding Nathan's reinstatement about 9 months ago. The issue came up at DT and he told Nathan: "You just don't call a female moderator the C word and expect to get off lightly. All roads back go through her and she is still a moderator in good standing."

This is not proof that Wiz definitely contacted her and gave her a heads up.
However, it proves that he expressed a habitual action or a conscience in letting her know beforehand, that
he would need a yes from her. And it was near the timeline that he's claiming to consult her about unbanning Nathan.
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3660/8/

Quote: Wizard

Quote: OnceDear

I invite Mike to elaborate as a courtesy to you. Please authorise him to reveal whatever private comms are salient.
link to original post

That is fair. I checked 125 pages of old messages in my private message in box as well as other methods of communication I have with BBB. Unfortunately for me, I did not find the message in question. My best explanation is that I deleted it.

However, I have been accused of false quoting, which I take seriously. That said, without any evidence to back up my claim, I would like to add the qualifier "as I recall" to my claim. I believe this happened very confidently, but I also know that people can remember things incorrectly, especially that happened over a year ago.

If BBB wishes to press charges for false quoting, despite my rewording, I will serve time for the statement. I also apologize for making a claim, which I still maintain, that I can't back up.
link to original post

Now that BBB has expressed that she doesnt want Nathan back, will you ban Nathan?

edit:
Keep her banned To end this drama.
and close the can of worms of letting back someone who broke the rules enough to be banned.

If she stays, how about letting Mickey Crimm back in?

Quote: Quadriga

I don't post here much but I just wanna say Wizard did consider BBB regarding Nathan's reinstatement about 9 months ago. The issue came up at DT and he told Nathan: "You just don't call a female moderator the C word and expect to get off lightly. All roads back go through her and she is still a moderator in good standing."

This is not proof that Wiz definitely contacted her and gave her a heads up.
However, it proves that he expressed a habitual action or a conscience in letting her know beforehand, that
he would need a yes from her. And it was near the timeline that he's claiming to consult her about unbanning Nathan.
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3660/8/
link to original post

At some point here we really need to have a "Mr. Campbell, who cares" moment. And anyone who does not get what that means google the phrase.

Quote: SOOPOO

This is terrible. I know both Mike and BBB. Both have been very kind to me outside of this forum.

Just wanted to second this opinion.

Quote: MDawg

They can't both be right.

What I posted, chronologically coming after Wizard gainsaid what BBB had posted (and before BBB doubled down on her claim), makes perfect sense and is absolutely truthful based on that Wizard came in and said that No, I did consult with her and, Yes, she did assent.

Since then neither one has rescinded his point of view.

Quote: Wizard

I also apologize for making a claim, which I still maintain, that I can't back up.
link to original post

At this point, having heard the BBB double down, this doesn't mean that I do not believe that BBB believes she is right, but who is to say that she is not the one who is mistaken in her recollection, versus Wizard?

If I'm on a jury and I'm put to a vote, I choose to believe Wizard. My reasoning includes that even if Wizard isn't recollecting the exchange precisely, it seems unlikely unless he is flat out lying that he could mis-recollect something that did not happen. In other words, given that I believe that he has testified credibly, I choose to believe that there was some discussion of this matter between the parties. Once I accept that there was some exchange, the balance tips in the Wizard's favor versus BBB's account of that this was not discussed whatsoever.

Parole evidence in favor of Wizard's account too is his habit of discussing matters with his moderators before taking action on more serious forum wide matters, and his practice of rarely reversing the decisions of his moderators.

If the currently active moderators were consulted on this matter, that would be even more evidence supporting a verdict in Wizard's favor.


When you think about, given the dearth of times (as both you and I pointed out, only about 20 times in past few years) BBB has even been on this forum during the period relevant to this matter, I assume she has very few PMs in her inbox. She could probably find that PM herself much easier than Wizard, and settle this matter.

Quote: MDawg

The existence of a “Do what you want” PM from BBB to Wizard regarding Nathan reinstatement would settle this matter.
link to original post

link to original post

That's precisely why you shouldn't have said that BBB's account is less than truthful; it would seem that you can't prove her account wrong. I'm just holding your posts to the same rules lawyering standard that I get the impression you want others to be held to.

You've also managed to hit upon how both could be telling the truth (from their own perspectives) without both being right. Wizard says that this matter was discussed roughly one year ago, but perhaps it was discussed alongside of some other conversation that BBB and Wizard were having, same PM chain, whatever; I'm speaking hypothetically. Doesn't it stand to reason that BBB could have simply forgot a discussion that took place a year ago? Do you remember every single conversation, however trite, that you've had within the last year?

With that, even if they couldn't, 'both be right,' both could be being honest---which I tend to think is the case. That's why you really shouldn't run around accusing people of not posting, "Something closer to the truth," which does more than imply you think the person is lying.

