Discussion III about the Suspension List

Quote: 100xOdds

I'm putting you on ignore like EvenBob
link to original post

When BBB was a mod she warned me to stop listing the members I have on ignore lest she suspend me. So perhaps lucky for you that no one in the present admin looks at things that way.

Quote: beachbumbabs

WARNING. Please stop with the blocked users screenshots. It comes off as trolling the other members, and in the past, was cause for suspensions, though was never codified into forum rules. If you continue, I will have to take it as deliberate trolling and take action. Thanks.

I actually don’t have anyone on ignore any longer. Come what come may, Time and the hour runs through the roughest day!

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: OnceDear

Importing from the Nathan's Corner Thread....

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: Nathan

I REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post

For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post

Three days for bullying.

You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.

The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post

I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.

You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.

We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.

We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post

I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.

Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.

Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.

I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.

It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post

I was angry when I read this. Then I realized the writer can't help himself.

Nathan was banned from here for many reasons, among them was calling a woman I consider a friend a nasty names. As per the many rules of the forum, that got her a well-deserved ban. That gordon leaps to the conclusion this has anything to do with the persons race, gender or intelligence is absurd and speaks volumes about himself. His attempts to make this into a civil rights case is just the latest example of his utter unfitness to moderate anything.
Anyone remember the old 1960s commercial with the song "You've got to be taught, before it's too late?"

As a precedent has been established that offending a moderator isn't grounds for being permanently banned, why not allow Mickey Crimm back?

I understand that Crimm and KewlJ physically threatened Wizard, and KewlJ advocated for the doxxing of Wizard's entire family among other offenses that got him perma banned - twice.

So, I'd say that "taking or threatening to take things off forum" versus cussing someone out on the 'net only are quite different.

Anyway, as D.Oz has pointed out,

Quote: darkoz

Nathan has so far exhibited quite well restraint considering the number of negative posts to the point SHE is making you guys look bad.
link to original post

Why bring up Crimm, when trying to explain yourself in this matter? Crimm's last post at this forum mentioned how he proudly participated in a race riot "on the white boys side."

I don't think Gordo is accusing you of being a racist or having racist motives, he appears to be saying that when the target is a member of multiple protected or minority classes that the type or wording of the insult you hurled at her could be construed in a certain way by the victim.

In your defense, I'd say that you've shown at least temporary dislike for most everyone here, at one point or another, regardless of Race, Color, National Origin, Religion or Sex.

Quote: billryan

As a precedent has been established that offending a moderator isn't grounds for being permanently banned, why not allow Mickey Crimm back?
link to original post

As I recall, Mickey Crimm was banned after a racist drunken rant, not a verbal assault on a moderator.

I recall Wizard mentioning a physical threat made verbally, and that wouldn’t be tolerated. I was sorry to see him go as an “Interesting contributor” on the topic of gambling. Not sure about the quality of his overall character. I wasn’t really trying to judge that as to whether he should stay or go.

Quote: MrV

OK, but if the bulk of a poster's posts are brags or forms of self-aggfrandizement, why shoud they get a bye from judgment?

Because nobody is required to tell the truth here. It is just an online forum.

I may be a 72 year old female art teacher just claiming to be a former gaming developer.

Quote: DRich

Quote: MrV

OK, but if the bulk of a poster's posts are brags or forms of self-aggfrandizement, why shoud they get a bye from judgment?

Because nobody is required to tell the truth here. It is just an online forum.

I may be a 72 year old female art teacher just claiming to be a former gaming developer.
link to original post

Aunt Betty, is that you?!

Quote: billryan

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: OnceDear

Importing from the Nathan's Corner Thread....

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: Nathan

I REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post

For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post

Three days for bullying.

You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.

The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post

I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.

You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.

We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.

We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post

I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.

Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.

Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.

I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.

It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post

I was angry when I read this. Then I realized the writer can't help himself.

Nathan was banned from here for many reasons, among them was calling a woman I consider a friend a nasty names. As per the many rules of the forum, that got her a well-deserved ban. That gordon leaps to the conclusion this has anything to do with the persons race, gender or intelligence is absurd and speaks volumes about himself. His attempts to make this into a civil rights case is just the latest example of his utter unfitness to moderate anything.
Anyone remember the old 1960s commercial with the song "You've got to be taught, before it's too late?"

As a precedent has been established that offending a moderator isn't grounds for being permanently banned, why not allow Mickey Crimm back?
link to original post

My point was not about assuming your motives, it was about avoiding the possibility of a civil rights complaint. The DOJ wouldn't care what Nathan and BBB said to each other 4-5 years ago, they would care that a minority disabled person complained to WOV and said that she felt offended by the clearly inappropriate things you said. Nathan falls into at least two "protected categories of persons" as defined in Civils Right legislation and you are not free to speak hatefully to her in thsi forum, whatever your motives may be. In civil rights cases, your motivations for offensive speech are not relevant. You are free to block Nathan and not go into Nathan's Corner thread anymore if you wish, but if you chat to her you should avoid offensive statements about her as a person.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: OnceDear

Importing from the Nathan's Corner Thread....

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: Nathan

I REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post

For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post

Three days for bullying.

You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.

The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post

I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.

You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.

We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.

We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post

I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.

Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.

Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.

I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.

It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post

I was angry when I read this. Then I realized the writer can't help himself.

Nathan was banned from here for many reasons, among them was calling a woman I consider a friend a nasty names. As per the many rules of the forum, that got her a well-deserved ban. That gordon leaps to the conclusion this has anything to do with the persons race, gender or intelligence is absurd and speaks volumes about himself. His attempts to make this into a civil rights case is just the latest example of his utter unfitness to moderate anything.
Anyone remember the old 1960s commercial with the song "You've got to be taught, before it's too late?"

