[jdonn]

sceptic, on May 1 2006, 01:35 PM, said:

yes you are right jdonn, I probably could have defended my friend without insulting anyone. But I won't be losing much sleep over the fact I think I am well within my rights to have my say on a post I find offensive and unnecessary.

I do not recall actually calling Justin a child, I may have implied it with some of my comments, but I stand by those comments, I think they are valid.

have you ever read Peter and the Wolf?

"Probably"???

You are within your rights to have your say on a post, not the person who wrote it.

Your comments about the post may be valid. Your comments about the person are not. Whether they are true or not is not an issue. You still have no right to post them.

[h2osmom]

Is this all about protecting xxxxxxx? I have never understood why he is soooo protected on BBO in general. Can someone please explain it to me?

[Edited by Inquiry. Fred answers you question below]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2006-May-01, 14:28

[luke warm]

sceptic, on May 1 2006, 12:40 PM, said:

actually jdonn, may be rain was wrong to delete the post, I never saw it , I just don't think that Justin has the right to publically explain to all why he is leaving the forums and name the person responsible.

this is slightly inaccurate... the person involved (rain) named herself... she signed justin's post

Quote

Also can you tell me if this statement is that of a mature person?

Quote

Edit: I see my warn level was also added to. I'll let you guess by who. That's nice, thank you.

seems pretty mature to me... why was his warn level added to? for posting the link to a url or for complaining about the deletion of that post? i can't see that it matters, warning him about either seems ridiculous

Quote

Justin will have more support and probably well deserved, his contributions to the forums are appreciated by many I am sure, even myself at times.

i'm sure he'll be gratified to know that

Quote

I just happen to think that his post was offensive to a friend of mine.

how so? what did he say that was offensive? i think it's about time we found out about all this offending he's accused of

al said:

Rain did not intend to stop people from visiting objectionable sites. She removed objectionable material.

this isn't quite accurate either... it sure appears that she deleted a url because it linked to a site that was, in her opinion, offensive

luis said:

In all seriousness do whatever you want, why should we care?

i knew it would come to this when justin defended josh

[fred]

pclayton, on May 1 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

I am good friends with Aaron Haspel too. While his blog has a very humorous section on a popular BBO personality (that I don't believe has been updated in several years), it comprises maybe 5% of the blog's content. Frankly, it seems to me that BBO goes out of its way to protect this member in question whom I consider to be a charlatan, and Fred / Uday, if this offends you then I'm sorry.

It doesn't offend me, but I am surprised that you feel this way (because I find most of your posts to be so sensible).

If we have gone out of our way to protect the member in question, it is because so many other people have gone out of their way to abuse the member in question. Whether or not the member is question is a charlatan is not the issue. The issue that that we try to protect all of our members by dealing with the people who abuse them.

We believe that we have a responsibility to respond when our members are abused or offended on our site. Sometimes we get the response wrong. Sorry - we are doing the best we can and we are often faced with impossible situations.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[asdfg2k]

Seems so simple to me. That thread is specifically limited to non-bridge blogs. Was there bridge content on that blog? Yes or no, please. QED.

[uday]

Rain acts as our agent, to the best of her abilities. We don't micromanage her, and we very rarely override her decisions.

Quote

Frankly, it seems to me that BBO goes out of its way to protect this member in question whom I consider to be a charlatan, and Fred / Uday, if this offends you then I'm sorry.

It does not offend. Both sides of that particular issue, scarily enough, seem to think they're defending truth, justice and all that other good stuff I keep reading about.

Quote

There are some great sections on philosophy, economics, and even baseball.

My dog's poop (which I befriend daily because local law forces me to scoop) often has bits of matter that would no doubt seem delicious to my dog. I usually deem these bits not worth salvaging and toss them out with the poop. For all I know, these are the capers on the lox to some, and I'm ok w/that.

Quote

The thread in question was what are your favorite non-bridge links? If I said: www.neonazi.com or www.kkk.com, would I be 'offending' anyone?

Of course you would . Any positive statement about a controversial issue, any potential publicity to a cause that people find offensive would do the same.