You said Babs was less than perfectly truthful and, not only can you not prove it, Wizard has now already said there is no proof that Babs was less than truthful after he specifically looked for said proof. Therefore, you should be held to the same standard of the rules that you seem to think anyone else should be held to; you accused Babs thusly:

Quote:

If she had posted something closer to the truth - that she was consulted in advance, and was noncommittal (deferred to the Wizard) - would have obviated most of this drama.

What would have happened to anyone else who had posted something like that, that did not quite ring true to what transpired?

And, you can't demonstrate a lack of perfect truthfulness on her part; you can only demonstrate that Wizard and herself remember something differently.

Would I ban you for that statement if I were an Administrator? No. I'd have done the same thing I've already done and made the same comments. Somehow, this place has morphed into a weird situation where people can occasionally get banned for not phrasing themselves with absolute perfection, and quite frequently, just not for very long.

Of course, I'm not an Administrator. If I were, then I'm fairly confident that there are some bans where you might have been involved (both in your favor and against you) where I would have eventually PM'ed you, and any other complainant, and said that if you see a post by (person) and I haven't done anything about it within twenty-four hours, then chances are I'm not going to-so don't repeatedly ask me to do anything about (person's) posts or you're getting Nuked.

Again, that's not a one-way deal. As I stated, I think (and also just from my observation on what's been going on around here) it would have come down to that as it pertains to how you relate to others and how others relate to you. Either way, I'm simply not going to sit around and let a high percentage of forum activity be mutually antagonistic conversations that all just happen to mostly involve the same person, or people.

Speaking of, who are you to talk about obviating drama? You generally post within the rules, but I can't imagine many people would look at your posting history and say, "These posts are definitely coming from a place of wanting to avoid pointless drama."

Here's what would happen with you and other people if I were an Admin: There would be heated exchanges and there would be complaints PM'ed to me---I would do nothing and tell everyone involved that if you don't see me bust a post on my own accord, then I am almost certainly not going to be compelled to do so. The conversation between you and the other person/people would slowly escalate, then eventually, someone would get themselves banned on a rules violation that doesn't need any lawyering because the violation wouldn't be anywhere close to ambiguous.

I can also say that I wouldn't have done away with the Martingale, but that's just my opinion.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: OnceDear

Thanks Mike, Fair answer. I personally won't press you much further on what seems potentially embarrassing. However, your response implies that she did not say 'do what you want' in a recent and topical conversation on the matter, but that you are remembering a non-recent conversation? Non recent enough for some misremembering or false memory to be in play.? I don't believe you are being dishonest, I do believe that BBB would not have given much of a green light to welcoming Kentry back. At best a women's type reply (NOT QUOTE ) "Do what you want: You will anyway"

Do you really delete messages so arbitrarily? I only ever delete oldest messages and total trivia when I reach quota. I never hit quota on this forum. Therefore I personally never delete
link to original post

No, it was not recent. I was during the quiet period. My best guess is it was about a year ago.

I delete about half my private messages on a fairly arbitrary basis. You can imagine how many I get. Currently I have 470 pages of messages in my in box.
link to original post

Called back for a couple PMs, so looked at this thread as well. Ok, I don't get near the PM traffic Mike does, so I only have 207 pages in my inbox, and I don't delete. The last time Nathan was discussed at all with me and Mike in the conversation, was Feb 26, 2020, and I was CCd on an investigation of her socks by another admin. I was asked to say something, and I said I supported the other admin's reasoning and actions 100%.

The other means Mike and I have communicated contain no trace of Nathan.

Now. It was news to me upthread that there was a discussion on DT about this ~9 months ago.. I very much appreciate that I was a consideration in that conversation. I haven't signed into DT for several years, so it's possible that Mike PMd me there, or at least thought about it, but if he did, I haven't read it or responded to it.

I think it was a great courtesy extended to me by Mike to leave me in green while I was caretaking and grieving, and more recently, dead for a few minutes. On Sept 18, I was in the ER waiting to be seen for several hours while the hospital was "having a bad day", went into septic shock, and my heart and breathing stopped, due to necrotizing fasciitis from an ant bite. Yes, an ant bite. I vaguely remember texting my nephew I was going to emergency surgery, and receiving Last Rites, and not much else.

After they revived me, I was intubated and put into a medically induced coma for several days, while they carved a huge hole in my upper abdomen, debriding the dead skin. Hospital for 10 days, rehab wound care facility for almost a month, home health care daily for another 2 months, still recovering. The pain of healing has been intense and long-lasting, especially the wound suction, on a hole that was originally 39x13x4cm, about the volume of 2 loaves of bread.

So, yeah, I haven't been posting much here or anywhere. I'm up to about 2 good hours a day. The scar is horrific. But I'm still here, so that's something.

Anyway, to address some other comments in this thread. I don't think Mike and I have had a falling out. We are still friends. I just don't have the energy or inclination any more to be an admin. But I think I will change my mind and continue to come in and participate from time to time.

One thing you learn when you almost die is to appreciate the people who care about you, and please forgive me for forgetting for a while the dozens of you I've met or interacted with here. I thank you for your kindness, your words of friendship, your caring.