As a precedent has been established that offending a moderator isn't grounds for being permanently banned, why not allow Mickey Crimm back?
link to original post

My point was not about assuming your motives, it was about avoiding the possibility of a civil rights complaint. The DOJ wouldn't care what Nathan and BBB said to each other 4-5 years ago, they would care that a minority disabled person complained to WOV and said that she felt offended by the clearly inappropriate things you said. Nathan falls into at least two "protected categories of persons" as defined in Civils Right legislation and you are not free to speak hatefully to her in thsi forum, whatever your motives may be. In civil rights cases, your motivations for offensive speech are not relevant. You are free to block Nathan and not go into Nathan's Corner thread anymore if you wish, but if you chat to her you should avoid offensive statements about her as a person.
link to original post

I’m glad I don’t live my life that way. I’ve played basketball my whole adult life in mixed race games. There have been quite a few times I was the only white guy playing. I never felt that I couldn’t use offensive speech against fellow players short of a SPECIFIC mention of race. ‘Stupid pass’. ‘Lazy ass defense’. ‘Hog’. I never was worried about it becoming a ‘Civil Rights Case’.
Gordon, you are just plain wrong on this issue. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: OnceDear

Importing from the Nathan's Corner Thread....

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: Nathan

I REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post

For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post

Three days for bullying.

You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.

The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post

I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.

You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.

We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.

We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post

I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.

Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.

Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.

I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.

It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post

I was angry when I read this. Then I realized the writer can't help himself.

Nathan was banned from here for many reasons, among them was calling a woman I consider a friend a nasty names. As per the many rules of the forum, that got her a well-deserved ban. That gordon leaps to the conclusion this has anything to do with the persons race, gender or intelligence is absurd and speaks volumes about himself. His attempts to make this into a civil rights case is just the latest example of his utter unfitness to moderate anything.
Anyone remember the old 1960s commercial with the song "You've got to be taught, before it's too late?"

As a precedent has been established that offending a moderator isn't grounds for being permanently banned, why not allow Mickey Crimm back?
link to original post

My point was not about assuming your motives, it was about avoiding the possibility of a civil rights complaint. The DOJ wouldn't care what Nathan and BBB said to each other 4-5 years ago, they would care that a minority disabled person complained to WOV and said that she felt offended by the clearly inappropriate things you said. Nathan falls into at least two "protected categories of persons" as defined in Civils Right legislation and you are not free to speak hatefully to her in thsi forum, whatever your motives may be. In civil rights cases, your motivations for offensive speech are not relevant. You are free to block Nathan and not go into Nathan's Corner thread anymore if you wish, but if you chat to her you should avoid offensive statements about her as a person.
link to original post

I’m glad I don’t live my life that way. I’ve played basketball my whole adult life in mixed race games. There have been quite a few times I was the only white guy playing. I never felt that I couldn’t use offensive speech against fellow players short of a SPECIFIC mention of race. ‘Stupid pass’. ‘Lazy ass defense’. ‘Hog’. I never was worried about it becoming a ‘Civil Rights Case’.
Gordon, you are just plain wrong on this issue. No ifs, ands, or buts.
link to original post

I have been a manager for decades for over as much as seven hundred employees for a government contractor. I have had over100 hours of training on non-discrimination laws and have worked with legal staff on civil rights cases. And here is the basic rule I have been lectured on all of my career. When a person who is a minority contacts me and makes a complaint about what someone else has said or done, and says "I am offended" then I should treat it seriously. That if I don't respond appropriately to such a complaint that I might later be required to defend my actions (or lack thereof) in a more formal setting.

And I don't want to be put in that position. I will always respond according to my trainingand obey the law. Nathan is a minority who has complained to WOV and said she was offended by what Billryan posted. It does not matter why Billryan posted it. All Nathan, or her lawyer colleague Mdawg, needs to do is write a letter to the NAACP saying she was offended by comments made to her on the WOV Forum, that she complained in writing to the forum but that nothing was done. The NAACP would then check the facts with her and fill out a form and send it to an office in the DOJ. That DOJ office would then simply contact the owner of the WOV forum explaining that there has been a complaint and require them to investigate and to submit a report by a certain date that analyzes what happened, explain what the WOV forum has done in response to this incident and summarize what actions have been taken to prevent a recurrence in the future. Neither the NAACP or the DOJ office will exert much effort at all; instead they will require that the organization being complained about (the WOV forum in this case) spend money on lawyers and do all the investigatory work. That's how the civil rights complaint process works.

I have seen this happen at least a half a dozen times to various organizations It really does happen. Believe me, I am not going to ignore a complaint and risk getting into a very unhappy situation simply because you think I am "completely wrong." Because I very much doubt you have much management experience or non-discrimination training - the tone and content of your comments leads me to suspect that you are not someone I want advice from on this subject.

Quote: rxwine

I recall Wizard mentioning a physical threat made verbally, and that wouldn’t be tolerated. I was sorry to see him go as an “Interesting contributor” on the topic of gambling. Not sure about the quality of his overall character. I wasn’t really trying to judge that as to whether he should stay or go.
link to original post

He was nuked for making a death threat against me. If he were to retract it and apologize, I would consider letting him back.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: OnceDear

Importing from the Nathan's Corner Thread....

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: Nathan

I REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post

For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post

Three days for bullying.

You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.

The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post

I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.

You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.

We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.

We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post

I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.

Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.

Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.

I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.

It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post

I was angry when I read this. Then I realized the writer can't help himself.

Nathan was banned from here for many reasons, among them was calling a woman I consider a friend a nasty names. As per the many rules of the forum, that got her a well-deserved ban. That gordon leaps to the conclusion this has anything to do with the persons race, gender or intelligence is absurd and speaks volumes about himself. His attempts to make this into a civil rights case is just the latest example of his utter unfitness to moderate anything.
Anyone remember the old 1960s commercial with the song "You've got to be taught, before it's too late?"