Try these on your t-shirt and let me know how it goes.

www.gay.men.should.have.equal.rights.when.it.comes.to.survivor.benefits.com
or
www.america.rules.com
or
www.america.sucks.com
or even
www.dogs.are.better.than.cats.com


In the subways, no one would care that all you are doing is posting a link on your chest (or back). Maybe the word censorship wouldnt even come up , except maybe as "censor this, pal!" as the last verbal segment of the exchange of opinions.

[Al_U_Card]

fred, on May 1 2006, 02:27 PM, said:

We believe that we have a responsibility to respond when our members are abused or offended on our site. Sometimes we get the response wrong. Sorry - we are doing the best we can and we are often faced with impossible situations.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Please, please do not apologize for doing exactly what you say you will do.

If more people held onto and expressed their convictions as do you, the world would be far better off.

I thank you sincerely for your efforts and support them 100% .

[pclayton]

fred, on May 1 2006, 11:27 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 1 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

I am good friends with Aaron Haspel too. While his blog has a very humorous section on a popular BBO personality (that I don't believe has been updated in several years), it comprises maybe 5% of the blog's content. Frankly, it seems to me that BBO goes out of its way to protect this member in question whom I consider to be a charlatan, and Fred / Uday, if this offends you then I'm sorry.

It doesn't offend me, but I am surprised that you feel this way (because I find most of your posts to be so sensible).

If we have gone out of our way to protect the member in question, it is because so many other people have gone out of their way to abuse the member in question. Whether or not the member is question is a charlatan is not the issue. The issue that that we try to protect all of our members by dealing with the people who abuse them.

We believe that we have a responsibility to respond when our members are abused or offended on our site. Sometimes we get the response wrong. Sorry - we are doing the best we can and we are often faced with impossible situations.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

First and foremost, Fred, thanks for the nice sentiment.

I have followed this player in question for at least 10 years, since my days at OKB in the mid-90's. I think I can also safely say that I am one of the few players who knows him in person, since he is a member of my local bridge club in Orange County. He is a gentleman in person (and a great piano player too), even if his bridge ability leaves a lot to be desired. So I think I have a pretty good grasp on the whole situation.

I've never considered Haspel to be one of the primary attackers on this person, however, he has become a lightning rod because of his published tales about the player. I think a lot of the vicious individuals are on perma-ban or have straightened up their act. Haspel is far from innocent, mind you.

But I stand by Justin and feel its wrong that a post is censored because it contains a link to another site. This is unfortunate because Aaron's blog has a lot of great non-bridge reading.

As a positive remark to close - BBO is great and will ultimately save bridge because of yours, Sheri's and Uday's efforts (OK, Rain and the other volunteers too... ).

As far as I'm concerned, you still have a 99.99% batting average.

[pclayton]

uday, on May 1 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

Quote

The thread in question was what are your favorite non-bridge links? If I said: www.neonazi.com or www.kkk.com, would I be 'offending' anyone?

Of course you would . Any positive statement about a controversial issue, any potential publicity to a cause that people find offensive would do the same.

Uday - I had meant the term 'offending' in the context of BBO's rules of conduct. I'll re-read them, but I'm still at a loss why reference to an potentially offensive link becomes a censorable post.

[inquiry]

I am a moderator (not of the water cooler thread, thank goodness). Let me say that if Justin's "warning level was raised" (and while I can tell if it was, I will not tell you as it violates our rules), it would not because he posted the link. That was just deleted. If it was it would be becuase after it was deleted and explained why, he did it apparently twice more.

So separate the original action (editing out the hyperlink, and apparently the entire text... or maybe the hyperlink was the entire text), with alleged subsequent "sanction" for what is worth, a possible raising of the warning level of someone who announced they were never going to post here again. The waring level is a non-issue, and just shows the moderator's displeasure with the in-your-face attitude.

The second issue, should the link have been deleted? On this issue, I happen to agree in principal with rain's decision. We have a firm rule here about denegrating BBO members by name, be it by reference the physical hnad in myhands (so you can easily figure out who is being slamed), by direct mention of BBO member name (ie, no direct attacks on TD's or calling BBO players cheats, etc), or by linking to a webpage where you slam the hell out of the person by BBO name.