Another is to not sweat the small stuff, so there are 2 small stuffs I'll be ignoring, the same 2 I refused to admin. (Another good reason not to admin any more - recusing yourself doesn't help the rest of the forum members offended or goaded into responses.)

And yes, I am offended by being called a liar, by implication or directly. My integrity is very important to me. I formally complain about being impugned upthread, publicly rather than by PM, because the slur was public as well.

I haven't really considered Mission146 to be a sh*t stirrer, but you've done it twice now on two different subjects. Which is fine to have differing opinions, but twice now recently you've come at the subject with the angle of "admins were wrong or admins should do this or that or when I was or were I an admin I would do it this way."

I stand by what I said, and I continue to side with Wizard on this. They can't both be right.

"And, you can't demonstrate a lack of perfect truthfulness on her part; you can only demonstrate that Wizard and herself remember something differently."

Yes I can. After she said that this was never discussed, Wizard came in and stated definitely that it was discussed and even quoted the exact words used in the discussion. He even confirmed what he remembered by way of "You would have to ask BBB those questions." At that moment, I chose to believe Wizard over BBB, and that is my right. At that point he had not said anything about he might not have remembered exactly, he simply stated categorically words to the effect of - BBB is wrong!

I didn't see you saying anything more about the matter after Wizard nailed the coffin shut on the matter (at that point), other than "I really don't understand the apparent implication that someone who has already announced they are leaving (BBB) should be banned" which implies that you were giving full faith and credit yourself to Wizard's statement.

Basically what happened here is that there was a sort of whipsaw, with BBB's first post and then the "wow did Wizard throw BBB under the bus?" posts, followed by Wizard's coming in and saying definitely that No, she's wrong, we did discuss this and a sort of I don't know why she is saying this type post which reaffirms that he was saying that he was right and she was saying something not correct.

The extent to which I modified my opinion, is noted below, and I still sided with Wizard. He has not recanted has he? Think too about motive - what motive would Wizard have for not telling the truth about this?

Bottom line: is you can't blame someone for taking someone at his word, and I chose to take Wizard at his word. Still do. If BBB has a problem with anyone, it is with Wizard not with anyone who chose to believe him.

Quote: MDawg

They can't both be right.

What I posted, chronologically coming after Wizard gainsaid what BBB had posted (and before BBB doubled down on her claim), makes perfect sense and is absolutely truthful based on that Wizard came in and said that No, I did consult with her and, Yes, she did assent.

Since then neither one has rescinded his point of view.

Quote: Wizard

I also apologize for making a claim, which I still maintain, that I can't back up.
link to original post

At this point, having heard the BBB double down, this doesn't mean that I do not believe that BBB believes she is right, but who is to say that she is not the one who is mistaken in her recollection, versus Wizard?

If I'm on a jury and I'm put to a vote, I choose to believe Wizard. My reasoning includes that even if Wizard isn't recollecting the exchange precisely, it seems unlikely unless he is flat out lying that he could mis-recollect something that did not happen. In other words, given that I believe that he has testified credibly, I choose to believe that there was some discussion of this matter between the parties. Once I accept that there was some exchange, the balance tips in the Wizard's favor versus BBB's account of that this was not discussed whatsoever.

Parole evidence in favor of Wizard's account too is his habit of discussing matters with his moderators before taking action on more serious forum wide matters, and his practice of rarely reversing the decisions of his moderators.

If the currently active moderators were consulted on this matter, that would be even more evidence supporting a verdict in Wizard's favor.


When you think about, given the dearth of times (as both you and I pointed out, only about 20 times in past few years) BBB has even been on this forum during the period relevant to this matter, I assume she has very few PMs in her inbox. She could probably find that PM herself much easier than Wizard, and settle this matter.

Quote: MDawg

The existence of a “Do what you want” PM from BBB to Wizard regarding Nathan reinstatement would settle this matter.
link to original post

link to original post

Quote: MDawg

I haven't really considered Mission146 to be a sh*t stirrer, but you've done it twice now on two different subjects. Which is fine to have differing opinions, but twice now recently you've come at the subject with the angle of "admins were wrong or admins should do this or that or when I was or were I an admin I would do it this way."

I stand by what I said, and I continue to side with Wizard on this. They can't both be right.

"And, you can't demonstrate a lack of perfect truthfulness on her part; you can only demonstrate that Wizard and herself remember something differently."

Yes I can. After she said that this was never discussed, Wizard came in and stated definitely that it was discussed and even quoted the exact words used in the discussion. At that moment, I chose to believe Wizard over BBB, and that is my right.

The extent to which I modified my opinion, is noted below, and I still sided with Wizard. He has not recanted has he?

(Quote-in-quotes removed, space)

Once again, even if they both can't be right, you made an affirmative statement that BBB was less than truthful; I will quote it again:

Quote: MDawg

If she had posted something closer to the truth - that she was consulted in advance, and was noncommittal (deferred to the Wizard) - would have obviated most of this drama.