As a precedent has been established that offending a moderator isn't grounds for being permanently banned, why not allow Mickey Crimm back?
link to original post

My point was not about assuming your motives, it was about avoiding the possibility of a civil rights complaint. The DOJ wouldn't care what Nathan and BBB said to each other 4-5 years ago, they would care that a minority disabled person complained to WOV and said that she felt offended by the clearly inappropriate things you said. Nathan falls into at least two "protected categories of persons" as defined in Civils Right legislation and you are not free to speak hatefully to her in thsi forum, whatever your motives may be. In civil rights cases, your motivations for offensive speech are not relevant. You are free to block Nathan and not go into Nathan's Corner thread anymore if you wish, but if you chat to her you should avoid offensive statements about her as a person.
link to original post

I’m glad I don’t live my life that way. I’ve played basketball my whole adult life in mixed race games. There have been quite a few times I was the only white guy playing. I never felt that I couldn’t use offensive speech against fellow players short of a SPECIFIC mention of race. ‘Stupid pass’. ‘Lazy ass defense’. ‘Hog’. I never was worried about it becoming a ‘Civil Rights Case’.
Gordon, you are just plain wrong on this issue. No ifs, ands, or buts.
link to original post

I have been a manager for decades for over as much as seven hundred employees for a government contractor. I have had over100 hours of training on non-discrimination laws and have worked with legal staff on civil rights cases. And here is the basic rule I have been lectured on all of my career. When a person who is a minority contacts me and makes a complaint about what someone else has said or done, and says "I am offended" then I should treat it seriously. That if I don't respond appropriately to such a complaint that I might later be required to defend my actions (or lack thereof) in a more formal setting.

And I don't want to be put in that position. I will always respond according to my trainingand obey the law. Nathan is a minority who has complained to WOV and said she was offended by what Billryan posted. It does not matter why Billryan posted it. All Nathan, or her lawyer colleague Mdawg, needs to do is write a letter to the NAACP saying she was offended by comments made to her on the WOV Forum, that she complained in writing to the forum but that nothing was done. The NAACP would then check the facts with her and fill out a form and send it to an office in the DOJ. That DOJ office would then simply contact the owner of the WOV forum explaining that there has been a complaint and require them to investigate and to submit a report by a certain date that analyzes what happened, explain what the WOV forum has done in response to this incident and summarize what actions have been taken to prevent a recurrence in the future. Neither the NAACP or the DOJ office will exert much effort at all; instead they will require that the organization being complained about (the WOV forum in this case) spend money on lawyers and do all the investigatory work. That's how the civil rights complaint process works.

I have seen this happen at least a half a dozen times to various organizations It really does happen. Believe me, I am not going to ignore a complaint and risk getting into a very unhappy situation simply because you think I am "completely wrong." Because I very much doubt you have much management experience or non-discrimination training - the tone and content of your comments leads me to suspect that you are not someone I want advice from on this subject.
link to original post

That’s a long post. Giving SPECIAL treatment to someone because they are a minority is wrong. You can write another 1000 word answer and you will not convince me that I’m wrong. I’ve been an OR director, ran a large anesthesiology group, have been on the Board of Directors of a non profit anesthesiology society. So I have had the ‘non discrimination’ training you mention. If the comment made against Nathan was made against a white male and would have been deemed acceptable, AND the comment in NO WAY referred to or addressed gender or race, then it is NOT a ‘civil rights’ issue.
No matter how long your response is.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: OnceDear

Importing from the Nathan's Corner Thread....

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: Nathan

I REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post

For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post

Three days for bullying.

You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.

The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post

I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.

You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.

We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.

We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post

I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.

Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.

Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.

I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.

It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post

I was angry when I read this. Then I realized the writer can't help himself.

Nathan was banned from here for many reasons, among them was calling a woman I consider a friend a nasty names. As per the many rules of the forum, that got her a well-deserved ban. That gordon leaps to the conclusion this has anything to do with the persons race, gender or intelligence is absurd and speaks volumes about himself. His attempts to make this into a civil rights case is just the latest example of his utter unfitness to moderate anything.
Anyone remember the old 1960s commercial with the song "You've got to be taught, before it's too late?"

As a precedent has been established that offending a moderator isn't grounds for being permanently banned, why not allow Mickey Crimm back?
link to original post

My point was not about assuming your motives, it was about avoiding the possibility of a civil rights complaint. The DOJ wouldn't care what Nathan and BBB said to each other 4-5 years ago, they would care that a minority disabled person complained to WOV and said that she felt offended by the clearly inappropriate things you said. Nathan falls into at least two "protected categories of persons" as defined in Civils Right legislation and you are not free to speak hatefully to her in thsi forum, whatever your motives may be. In civil rights cases, your motivations for offensive speech are not relevant. You are free to block Nathan and not go into Nathan's Corner thread anymore if you wish, but if you chat to her you should avoid offensive statements about her as a person.
link to original post

I’m glad I don’t live my life that way. I’ve played basketball my whole adult life in mixed race games. There have been quite a few times I was the only white guy playing. I never felt that I couldn’t use offensive speech against fellow players short of a SPECIFIC mention of race. ‘Stupid pass’. ‘Lazy ass defense’. ‘Hog’. I never was worried about it becoming a ‘Civil Rights Case’.
Gordon, you are just plain wrong on this issue. No ifs, ands, or buts.
link to original post

I have been a manager for decades for over as much as seven hundred employees for a government contractor. I have had over100 hours of training on non-discrimination laws and have worked with legal staff on civil rights cases. And here is the basic rule I have been lectured on all of my career. When a person who is a minority contacts me and makes a complaint about what someone else has said or done, and says "I am offended" then I should treat it seriously. That if I don't respond appropriately to such a complaint that I might later be required to defend my actions (or lack thereof) in a more formal setting.