We can not control what members do on their own blogs, or on other sites like rgb, nor do we try. But a direct link from our site to a webpage harmful of any member is tauntamount to the same thing as posting the offensive content on this page. Reading justin's fairwell message, it seems he may not have directly linked to the offensive material, but rather to the homepage that contains the offensive material. No doubt there is a point where such things must be allowed. For instance, if he had linked to his blog and his blog has several links, one to the blog in question. The reason is like the seven-degrees to get to Kevin Bacon game, some link will go to a link that eventually leads to a link.

There was many ways to handle this situation. Reposting in direct (in-your-face) style the same deleted content along with a thread, delete this again and I am out of here, does not seem the best way. We have several moderators, and Fred and Uday who could have been appealed too. The approach taken just forces the moderators (and Fred and uday) to stick up for rain and hardens all positions. A shame.

Justin posted a very nice thread on RGB recently on a more or less related subject that showed a lot of maturity. The maturity exemplified by that post (which is recent) and others in this very forum, has helped him through some, lets say well documented in this forum disagreements associated with BBO in the past. I will not go as far as others and call him a child, because he clearly is not, but this frontal assault with an attacked (and public) ultimatium seems a huge step backwards to me. Rather rain's first editing is right or wrong, in the face of duplicate repost with a thread, what choice is there but to delete the second, no matter how rationale the arguement. Would it not be better to put forth the arguement first, perhaps to several of the BBF folks, and see what the opinion was?

And let me add, there are additional behind the scenes issues that rain is dealing with concerning some of the principles involved here that makes the timing of Justin's post, unfortunate. This timing could easly give the appearance that there were extenuating circumstances that lead to the both the post being posted and the thead being edited. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

In closing, BBF would be worse off without justin, and I hope he calms down and comes back soon. Rain's intial decision seems right to me on the surface, but a thoughtful and meaningful discussion could perhaps have convinced me otherwise. But in response to threats, well, that more or less ends any possibility of useful discussion. A moderator who gives in to intemidation is, well, totally ineffective.

[Rain]

I have some things to say.

1) To Justin (and anyone who cares)

Your first post was : My favourite blog was xxxxxx
I deleted the whole thread because, as Dean stated, that blog was most famous for deriding another member. We don't allow that url in BBO. We won't allow it in BBF either. Since the main gist of your post would be gone when I deleted that thread, I decided to erase the whole thread, and instead write the reasons its deleted. (Instead of editing it I mean).

I'm not sure why you think editing is less objectionable than erasing the whole thing. The editing we do normally erases part of the post. Deletion involves erasing most of it, so it's also a more complete form of editing.

Your next 2 posts were mostly angry rants at me, no? I must say I missed the part where you said you would be fine with me editing the URL you reposted, but that if I'd deleted it you would be gone from BBF. I read it as you threatening to leave BBF if I touch the thread. Sorry for the mixup. So, since I saw it as mostly an angry post about why that xxxx website should be allowed, I again deleted it.

I think you do me an injustice when you claim that I didn't like the author of your blog personally, so inferred that my actions were not objective. I also in no way accused you of trolling. If my motives are slurred with personal dislike, have you (or aaronh) been persecuted unfairly while you're in BBO, in my abuse-handling role? When you report whatever wrongs done to you, were they not handled the way your wrongs to others were handled? But whatever. You can also argue that that's BBO, this is BBF, somewhat different. That would be somewhat true.

Anyway I think you'll be missed in BBF if you really leave. We're also not that far apart in ages, and will probably have to live with each other for the next few decades. So I hope you stop being angry about this and continue posting.

2) Jdonn, Sceptic, Pigpenz, whoever.

I think sceptic's post is much less offensive than being called "officious" or now, after the edit, labelled a terrorist. Babies can be cute. Terrorists, never. But both can stand unless other moderators want to remove it.