What would have happened to anyone else who had posted something like that, that did not quite ring true to what transpired?

In other words, you directly state, in that post, that what BBB posted was less than truthful. Not only can you not prove that claim, but Wizard himself has said that he cannot prove that BBB responded affirmatively (or in a neutral way) on the topic of Nathan being brought back.

I also find it hilarious that you would imply that I'm a s***-stirrer when you're the one asking questions such as:

Quote: MDawg

Doesn't this mean then that BBB deliberately misled the forum as to what transpired? What is to be gained by implying that you were never consulted and were against it all along, when in fact you were consulted in advance, and were noncommittal.

That looks like some serious s***-stirring to me.

I also find it astonishing that you would accuse not only a former Administrator with several years of unpaid service to this forum of being less than truthful (with nothing aside from your own opinion to actually back up such an accusation), but more than that, someone who was endured as much as Babs has had to endure...and made public...the last several years. What can possibly be gained by doing that, pray tell?

I didn't even know about her brush with death and subsequent ongoing recovery...and I'd already thought she'd all but been through hell the last few years before that.

Far from being a s***-stirrer; I had many years of a great working relationship with BBB when we were both Admins here. When you consider that and everything that she has been going through over the last several years, it's not so much that I'm a s***-stirrer, but more like I'd be a piece of s*** if I didn't have at least enough integrity and respect for my time spent working with her to step in and defend her on this one.

You can prefer Wizard's version of events to BBB's, if you wish, that is your right; what is not your right; by the very interpretation of the rules that you seem to favor, is to accuse BBB of being less than truthful without having the ability to prove that. Your opinion that you think Wizard's version is more accurate than BBB's carries no weight vis-a-vis actually being able to prove your accusations.

If you want to do the rules lawyering with other people around here, then your posts should be held to the same standard. I also don't involve myself with you too often because I generally don't care what you're doing around here---and if other people get bans as a result of their engagements with you, then you would think the lesson that they would eventually learn is not to engage with you.

However, when you're going to not only accuse BBB of being less than truthful, then ask whether or not she, 'Deliberately misled the forum,' I am going to step in and defend her.

Wizard said:

Quote: Wizard

That is fair. I checked 125 pages of old messages in my private message in box as well as other methods of communication I have with BBB. Unfortunately for me, I did not find the message in question. My best explanation is that I deleted it.

However, I have been accused of false quoting, which I take seriously. That said, without any evidence to back up my claim, I would like to add the qualifier "as I recall" to my claim. I believe this happened very confidently, but I also know that people can remember things incorrectly, especially that happened over a year ago.

If BBB wishes to press charges for false quoting, despite my rewording, I will serve time for the statement. I also apologize for making a claim, which I still maintain, that I can't back up.

With that, Wizard did a few things in that post:

1.) As much as said that there's no proof BBB is being less than truthful, much less, possibly deliberately misleading the forum.

2.) Qualified his earlier statement.

3.) Admits to the fundamental fallibility of the human memory over a year's time.

4.) Offers to take a ban for false quoting (which I don't think is necessary).

But, your post accused BBB of posting something that wasn't truthful; there is no proof that exists proving your accusation, and consequently, you should be banned pursuant to the very standard to which you would hold others.

It doesn't matter whether or not Wizard recants; what matters is that you as much as accused BBB of lying and---far from being able to prove that she was less than truthful---you can't even strictly prove that her statements weren't 100% accurate as well as being truthful.

So, no, not s***-stirring---just defending someone with whom I had a good working relationship for several years, as most people would. I don't personally care if you get banned or not, but given your proclivity for rules-lawyering posts...and also by the standard to which you seem to want others held...I'm going to make a case that you should be banned for this one. I don't even think it's ambiguous. Don't direct any further accusations BBB's way and you'll probably never have to worry about me again after this. Also, statements and actions that I see as possibly being hypocritical rub me the wrong way, in general.

ADDED: Also, BBB is correct that she hasn't logged in to DT in over four years; that being the case, it stands to reason that she wouldn't be aware of anything related to DT.

NOTE: It appears MDawg edited his post, so anything where my quote of him doesn't match his post is because of that. I'm not spending ten minutes doctoring my post to quote something that was added/edited after I was already in the process of responding.

BBB, thank you for sharing and I am so sorry for everything you went through. We have never met in person, but I’ve always enjoyed your contributions to this forum.

Nah, Mission146, you're full of imprecision in your chronology and logic.

At the time that I posted what I posted,

If she had posted something closer to the truth - that she was consulted in advance, and was noncommittal (deferred to the Wizard) - would have obviated most of this drama.

What would have happened to anyone else who had posted something like that, that did not quite ring true to what transpired?

Wizard had stated definitely that he did consult with her, and that she had said "Do what you want." At that point what I stated made perfect sense given that I was giving full faith and credit to Wizard's rebuttal. At that point there was no talk of misremembering or imprecision, Wizard was flat out saying that this is not what happened. I mean, he is the owner of this site, I can't take him at his word?