And I don't want to be put in that position. I will always respond according to my trainingand obey the law. Nathan is a minority who has complained to WOV and said she was offended by what Billryan posted. It does not matter why Billryan posted it. All Nathan, or her lawyer colleague Mdawg, needs to do is write a letter to the NAACP saying she was offended by comments made to her on the WOV Forum, that she complained in writing to the forum but that nothing was done. The NAACP would then check the facts with her and fill out a form and send it to an office in the DOJ. That DOJ office would then simply contact the owner of the WOV forum explaining that there has been a complaint and require them to investigate and to submit a report by a certain date that analyzes what happened, explain what the WOV forum has done in response to this incident and summarize what actions have been taken to prevent a recurrence in the future. Neither the NAACP or the DOJ office will exert much effort at all; instead they will require that the organization being complained about (the WOV forum in this case) spend money on lawyers and do all the investigatory work. That's how the civil rights complaint process works.

I have seen this happen at least a half a dozen times to various organizations It really does happen. Believe me, I am not going to ignore a complaint and risk getting into a very unhappy situation simply because you think I am "completely wrong." Because I very much doubt you have much management experience or non-discrimination training - the tone and content of your comments leads me to suspect that you are not someone I want advice from on this subject.
link to original post

That’s a long post. Giving SPECIAL treatment to someone because they are a minority is wrong. You can write another 1000 word answer and you will not convince me that I’m wrong. I’ve been an OR director, ran a large anesthesiology group, have been on the Board of Directors of a non profit anesthesiology society. So I have had the ‘non discrimination’ training you mention. If the comment made against Nathan was made against a white male and would have been deemed acceptable, AND the comment in NO WAY referred to or addressed gender or race, then it is NOT a ‘civil rights’ issue.
No matter how long your response is.
link to original post

But Soopoo, that logic goes in the face of what racist tropes are.

A picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

A picture of a black man eating watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is racist DUE to its long history of denunciation of black folks.

Certainly your argument isn't that for something to be racist it has to offend everyone???

That in effect would make it the opposite of racist if all races would be equally offended.

The allegedly discriminatory comment was made not at a place of employment but on an internet forum.

The alleged victim, "Nathan" is anonymous: her / his / its name is not known.

Does an anonymous person have standing to complain, let alone sue?

This is different than workplace scenarios where everyone's identity is known.

I wonder whether the same protection available in the workplace is available on this forum?

Gordon, while I'm not saying you're wrong I'm not saying I believe you are correct, esp. about you guys being targets for a lawsui if Nathan and her "attorney" push it.

There's a helluva lot of "hate speech" online: can you point to a situation where a suit such as you hypothesize was successful against the forum host?

color me "curious."

Quote: darkoz

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: OnceDear

Importing from the Nathan's Corner Thread....

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: Nathan

I REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post

For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post

Three days for bullying.

You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.

The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post

I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.

You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.

We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.

We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post

I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.

Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.

Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.

I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.

It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post

I was angry when I read this. Then I realized the writer can't help himself.

Nathan was banned from here for many reasons, among them was calling a woman I consider a friend a nasty names. As per the many rules of the forum, that got her a well-deserved ban. That gordon leaps to the conclusion this has anything to do with the persons race, gender or intelligence is absurd and speaks volumes about himself. His attempts to make this into a civil rights case is just the latest example of his utter unfitness to moderate anything.
Anyone remember the old 1960s commercial with the song "You've got to be taught, before it's too late?"

As a precedent has been established that offending a moderator isn't grounds for being permanently banned, why not allow Mickey Crimm back?
link to original post

My point was not about assuming your motives, it was about avoiding the possibility of a civil rights complaint. The DOJ wouldn't care what Nathan and BBB said to each other 4-5 years ago, they would care that a minority disabled person complained to WOV and said that she felt offended by the clearly inappropriate things you said. Nathan falls into at least two "protected categories of persons" as defined in Civils Right legislation and you are not free to speak hatefully to her in thsi forum, whatever your motives may be. In civil rights cases, your motivations for offensive speech are not relevant. You are free to block Nathan and not go into Nathan's Corner thread anymore if you wish, but if you chat to her you should avoid offensive statements about her as a person.
link to original post

I’m glad I don’t live my life that way. I’ve played basketball my whole adult life in mixed race games. There have been quite a few times I was the only white guy playing. I never felt that I couldn’t use offensive speech against fellow players short of a SPECIFIC mention of race. ‘Stupid pass’. ‘Lazy ass defense’. ‘Hog’. I never was worried about it becoming a ‘Civil Rights Case’.
Gordon, you are just plain wrong on this issue. No ifs, ands, or buts.
link to original post

I have been a manager for decades for over as much as seven hundred employees for a government contractor. I have had over100 hours of training on non-discrimination laws and have worked with legal staff on civil rights cases. And here is the basic rule I have been lectured on all of my career. When a person who is a minority contacts me and makes a complaint about what someone else has said or done, and says "I am offended" then I should treat it seriously. That if I don't respond appropriately to such a complaint that I might later be required to defend my actions (or lack thereof) in a more formal setting.

And I don't want to be put in that position. I will always respond according to my trainingand obey the law. Nathan is a minority who has complained to WOV and said she was offended by what Billryan posted. It does not matter why Billryan posted it. All Nathan, or her lawyer colleague Mdawg, needs to do is write a letter to the NAACP saying she was offended by comments made to her on the WOV Forum, that she complained in writing to the forum but that nothing was done. The NAACP would then check the facts with her and fill out a form and send it to an office in the DOJ. That DOJ office would then simply contact the owner of the WOV forum explaining that there has been a complaint and require them to investigate and to submit a report by a certain date that analyzes what happened, explain what the WOV forum has done in response to this incident and summarize what actions have been taken to prevent a recurrence in the future. Neither the NAACP or the DOJ office will exert much effort at all; instead they will require that the organization being complained about (the WOV forum in this case) spend money on lawyers and do all the investigatory work. That's how the civil rights complaint process works.