[luke warm]

this is getting more and more interesting... for example, rain says "I think sceptic's post is much less offensive than being called "officious" or now, after the edit, labelled a terrorist."

i've looked and looked and this is the only reference i found to terrorism, from pig:

Quote

If terrorism changes the way you live then they have won.
If what Rain has done then it has changed you 
Dont let the person who complained about your posts get to you or they have won......you are much to smart to let that happen

if that's the quote she refererences, it seems pretty obvious to me that he wasn't saying anything close to what she thought he was... i'll paraphrase what i think he meant, and he can correct it if i'm wrong

"if you allow a moderator's actions to run you away, the moderator won" ... the 'terrorist' remark seems to me to be a simple analogy

as for the "officious" remark, the definition is:

Marked by excessive eagerness in offering unwanted services or advice to others

notice that the word applies more to the 'excessive eagerness' than to the offering of, etc... it's hard to tell whether or not someone is excessively eager simply if an action is taken... however, according to justin his post was called "intentionally offensive," which (imo) shows at the least a subjective view of the matter... he goes to lengths to state that it wasn't intended to be offensive at all... for a person who wrote something to say what it meant, only to have another who interprets the writing to say it meant the exact opposite, could make it appear (from the outside looking in) that a person is excessively eager to take some sort of action

i'll let others decide whether or not sceptic's words were offensive... here they are:

"This is the sort of conversation I have with children, did she call your bluff?"

and

"... my posts were not intended to endear myself to Justin...I also posted knowing full well, that Justin is well thought of and that any derogatory comments made about him..." (btw, does that mean his self-admitted derogatory comments were *intentionally* offensive? it would appear so)

and

"I do not recall actually calling Justin a child, I may have implied it with some of my comments, but I stand by those comments, I think they are valid" (yet another, it would appear, intentionally offensive comment - one wonders just why someone who admits to making intentionally offensive comments isn't warned while one who made an effort to *deny* any intention to offend is)

[mikeh]

I was the poster who used the word 'officious', and I apologize to Rain if she took the comment as aimed at her.

I had stressed (so I thought) that I was NOT saying that Rain was officious or had acted as such. I stressed that I had no knowledge of the underlying events.

I was merely trying to persuade Justin to reconsider, without in any way expressing a view as to whether the conduct that had offended him was proper or otherwise. In other words, my post was not a comment on Rain's conduct but a plea to Justin to change his mind about his reaction. IF the action to which he objected WAS officious, then he should not let it affect him. Equally (altho I did not so state) if the action was appropriate, then he was overreacting..... as I have in the past overreacted when my 'buttons' have been pushed.

Thanks to the ongoing postings, especially by Fred and Rain, I feel that I have some understanding of what went on, and certainly the impression I have formed is that Rain did what she saw as the right thing to do, without in any sense being officious, or ill-willed, or pig-headed or... name the semantically loaded adjective of your choice... in other words, I understand both why she took the action she did while also empathizing with Justin. The main difference between my thoughts now and when I first posted is that I now have an opinion on Rain's conduct/motivation (a positive one) while I had and expressed no such opinion initially.

I remain of the view and hope that Justin will reconsider... and my view of Rain's conduct does not diminish my sense of empathy with Justin.

The fact that Rain apparently read my earlier post as an accusation that she was officious (or that I felt she had been) serves as a good reminder that we interprete the words and actions of others through a filter of our own biases and beliefs.... and THAT is NOT a criticism of Rain or any other poster..... since I know only too well that this is a behaviour trait of my own... and of all humans..... any one familiar with the works of the late, and lamented, Stephen Jay Gould knows what I mean...

[luis]

Great post sceptic I agree 100% with your posts.

If every time somebody feels offended will post a goodbye thread to increase his ego then this would be a horrible thing.

I just hope this good bye is the final good bye, this is for bridge discussions not for good byes and emotional rambling.

Luis

[h2osmom]

Sceptic's posts are not good posts; they are personally attacking. He has stated that he does not think well of the original poster as well as called him names. Nothing about this was deserved, or called for. Justin's original post, even though it expressed vehement disagreement, did not attack or call names. He never stated that he didn't like anyone. Sceptic has said that Justin will not lose sleep over this; how does he know? Sceptic has put words in other people's mouths and been disrespectful. I think if we are going to discuss who has more to offer as far as bridge discussion than Justin does, many will agree that there are few. I appreciate the clarification from the moderators posted here, and none of their posts are at all incendiary. But Sceptic's posts, and those supporting him, are personal attacks, which was never deserved.