There is more reason too for why I posted what I posted, and if Wizard will allow me to reveal the content of at least one of our PMs back and forth, dating from before the decision was made to reinstate Nathan, I can provide more reasons to back up why I said what I said at that point.

Partial Quote-that I assume was added by edit:

Quote: MDawg

I didn't see you saying anything more about the matter after Wizard nailed the coffin shut on the matter (at that point), other than "I really don't understand the apparent implication that someone who has already announced they are leaving (BBB) should be banned" which implies that you were giving full faith and credit yourself to Wizard's statement.

Yeah, because it looked like you were trying to sstir-s*** to get BBB banned, the very action that you now, ironically, accuse me of trying to do to you.

Even if I gave full faith and credit to Wizard's statement, there's a difference between that and saying that BBB is being less than truthful, more than, openly questioning whether or not she deliberately misled the forum. I can believe someone's recollection without the need to accuse someone else of lying.

I think, as far as their own memories go, both are probably telling the truth. I'm not saying that both are right, particularly not if their statements strictly conflict, but I tend to think that both believe they are telling the truth on this one. One characteristic of someone who is not a deliberate s***_stirrer is taking what another person says at face-value, vis-a-vis whether or not they think they are being honest, until such time that you can actually prove dishonesty.

Quote: MDawg

Nah, Mission146, you're full of imprecision in your chronology and logic.

At the time that I posted what I posted,

If she had posted something closer to the truth - that she was consulted in advance, and was noncommittal (deferred to the Wizard) - would have obviated most of this drama.

What would have happened to anyone else who had posted something like that, that did not quite ring true to what transpired?

Wizard had stated definitely that he did consult with her, and that she had said "Do what you want." At that point what I stated made perfect sense given that I was giving full faith and credit to Wizard's rebuttal. At that point there was no talk of misremembering or imprecision, Wizard was flat out saying that this is not what happened. I mean, he is the owner of this site, I can't take him at his word?

There is more reason too for why I posted what I posted, and if Wizard will allow me to reveal the content of at least one of our PMs back and forth, dating from before the decision was made to reinstate Nathan, I can provide more reasons to back up why I said what I said at that point.
link to original post

It's irrelevant; you're also ignoring the part of a later post where you pointedly inquired as to whether or not BBB had, 'Deliberately misled,' the forum.

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. I came in to defend BBB against what I perceived to be accusations of deliberately being less than honest and that's what I did. The Administrators can do with what I said what they want to; again, I really don't care if you get banned or not---there's no percentage in it for me. I think that you would do well to be more mindful of the tone of your posts---especially when your tone is accusatory towards someone who someone situated like me would be inclined to defend.

As far as that "deliberately misled" post, Wizard himself responded to it with something to the effect of, I'm wondering the same thing!

Quote: Wizard

Quote: MDawg

Doesn't this mean then that BBB deliberately misled the forum as to what transpired? What is to be gained by implying that you were never consulted and were against it all along, when in fact you were consulted in advance, and were noncommittal.

You would have to ask BBB those questions. We seem to both want to go on our separate ways. I wish her well and thank her for her years of service.
link to original post

Anyway, you can't see that all of your posts are slanted towards believing BBB? You've taken sides as much as anyone, which means that it is just as reasonable for someone else to take the other side.

Debating that issue, how can you believe that this matter was never discussed?

Quote: MDawg

If I'm on a jury and I'm put to a vote, I choose to believe Wizard. My reasoning includes that even if Wizard isn't recollecting the exchange precisely, it seems unlikely unless he is flat out lying that he could mis-recollect something that did not happen. In other words, given that I believe that he has testified credibly, I choose to believe that there was some discussion of this matter between the parties. Once I accept that there was some exchange, the balance tips in the Wizard's favor versus BBB's account of that this was not discussed whatsoever.

Parole evidence in favor of Wizard's account too is his habit of discussing matters with his moderators before taking action on more serious forum wide matters, and his practice of rarely reversing the decisions of his moderators.

If the currently active moderators were consulted on this matter, that would be even more evidence supporting a verdict in Wizard's favor.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

There is more reason too for why I posted what I posted, and if Wizard will allow me to reveal the content of at least one of our PMs back and forth, dating from before the decision was made to reinstate Nathan, I can provide more reasons to back up why I said what I said at that point.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

You can't see that all of your posts are slanted towards believing BBB? You've taken sides as much as anyone, which means that it is just as reasonable for someone else to take the other side.

Debating that issue, how can you believe that this matter was never discussed?