I have seen this happen at least a half a dozen times to various organizations It really does happen. Believe me, I am not going to ignore a complaint and risk getting into a very unhappy situation simply because you think I am "completely wrong." Because I very much doubt you have much management experience or non-discrimination training - the tone and content of your comments leads me to suspect that you are not someone I want advice from on this subject.
link to original post

That’s a long post. Giving SPECIAL treatment to someone because they are a minority is wrong. You can write another 1000 word answer and you will not convince me that I’m wrong. I’ve been an OR director, ran a large anesthesiology group, have been on the Board of Directors of a non profit anesthesiology society. So I have had the ‘non discrimination’ training you mention. If the comment made against Nathan was made against a white male and would have been deemed acceptable, AND the comment in NO WAY referred to or addressed gender or race, then it is NOT a ‘civil rights’ issue.
No matter how long your response is.
link to original post

But Soopoo, that logic goes in the face of what racist tropes are.

A picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

A picture of a black man eating watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is racist DUE to its long history of denunciation of black folks.

Certainly your argument isn't that for something to be racist it has to offend everyone???

That in effect would make it the opposite of racist if all races would be equally offended.
link to original post

There was NOTHING in BillyMartins posts that could REASONABLY be interpreted as racist. Nothing like ‘watermelon’ or ‘chicken’. NOTHING was EVEN CLOSE to being racist.

A member is banned for violating ‘The Prime Directive’. (No sock puppets, no multiple accounts, no visiting Talos IV). How ANYONE can accuse someone of racism for wanting that member not here is ‘beyond the pale’. (Is that a racist comment?!?)

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: darkoz

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: OnceDear

Importing from the Nathan's Corner Thread....

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

Quote: Nathan

I REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post

For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post

Three days for bullying.

You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.

The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post

I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.

You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.

We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.

We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post

I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.

Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.

Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.

I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.

It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post

I was angry when I read this. Then I realized the writer can't help himself.

Nathan was banned from here for many reasons, among them was calling a woman I consider a friend a nasty names. As per the many rules of the forum, that got her a well-deserved ban. That gordon leaps to the conclusion this has anything to do with the persons race, gender or intelligence is absurd and speaks volumes about himself. His attempts to make this into a civil rights case is just the latest example of his utter unfitness to moderate anything.
Anyone remember the old 1960s commercial with the song "You've got to be taught, before it's too late?"

As a precedent has been established that offending a moderator isn't grounds for being permanently banned, why not allow Mickey Crimm back?
link to original post

My point was not about assuming your motives, it was about avoiding the possibility of a civil rights complaint. The DOJ wouldn't care what Nathan and BBB said to each other 4-5 years ago, they would care that a minority disabled person complained to WOV and said that she felt offended by the clearly inappropriate things you said. Nathan falls into at least two "protected categories of persons" as defined in Civils Right legislation and you are not free to speak hatefully to her in thsi forum, whatever your motives may be. In civil rights cases, your motivations for offensive speech are not relevant. You are free to block Nathan and not go into Nathan's Corner thread anymore if you wish, but if you chat to her you should avoid offensive statements about her as a person.
link to original post

I’m glad I don’t live my life that way. I’ve played basketball my whole adult life in mixed race games. There have been quite a few times I was the only white guy playing. I never felt that I couldn’t use offensive speech against fellow players short of a SPECIFIC mention of race. ‘Stupid pass’. ‘Lazy ass defense’. ‘Hog’. I never was worried about it becoming a ‘Civil Rights Case’.
Gordon, you are just plain wrong on this issue. No ifs, ands, or buts.
link to original post

I have been a manager for decades for over as much as seven hundred employees for a government contractor. I have had over100 hours of training on non-discrimination laws and have worked with legal staff on civil rights cases. And here is the basic rule I have been lectured on all of my career. When a person who is a minority contacts me and makes a complaint about what someone else has said or done, and says "I am offended" then I should treat it seriously. That if I don't respond appropriately to such a complaint that I might later be required to defend my actions (or lack thereof) in a more formal setting.

And I don't want to be put in that position. I will always respond according to my trainingand obey the law. Nathan is a minority who has complained to WOV and said she was offended by what Billryan posted. It does not matter why Billryan posted it. All Nathan, or her lawyer colleague Mdawg, needs to do is write a letter to the NAACP saying she was offended by comments made to her on the WOV Forum, that she complained in writing to the forum but that nothing was done. The NAACP would then check the facts with her and fill out a form and send it to an office in the DOJ. That DOJ office would then simply contact the owner of the WOV forum explaining that there has been a complaint and require them to investigate and to submit a report by a certain date that analyzes what happened, explain what the WOV forum has done in response to this incident and summarize what actions have been taken to prevent a recurrence in the future. Neither the NAACP or the DOJ office will exert much effort at all; instead they will require that the organization being complained about (the WOV forum in this case) spend money on lawyers and do all the investigatory work. That's how the civil rights complaint process works.

I have seen this happen at least a half a dozen times to various organizations It really does happen. Believe me, I am not going to ignore a complaint and risk getting into a very unhappy situation simply because you think I am "completely wrong." Because I very much doubt you have much management experience or non-discrimination training - the tone and content of your comments leads me to suspect that you are not someone I want advice from on this subject.
link to original post

That’s a long post. Giving SPECIAL treatment to someone because they are a minority is wrong. You can write another 1000 word answer and you will not convince me that I’m wrong. I’ve been an OR director, ran a large anesthesiology group, have been on the Board of Directors of a non profit anesthesiology society. So I have had the ‘non discrimination’ training you mention. If the comment made against Nathan was made against a white male and would have been deemed acceptable, AND the comment in NO WAY referred to or addressed gender or race, then it is NOT a ‘civil rights’ issue.
No matter how long your response is.
link to original post

But Soopoo, that logic goes in the face of what racist tropes are.

A picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

A picture of a black man eating watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is racist DUE to its long history of denunciation of black folks.

Certainly your argument isn't that for something to be racist it has to offend everyone???

That in effect would make it the opposite of racist if all races would be equally offended.
link to original post

There was NOTHING in BillyMartins posts that could REASONABLY be interpreted as racist. Nothing like ‘watermelon’ or ‘chicken’. NOTHING was EVEN CLOSE to being racist.