[joshs]

Oy.

First, I think this whole thing as been blown way out of proportion. I hope that justin reconsiders leaving the forum, since its great having his involvement in these discussions. I think many players can learn a lot from him.

I personally think that mentioning a blog that Justin likes (and I like also, and I have never even read the bridge content on the blog, but find Aaron's philosophical ramblings to be interesting) shouldn't be cause for deleting a message. I understand that there is something on that blog which is damaging to someone else, and I understand both from general principles of a community and from a legal point of view why BBO wants to dissociate itself from that content. Having said that, there is stuff on fox news's website that I find offensive and involve personal attacks on people (maybe even a BBO member?) but I would be the first to object that all references/links to fox news be eliminated.

I alsoo understand why justin was offended by his post getting deleted. I do wish he can understand why is was deleted, and even if he disagrees with that decision, like I do, he can accept that decision as at least being made with good motives in mind, whether or not you agree with the detailed excecution.

There is also a slippery slope here, since if I provided a link to justin's web site, and his website has a link to aaron's website, should we be deleting that message also?

Again, I don't even understand why people derive pleasure from
a. watching bad bridge
b. making fun of it

but then again I didn't like mystery science theater 3000 for the same reason. A bad movie is still a bad movie, and getting to make fun of it doesn't improve it all that much....

Can I declare a bridge version of national brotherhood week? Maybe rain can apologize for not taking enough time to explain to justin why BBO doesn't allow certain links to appear on its sites (we appreciate the job you do rain, its just that almost everything you deal with is very sensative, maybe you need a sensative sounding form letter), and justin can apologize for ignoring rain's call on this and continously reposting the link.

In any case, aaron hasn't had any new content for a year, so I think under the:
"I post therefore I blog" definition, its not even a blog anymore....

[Flame]

I know your feeling Justin, i once got suspention fron BBO for few days for something i didnt do, I felt like i was betrayed by my own family, it was triable because ot came from the same ppl i admire and care about. However looking back i just have to accept it that the system cant be perfect, and we sometimes have to live with the mistakes made by it. If the system makes 1% mistakes then you can think of yourself as someone who helped the system by taking this 1% on your back.

[kenberg]

No doubt everyone is wondering who the "member in question" is. It's me! Everyone hates me. They say terrible things about me. On Blogs. In Fortune Cookies. Everywhere. Justin must be stopped. But who will stop the Rain? In Spain? On the Plain?

Ken

PS Best wishes to everyone involved and I hope you sort it all out. If a drink will help, I'll buy.

[luke warm]

sceptic, on May 1 2006, 04:31 PM, said:

Jimmy

I do not consider what I said that derogatory, they may be near the mark, but just because I do not have the ability to express myself as eloquently as some of you lot do, it does not mean I am stupid nor does it mean I can't have an opinion.

I did not like this post and I have said so, I do not have a good opinion of the original poster, but I am sure that he wont lose any sleep over that and how do you know I have not been warned or spoken to about my posts.

are you now an oracle LOL

wayne, i know you aren't the least bit stupid and you express yourself just fine... but you hafta admit that you didn't hide the fact that your comments to/about justin were made intentionally (hell, you *said* so)... yet, even though some might find the content of your posts offensive and even though that content was intentionally entered, your posts have not been deleted...

so my point was, justin denied offending anyone period, much less intentionally, yet his post was deleted... you admit to intentionally posting what many people have said are offensive comments, yet your posts haven't been deleted

doesn't that make all of this appear (as justin hinted at) somewhat personal?

[h2osmom]

Justin doesn't need me to defend him, and that is not my point. I know who Justin is, I think he knows who I am, we met one time about 6 years ago, have spoken online one time after that, and have some friends in common. You are wrong about the intention of my responses here. My responses stopped being about Justin long ago.