Blah, blah, blah. Misdirection isn't going to work with me. Even if I were slanted towards believing BBB (I'm not, by the way; I think both BBB and Wizard equally believe what they are saying and I am not a party to their private correspondences), that would be different from making an affirmative statement that Wizard is being less than truthful, then doubling down and inquiring as to whether or not Wizard has, 'Deliberately misled,' the forum. The two things aren't even comparable; I'm not accusing either Wizard, or BBB, of anything; I specifically believe that both parties remember what they have said as what transpired. Wizard legitimately recalls a conversation where BBB said what he said that she said and she does not recall any such conversation ever occurring.

The question isn't about who is factually right or wrong; the question is about whether your accusation that BBB was less than truthful has any founding or proof to support such a statement; it doesn't.

That's my last response to you on this. Whatever will be will be. I have neither the time nor inclination to get into a back-and-forth that's going to last hours, or days, and inevitably just end up being circular debating by the both of us anyway. Good day to you. The final word is yours, if you want it.

Oh, one last thing, tangentially related. You can have the last word after this.

Given that I have already opined that I don't see Nathan being back, in and of itself, as a problem...and also that I had no real trouble dealing with Nathan when I was an Admin, you would think, if I was going to be biased in favor of either party, that I'd be biased to prefer Wizard's account of events.

My entire issue with this is the accusation that BBB was deliberately less than truthful; I'm also glad that she's not permanently leaving as a result of Nathan's return. As far as Nathan's return itself is concerned, I've already welcomed Nathan back, I believe.

So far, she's returned to say that she didn't want Nathan back, never agreed with this, and so on.

And she mentioned that she is no longer an Admin.

Now she may comment any way she wishes about any content without being concerned about seeming neutral, that is one advantage to no longer being Admin. Which is why I am free to pick sides in this matter just like any other non-Admin.

Quote: Mission146

The question isn't about who is factually right or wrong; the question is about whether your accusation that BBB was less than truthful has any founding or proof to support such a statement; it doesn't.
link to original post

Of course it does have foundation. When Wizard stated that No - I did discuss this with her and this is what was said, that directly contradicted her statement. At that point anyone believing Wizard's statement would have to assume that BBB was not telling it like it was, at least as to that the matter was never discussed.

There's no gray area there, not at that point anyway, and even at this point, you have to either believe that the matter was never discussed (as BBB claims), or was discussed (as Wizard claims).

Also, I speak with precision. I said, "Doesn't this mean?" I did not say, 'this means' that she misled the forum.

You're trying to judge a statement I made, with evidence that was not available at the time I made the statement. You did the same sort of thing with the prior matter. At the time I made that statement all we had in evidence was that Wizard was saying, That's not the way it happened! It was a definitive statement that even included a quotation of what was discussed.

Twice now, you've misunderstood or misapplied basic rules of evidence. You're basically saying that "if two people say contradictory things, you can't use one statement against the other." Judges and juries do that all the time. If you decide that one statement is more believable than the other, that alone is sufficient evidence to state that you believe the first statement is false. And again, at the time I said what I said, we did not have in evidence anything about Wizard's saying he wasn't sure exactly what was said, or that he could not find the PM. Which is another evidentiary mistake you keep making - trying to introduce facts not yet in evidence. At the time I made the statement with which you disagree, the evidence supported absolutely what I said.

It was only later that Wizard stated that he might not have remembered exactly what was said or when. And still, you have a clear dichotomy between "never discussed" and "was discussed." You have to believe one or the other.


Really, neither one at this point has posted any hard evidence, so it comes down to whom you believe.


I'm still curious to hear from the two active Mods as to whether Wizard discussed this Nathan reinstatement with either of them.

The way this is going........

Here is an idea, just suspend everyone for 3 days.

At this point I've apparently advocated for both Nathan and the Wizard, and sometimes lawyers do end up locked up with or for their clients.

But I have no reason to disbelieve the Wizard, and he says that this matter was discussed with BBB. It was also his habit or custom to discuss decisions like this with his moderators, and habit or custom may be introduced in support of hearsay.

Quote: MDawg

Quote: Mission146

The question isn't about who is factually right or wrong; the question is about whether your accusation that BBB was less than truthful has any founding or proof to support such a statement; it doesn't.
link to original post

Of course it does have foundation. When Wizard stated that No - I did discuss this with her and this is what was said, that directly contradicted her statement. At that point anyone believing Wizard's statement would have to assume that BBB was not telling it like it was, at least as to that the matter was never discussed.

There's no gray area there, not at that point anyway, and even at this point, you have to either believe that the matter was never discussed (as BBB claims), or was discussed (as Wizard claims).

Also, I speak with precision. I said, "Doesn't this mean?" I did not say, 'this means' that she misled the forum.

You're trying to judge a statement I made, with evidence that was not available at the time I made the statement. You did the same sort of thing with the prior matter. At the time I made that statement all we had in evidence was that Wizard was saying, That's not the way it happened! It was a definitive statement that even included a quotation of what was discussed.

It was only later that Wizard stated that he might not have remembered exactly what was said or when. And still, you have a clear dichotomy between "never discussed" and "was discussed." You have to believe one or the other.


Really, neither one at this point has posted any hard evidence, so it comes down to whom you believe.