A member is banned for violating ‘The Prime Directive’. (No sock puppets, no multiple accounts, no visiting Talos IV). How ANYONE can accuse someone of racism for wanting that member not here is ‘beyond the pale’. (Is that a racist comment?!?)
link to original post

There are paleface white people out there.

:))

"Pale" originally refers to the palisade, a wall of upright logs forming a spiked fence, surrounding a settlement. Inside the pale (palisade) was civility and order, beyond, the reverse.

I'm still noodling whether calling someone's post "beyond the pale" is an insult or not. (not that it matters much to me)

Quote: darkoz

A picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

A picture of a black man eating watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is racist DUE to its long history of denunciation of black folks.

Certainly your argument isn't that for something to be racist it has to offend everyone???

That in effect would make it the opposite of racist if all races would be equally offended.
link to original post

So, by your standards the following should only have one of the two guys eating here?

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

A picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

A picture of a black man eating watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is racist DUE to its long history of denunciation of black folks.

Certainly your argument isn't that for something to be racist it has to offend everyone???

That in effect would make it the opposite of racist if all races would be equally offended.
link to original post

So, by your standards the following should only have one of the two guys eating here?

link to original post

You actually give me the credit for creating standards of racism?

I appreciate the sentiment regardless how wrong you are.

Quote: DarkOz

A picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

A picture of a black man eating watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is racist DUE to its long history of denunciation of black folks
link to original post

A picture of a man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

Now might be a good time for Gordon to stop digging.

❄️♠️🕳️

Quote: AZDuffman

So, by your standards the following should only have one of the two guys eating here?

link to original post

Why? They're eating ribs.

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: AZDuffman

So, by your standards the following should only have one of the two guys eating here?

link to original post

Why? They're eating ribs.
link to original post

Lol, I noticed that too.

But also they are discussing racism and why the white cop is most likely racist because of the restaurant he is in.

It's a very weird choice to try to prove some point of his.

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: gordonm888

A picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

A picture of a black man eating watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is racist DUE to its long history of denunciation of black folks
link to original post

A picture of a man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

Now might be a good time for Gordon to stop digging.

❄️♠️🕳️
link to original post

Oncedear,

That was my quote.

The quote train was pretty long so understandable how you got it wrong.

Also, you are British? These racial stereotypes may not be common in England. There are plenty of differences.

Lighting up a Fag is going to be thought of with two completely different images depending on saying it in the US or the UK just for a major example.

If you were taking a trip to NYC, I would suggest not using that word AT ALL!

And I think this is what Gordon is trying to get at. Imagine using that word on a NYC subway and then spending all vacation explaining that you have nothing against gay people, you are totally innocent and you believe you have now the right to use the word Fag Fag Fag all over NYC because people should not take offense at your use of it.

It's just the society we live in. You have to be mindful of who and where and what you are saying whether you like it or not.

Let's get some context here. It's fair to say that this forum is overwhelmingly white male. Nathan is a known black woman, the only black person here who is active. Despite her history of trolling, telling her she doesn't belong or deserve to be here could be construed as subtle racism. She's been called the n-word and "monkey" at another forum dominated by white male, which is explicit racism. The owner of said board has been offered money to get rid of her. So it's not a stretch that some members of this board don't want her participation due to her reputation for trolling as well as the fact that she is black.

It comes across as subtle racism if you tell a black person living in a neighborhood that is almost entirely white that they don't belong there.

Quote: billryan

I was angry when I read this. Then I realized the writer can't help himself.

Nathan was banned from here for many reasons, among them was calling a woman I consider a friend a nasty names. As per the many rules of the forum, that got her a well-deserved ban. That gordon leaps to the conclusion this has anything to do with the persons race, gender or intelligence is absurd and speaks volumes about himself. His attempts to make this into a civil rights case is just the latest example of his utter unfitness to moderate anything.
Anyone remember the old 1960s commercial with the song "You've got to be taught, before it's too late?"

As a precedent has been established that offending a moderator isn't grounds for being permanently banned, why not allow Mickey Crimm back?
link to original post

I'm offended by your many years of trolling. By my count, you have 24 suspensions. You're right that offending a moderator isn't grounds for a permanent ban. However, it usually doesn't end well. Six months.

24 suspensions is definitely a lot.

I have been here since 2009, about 15 years and I believe I have maybe 6, give or take.

Is six months the record, short of a nuke?

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: AZDuffman

So, by your standards the following should only have one of the two guys eating here?

link to original post

Why? They're eating ribs.
link to original post

Darkoz said showing a black eating fried chicken is racist. Ribs are similarly known. So I wanted to see if he is consistent.

With all due respect Wiz, doling out a six month suspension seems...I don't know...I guess a bit "petty."

Yes, suspension lengths can martingale, and by report billryan had 24 priors, but still.

Six months implies you are upset with him and think he should be nuked but for whatever reason you refuse to consign him to damnation.

Maybe it should have been a one month suspension coupled to him being put on 'probation" with a six month suspension or a nuke for any further missteps?

Quote: MDawg

Is six months the record, short of a nuke?
link to original post

I think EB was banned for longer, but it was at his request so I'm not sure if that counts.

Quote: AZDuffman

[Darkoz said showing a black eating fried chicken is racist. Ribs are similarly known. So I wanted to see if he is consistent.
link to original post

The culinary history of ribs is nowhere near as similar to that of fried chicken. There are very specific reasons that fried chicken and watermelon have the racist connotations they do, depending on the context. Ribs are not even in the same ballpark.