I'm still curious to hear from the two active Mods as to whether Wizard discussed this Nathan reinstatement with either of them.
link to original post

This really is the last one as this has become boring in addition to being redundant, as I predicted.

The first thing that we will note is that Wizard's statement did, in fact, disagree with what BBB had said vis-a-vis being asked about it. Of course, just because you believe Wizard's version of events doesn't mean that BBB is necessarily not being truthful (according to her own version of events), much less, deliberately lying.

You'll also notice that Wizard stated his opinion without accusing BBB of being misleading, deliberately, or otherwise. In fact, Wizard seems to allow for the possibility (though he seems to doubt it) that his own recollection might be off. Even if not that, then he certainly allows for the possibility that BBB is not deliberately being dishonest as he cites the potential for someone's memory to be off after a year's time.

With that, we will reiterate the first statement I had a problem with:

Quote: MDawg

If she had posted something closer to the truth - that she was consulted in advance, and was noncommittal (deferred to the Wizard) - would have obviated most of this drama.

What would have happened to anyone else who had posted something like that, that did not quite ring true to what transpired?

The problem here is that your post directly states that what she posted wasn't, 'Closer to the truth,' which you are unable to prove. More than being unable to prove that her post is not the truth; you are unable to even prove that her post is, in any way, inaccurate. Wizard's account differing from BBB's is certainly evidence, but it is not sufficient to be able to go around saying that people are posting untruthful things and wondering aloud what would happen to anyone else who did the same.

I would suggest that opining that another member is posting something that fails to be, 'Closer to the truth,' without the ability to prove such a claim falls under Rule 12 against Bullying and Trolling. In support of my claim that this is bullying, I'd also like to add in the difficulty that BBB has faced over the last several years as well as the fact that, I believe, you were instrumental in Nathan's return to the forum; as such, your impartiality as to anything that BBB has to say on that matter can be reasonably questioned. Someone more conspiracy minded than myself might even think that you'd enjoy seeing BBB take a ban.

As far as who to believe, I've already told you---I don't HAVE to believe anything. How the hell would I know whether or not a conversation that I wasn't privy to took place? I have no way of knowing that. The only thing that I believe is that both BBB and Wizard think they are relating events factually, and consequently, neither should be accused of lying...much less openly accused of it.

Your other statements just keep improving my case; please stop doing that so I can stop talking. I really do mean to give you the last word. However, your other statement with which I took issue:

Quote: MDawg

Doesn't this mean then that BBB deliberately misled the forum as to what transpired?

What is to be gained by implying that you were never consulted and were against it all along, when in fact you were consulted in advance, and were noncommittal.

In which you not only inquire about the possibility of BBB having, 'Deliberately misled,' the forum, but also, state as fact that BBB was consulted, in advance, and was non committal and then directly asking her what is to be gained by doing that. More trolling/bullying.

I'd also add that believing Wizard doesn't create a necessity for you to even hint that BBB may have deliberately misled anyone. You could make a statement such as, "I tend to believe Wizard's version of events," which wouldn't even slightly imply that you think BBB is deliberately misleading or not posting something, 'Closer to the truth,' as she sees it. In other words, you can believe Wizard without making an accusation about Babs that it now turns out you can't prove.

I don't have to choose between, 'Never discussed,' and, 'Was discussed,' as you seem to think you have to do. I'm not privy to what BBB and Wizard discuss, so why should I have to choose whether or not a particular discussion took place between them, much less, do so while as much as saying one party is lying?

The question is about what BBB believes, when we're talking about you making accusations, not about what is actually right or wrong. Evidence would suggest, given that BBB's initial post seems to take Nathan's return as a surprising development (combined with her direct denial of being consulted about same), that BBB believes what she said to be the case. Implied or otherwise, nothing about BBB's conduct should warrant such aspersions being directly cast upon her or asked about her.

Please take the last word, if you want to, and make a statement that doesn't make my argument even better. Thank you. I can stop responding if you would quit making my position even stronger.

As far as the last bit, one assumes they would need Wizard's permission to disclose if, and to what extent, Nathan's return was discussed with them. It would all be private communication, would it not?

I acknowledge that I am not BBB's favorite person, but let me say this.

IMO, BBB was one of the most valuable participants we have ever had in WOV. She was very knowledgeable, an excellent writer and almost everything she posted was worth reading. I constantly learned things about game design, probability and table games from reading her posts. She served for many years as a moderator - a job in which, IMO, there are moments of satisfaction but very little joy.

Given that BBB has decided to separate from the forum, she should be exiting with her head held high and our attitude should be one of honoring her and thanking her. Anyone who has ever talked to two divorcing parties will know that they can be very high quality people but that their accounts of what has happened in their marriage may differ. Trying to reconcile the differences in the accounts is not constructive. In court, two parties can give sworn testimony that completely disagree and conflict with each other, but the judge doesn't charge anyone with perjury.

My authority as a moderator doesn't extend to restricting people from posting their opinions, but my request is to be classy and to honor BBB with the kind of respect that she deserves. She was one of the best people WOV has ever had, and I don't know anything else that needs to be said.

Quote: gordonm888

Trying to reconcile the differences in the accounts is not constructive.
link to original post

I will leave it alone if Mission146 will do the same.

Quote: MDawg

Quote: gordonm888

Trying to reconcile the differences in the accounts is not constructive.
link to original post

I will leave it alone if Mission146 will do the same.
link to original post

Naturally. My only concern is that BBB be treated with a level of respect befitting her innumerable contributions to the forum (which Gordon eloquently detailed) and my jumping to her defense was motivated by my personal dealings with her, which were overwhelmingly positive.

As stated, I’ve no particular desire to see you take a ban as it wouldn’t benefit me in any way whatsoever. If that’s what it would take for BBB to get the respect that her contributions should afford her, then it would be but a means to my desired end.

TL;DR—-We’re good. See you around.

I don't believe the Wizard. Can I say that?

Quote: ChumpChange

I don't believe the Wizard. Can I say that?
link to original post

I believe the Wizard either mis-remembered or misinterpreted a conversation. Nothing dishonest or culpable.

I also believe that MDawg has done BBB a serious discourtesy by questioning the truthfulness of her statements. It was fair enough when he initially believed wizard, but he became culpable when he doubled down after wizard acknowledged having no record of the conversation and confirmed that it didn't immediately precede his decision to reinstate.

Anyhow, in BBB's latest post, she formally complains about MDawg's characterisation of her.

Mods..... I hope you are taking notice of that.
.

I missed this post entirely until just a bit ago

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/36338-discussion-iii-about-the-suspension-list/50/#post916657

where BBB outlines all her health problems, including that she is functioning at only “about 2 good hours a day.”

I’m sorry to hear that, and I didn’t mean to add to her distress with my posts about how I interpreted this dispute between her and Wizard.

I’d like to think of BBB as the person who made this post

about my “Casino Credit” blog, making me feel quite welcome as a newcomer to this forum, and I wouldn’t want her to think that I am against her.

I apologize for implying that she deliberately misled the forum. From Wizard’s further statements, it is not entirely clear what transpired here, and if I had posted about this only after all the facts were in, I would have stuck to just my opinion supporting the Wizard versus trying to assign blame.

Quote: Mission146

This really is the last one as this has become boring in addition to being redundant, as I predicted.

Mission, please stop. You are starting to compromise your impeccable integrity by continuing this.

This site is FUBAR.

Bye.

I don't see how a conversation from 9 months ago would pertain to the current time period anyways, given the update to the situation. Seems any opinion by BBB from that long ago would be revisited.

Quote: rsactuary

I don't see how a conversation from 9 months ago would pertain to the current time period anyways, given the update to the situation. Seems any opinion by BBB from that long ago would be revisited.
link to original post

Yes. I thought the same.

Also about creating sock accts:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/35231-super-fun-and-easy-way-to-beat-baccarat-and-make-millions/#post782971

Quote: Wizard

Quote: EliotJ

Thanks Mike. I lost track of the email address I used for "teliot" and so I can't reset the password. Forgive this duplicate account. If you can fix teliot for me, much appreciated.

You're welcome.

I'm afraid the duplicate account can't be forgiven. After Buzz and Monet, we have a zero tolerance policy against it. I also don't think that any we can change your Email on file, even manually, as that information is encrypted. I would suggest trying every Email you know about about in our password reset form.
link to original post

but BBB said Nathan created many sock accts.
So why was she let back in?

Quote: teliot

This site is FUBAR.

Bye.
link to original post

And another valuable poster leaves. :(

I'm actually not that surprised he left.
He voiced his sadness (if that's the right word) for this site last year:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/36338-discussion-iii-about-the-suspension-list/29/#post883542

Quote: rsactuary

I don't see how a conversation from 9 months ago would pertain to the current time period anyways, given the update to the situation. Seems any opinion by BBB from that long ago would be revisited.
link to original post

I do not see why so many people care so much about this. BBB said she was leaving, let her leave. Moveon.com and discuss something more important, which is almost anything.

Freedom for DarkOz!

Freedom for BillRyan!

Freedom for PokerGrinder!

Let my people go!

Quote: Mission146

Freedom for DarkOz!

Freedom for BillRyan!

Freedom for PokerGrinder!

Let my people go!
link to original post

FREE EB!

PARDON PETE ROSE!

That’s tomorrow; I agree on pardoning Pete Rose. I was just reminding the Admins that the prisoners are scheduled to be released, but in a goofy way.

Quote: Mission146

That’s tomorrow; I agree on pardoning Pete Rose. I was just reminding the Admins that the prisoners are scheduled to be released, but in a goofy way.
link to original post

I get that, hence the reply. Give him time off for good behavior.

Didn’t DarkOz say he’d quit the forum if suspended? so what’s the hurry.