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: AZDuffman

[Darkoz said showing a black eating fried chicken is racist. Ribs are similarly known. So I wanted to see if he is consistent.
link to original post

The culinary history of ribs is nowhere near as similar to that of fried chicken. There are very specific reasons that fried chicken and watermelon have the racist connotations they do, depending on the context. Ribs are not even in the same ballpark.
link to original post

In the USA both have a similar "black food" history. Possibly more so.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: AZDuffman

[Darkoz said showing a black eating fried chicken is racist. Ribs are similarly known. So I wanted to see if he is consistent.
link to original post

The culinary history of ribs is nowhere near as similar to that of fried chicken. There are very specific reasons that fried chicken and watermelon have the racist connotations they do, depending on the context. Ribs are not even in the same ballpark.
link to original post

In the USA both have a similar "black food" history. Possibly more so.
link to original post

They absolutely do not have a similar history. I have no idea where you're getting that idea from.

Barbeque in general is hugely popular in black culture, but it does not even remotely have the history of being a racist stereotype like fried chicken does. The two aren't even close.

Quote: darkoz

24 suspensions is definitely a lot.

I have been here since 2009, about 15 years and I believe I have maybe 6, give or take.
link to original post

I am only at 2 but I didn't get here until 2012.

Quote: TigerWu

Barbeque in general is hugely popular in black culture, but it does not even remotely have the history of being a racist stereotype like fried chicken does. The two aren't even close.

That is not my experience at all. For me BBQ is more stereotyped than fried chicken.

I like them both so I might not be the best judge. I am currently in Atlanta and having Gus's World Famous Hot 'N' Spicey Fried Chicken for dinner. Tomorrow may be fat Matt's Rib Shack.

Since Aug 28, 2023, billryan has been suspended 8 times (including this last one.)

Dieter, once 3 days
Gordon, 3 times for 3 days each
Wizard, 4 times for 3, 7, 14 days and now 6 months.

So, during the past 4 months,9 days billryan has been suspended 8 times despite being absent (in suspension) for 36 days.

Quote: TigerWu

They absolutely do not have a similar history. I have no idea where you're getting that idea from.

Getting it from growing up in the USA. It was alluded to several times on "All in the Family" to name one place.

Ribs were given to slaves as they were considered garbage food. Even in the 1990s other parts of the world could not believe we ate them here.

Quote: DRich

Quote: darkoz

24 suspensions is definitely a lot.

I have been here since 2009, about 15 years and I believe I have maybe 6, give or take.
link to original post

I am only at 2 but I didn't get here until 2012.
link to original post

I'm sure D.Oz is more like 10.

When BBB was a mod she suspended me for a week for posting a summary of the suspension lengths of all forum members.

Quote: MDawg

So perhaps lucky for you me that no one in the present admin looks at things that way.
link to original post

Quote: darkoz

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: gordonm888

A picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a white man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

A picture of a black man eating watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is racist DUE to its long history of denunciation of black folks
link to original post

A picture of a man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other is just a picture of a man eating a watermelon in one hand and fried chicken in the other.

Now might be a good time for Gordon to stop digging.

❄️♠️🕳️
link to original post

Oncedear,

That was my quote.

The quote train was pretty long so understandable how you got it wrong.

Also, you are British? These racial stereotypes may not be common in England. There are plenty of differences.

Lighting up a Fag is going to be thought of with two completely different images depending on saying it in the US or the UK just for a major example.

If you were taking a trip to NYC, I would suggest not using that word AT ALL!

And I think this is what Gordon is trying to get at. Imagine using that word on a NYC subway and then spending all vacation explaining that you have nothing against gay people, you are totally innocent and you believe you have now the right to use the word Fag Fag Fag all over NYC because people should not take offense at your use of it.

It's just the society we live in. You have to be mindful of who and where and what you are saying whether you like it or not.
link to original post

My apologies for the mis-attribution of the quote, which i have now fixed.
I accept that US Society is different to the UK. Gordon paints an insanely litigious society where anonymous characters can leap on a legal rollercoaster and get taken seriously. I think he misjudges the severity of being impolite or offensive on such a forum.
You voice it better than he does. I can respect that we should all be sensitive to the power of our words, and moderators here can rule on discourtesies. When I was a mod here, I used to say that we moderate a forum by its rules and have no jurisdiction enforcing federal or state statute.

Quote: MDawg

When BBB was a mod she suspended me for a week for posting a summary of the suspension lengths of all forum members.

Good grief, that certainly does not seem like grounds for a sanction; did she explain why she felt it was a rules violation?

Quote: Quadriga

Let's get some context here. It's fair to say that this forum is overwhelmingly white male. Nathan is a known black woman, the only black person here who is active. Despite her history of trolling, telling her she doesn't belong or deserve to be here could be construed as subtle racism. She's been called the n-word and "monkey" at another forum dominated by white male, which is explicit racism. The owner of said board has been offered money to get rid of her. So it's not a stretch that some members of this board don't want her participation due to her reputation for trolling as well as the fact that she is black.

It comes across as subtle racism if you tell a black person living in a neighborhood that is almost entirely white that they don't belong there.
link to original post

Not known to me. She was banned long before I joined, and frankly, I never looked up the history.

But there's a subtle problem with Gordon's reactions, as well as other mods' reactions.

First: I could say that there isn't even the slightest chance of EEOC problems, primarily because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which (greatly simplified) means that Wiz et al will not be held liable for the content of the forum posts. Yes, there's thousands of words more caveats, amendations, etc, but the overall thrust is that nobody can sic the Feds on Wiz, Gordon, or anyone else for protected speech posted here. (true threats, etc are NOT protected speech) Also, IANAL, I have been through the same sensitivity training as all y'all. Besides, that second E in EEOC means "Employment" and I don't see any Opportunities (the "O") to work for Wiz being advertized, so yeah, you're clear there, too.

Second: Since the user in question possesses three immutable characteristics, Gordon has declared that we must moderate any speech directed that way, and absorb any slings and arrows emanating from same user. This is their playpen, and they can make any rules they wish. Still, filing the sear down on the ban hammer for this one user sharpens the mind wonderfully, and since I still derive some bit of enjoyment from this site, I'd rather not be banned.

Third: herein lies the problem. For me, the risk/reward ratio of interacting with this user is far too high. Therefore, I am blocking their special thread, and blocking them as a user. Those controls exist and are used and even recommended by mods for users who have issues with others. I don't have any interaction with this user, but again, r/r ratio is unfavorable, thus blockage. What if most users did the same? That user, recipient of well-meaning accommodations, suddenly finds they have nobody to talk to. Nobody sees what the user posts. Nobody replies to the user's reactions. Nothing. But it's not everyone else's fault: they just don't want to get banned/suspended. But WOV becomes a desert for this one user. The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Finally: Gordon alluded to receiving several complaints from this user, and implied that the mere fact the user alleges offense is enough to warrant action. Combined with MDawg's assertion upthread that there is no requirement to tell the truth here in WOV, we've now arrived at a situation where anyone can be accused of offense of any level, and find themselves "in the cooler" for significant time. This just heightens the risk of suspension/banning, hastening the point I made just above.

There are ways to fix this situation. But I'll defer that for a bit—this post is long enough. But I have blocked this user's threads and blocked the user. The risk is just too high.

Quote: DRich

That is not my experience at all. For me BBQ is more stereotyped than fried chicken.
link to original post

I don't think I have ever in my life heard about BBQ being used as a negative racist stereotype for black people.

But I'm not black, so I guess I can't say much either way about it.

Quote: MrV

Quote: MDawg

When BBB was a mod she suspended me for a week for posting a summary of the suspension lengths of all forum members.

Good grief, that certainly does not seem like grounds for a sanction; did she explain why she felt it was a rules violation?
link to original post

She came with some long post that rolled all sorts of things she claimed I had been doing wrongly or offensively lately and included

Quote: beachbumbabs

You are taking the Suspension List completely out of context, drawing unwarranted and incorrect conclusions about many people, and inciting anger and disdain by passing facile judgment on patently unequal events and time intervals of occurrence.

It's a speadsheet. A snapshot record. A tool. Not a complete record of any particular member's participation or transgression(s).

and I believe she was implying that the list was "insulting" the members.

When I returned, I made a post about how the Wizard himself had posted asking me (twice!), after he viewed my first partial suspension list,

Quote: wizard

I'd be interested to see a list going back as far as we kept records

and

Quote: wizard

Thanks for doing the math! Are you limiting this to active members? Surely buz/buzzard/buzzpaf have lots of them. I won't even count all the other aliases I can't recall. mkl123456 and JerryLogan surely have lots. HotBlonde? Nareed?

so all I had done was create the post in response to his encouraging requests.

Anyway, first I made a post about how anyone who could not follow the rules and kept getting suspended constantly should get the boot, and then some posts later, after Wizard had encouraged me, I posted a list (without commenting further) of some of the suspensions at WOV, then after Wizard encouraged me further, of all the suspensions at WOV.

Yes, I thought the whole thing was unjustified especially in that Wizard himself had repeatedly encouraged me to make the posted list more complete. From my point of view, all I posted was a naked list of suspensions, with no comment. I suppose from hers, I was saying (due to a prior post) that the worst rule breakers should get the boot.

But even so...today...if someone said "so and so has been suspended a lot he should get the boot" would he get a week's suspension for it? Mission146 often posts a series of hard to follow complicated arguments about how at different times he would have either ignored or invoked the nuclear option for such and such member.

It was during a wild period in the history of WOV where BBB had just posted something that Wizard claimed would normally have gotten her flat out demoted as a moderator, but that he was just going to issue a warning.

Quote: wizard

I hate to have to make this post, but I am left with no better choices. Let me make it clear that one of the duties of an administrator is to set an example of acceptable public behavior. The biggest problem in running this forum, probably any forum, is personal insults. If one cannot obey a rule prohibiting it, one should not be in a position of enforcing it.

That said, I am making a public warning to beachbumbabs that the quote above was in violation of forum rules and if it is repeated in the near future, stronger action will be taken.

Normally, that post would result in an immediate demotion as administrator, but I am weighing it against her many years of good and loyal service. Hopefully, with the new rules against touchy subjects, we can put this incident behind us.

so tempers were running a little hot and maybe she misinterpreted my intent.

These are from the DISCUSSION II ABOUT THE SUSPENSION LIST thread, and it is not possible to quote posts that include URL links from that thread as it is closed.

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: DRich

That is not my experience at all. For me BBQ is more stereotyped than fried chicken.
link to original post

I don't think I have ever in my life heard about BBQ being used as a negative racist stereotype for black people.

But I'm not black, so I guess I can't say much either way about it.
link to original post

It's not.

AZ and DRich are confusing a known food associated with a people with a NEGATIVE connotation of food associated with a people.

Probably all folks have certain food associated with them. Mention matzoh ball soup or Gefilte fish and I am thinking Jewish people BUT not thinking racist connotation. (Meanwhile I start to get wary of connotation when Chicken Soup is used as that has a negatively promoted image of Jewish boys coddled by their moms when sick)

Fried chicken and watermelon were actively used to insult black people in print and society for decades.

I am also not certain to laugh or be shocked that AZ gets his thermometer of what is racist from Archie Bunker and Hill Street Blues, whose meters were at best from a society of 50 and 40 years ago respectively as if US culture has remained totally stagnant in perception for 5 decades.

This sort of thing might not be acceptable today, except maybe in parody.


"No man I don't play basketball, my hands get too slick from eating all that fried chicken."

Scott Biao wasn't in that clip.

Quote: MDawg

This sort of thing might not be acceptable today, except maybe in parody.

"No man I don't play basketball, my hands get too slick from eating all that fried chicken."
link to original post

That scene actually shows really well how some white people can run their mouths without realizing they're offense.

Potzie or whatever his name is saying "but I like to eat watermelon " really nails it.

MDawg,

I have no idea how that image is supposed to relate to this thread's topic.

Tsk.

Could be he's correctly pointing out that "Still waters run deep."