[Badmonster]

Al_U_Card, on May 2 2006, 08:39 AM, said:

If I say privately to another person "So-and-so, is such a ....." Then that person can evaluate my statement, my motives and decide for themself whether to keep or change their opinion of me and/or the person referenced.

When a public statement is made, all the above goes out the window. People like to criticize and belittle others to make themselves feel more comfortable. We all have good and bad qualities. Public attacks are way too easy to be taken out of context and to be given credence simply because they were made in a public forum....

Rain is performing a duty conferred upon her by management. Her guidelines are clear and they are well described for all to see. Keeping the riff-raff out will only improve the situation as those miscreants will either toe-the-line or leave, and good riddance to those that do.

Do you really think Justin is a miscreant? I do not.

[Al_U_Card]

The reference was to those individuals that publicly criticize someone. I gather that this reprehensible behavior was in the referenced blog.

What anyone has to say about anyone else during the subsequent debate, and whether it makes them a miscreant, is to be determined. I don't believe I even implied such a thing. If that was your inference, sorry.

[Codo]

As most, I will miss Justins views. He was gifted with a talent to explain his ideas and he had many great ideas.

But I dislike his complaint about Rain.
She does an awful good job as a master of a critical threat. As Fred pointed out: There are many loose-loose situations for her, so any person should accept the ruling, even if you think, that this ruling was unfair.
My god, I have to make thousands of descission any single day. Are they all good? No, surely not. And surely, Rain (or Inquiry, or whoever) had made mistakes during their hard work as a moderator. So what? Do I believe, that Justin (or me, or the pope) had made less mistakes? Never.

So please Justin, come back, calm down and tell me more of your ideas. I want to sit and learn.

About the banned site: I had not banned it, but again, this is not an easy task to handle. She had to decide and decided. Right she was and so was her descission, even if I had decided different.

[Badmonster]

Al_U_Card, on May 2 2006, 08:59 AM, said:

The reference was to those individuals that publicly criticize someone. I gather that this reprehensible behavior was in the referenced blog.

What anyone has to say about anyone else during the subsequent debate, and whether it makes them a miscreant, is to be determined. I don't believe I even implied such a thing. If that was your inference, sorry.

The silliness was referenced, but the blog is hardly dedicated to this nonsense.

[Al_U_Card]

Badmonster, on May 2 2006, 09:15 AM, said:

The silliness was referenced, but the blog is hardly dedicated to this nonsense.

But the criteria were clear as was Rain's decision and need for it. 1 part lie and 99 parts truth is still a lie.....

[fred]

It is an unfortunate fact of reality for us that we have to define "offensive" and "inappropriate" largely as a function of what our members think.

You may find it irrational that there are people out there who find the blog in question (or a link to it from forums) to be offensive or inappropriate.

But we are the ones who have to deal with the people who complain.

If a given post results in a single complaint then we might use our judgment in order to decide whether we think the post in question is offensive or not.

But if a given post results in several complaints, it is reasonable for us to conclude that there are more people out there who have been offended. We have to take some kind of action, regardless of what we think of the offensiveness-level of the post.

Believe me, life would be a lot more pleasant for us if we could simply ignore all complaints from all of our members.

Since the decisions we make sometimes involve human judgment, we are not going to get all of them "right". Since some decisions we make will upset some people regardless of what we decide, we are sometimes in a no-win situation.

So if you happen to disagree with a particular decision we make, please try to have a little sympathy for the position we are in before condemning our the actions that we decide to take.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Chamaco]

I think that what happened is a demonstration of Uday's fear: he posted that the "Water cooler" section was becomeing more like a "Water boiler" section.

Indeed, I think that the basic idea of opening a space to discuss NON-BRIDGE topics was cool, but IMO one side effect seems to have become that some people , directly or indirectly, have perceived this opening sort of like "opening the gates" for any nonsense...
(This is just in general, I am not referring to Justin's attitude- just to make it clear)

BTW, I think that, generally speaking, the moderators have done a great job so far to keep the BB Forum safe from flame wars and other nonsense we can read in other unmoderated forums.

It is true that most often flame wars just fade away on their own, but, still, the quality of the discussion here is by far more appealing.

[Al_U_Card]

One last analogy. You decide to drive faster than the speed limit (the published rules of conduct) and a cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket. Is he restricting your "right" to drive as you please? No, he is enforcing the laws enacted and explained.

[jdonn]

Al_U_Card, on May 2 2006, 10:27 AM, said:

One last analogy. You decide to drive faster than the speed limit (the published rules of conduct) and a cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket. Is he restricting your "right" to drive as you please? No, he is enforcing the laws enacted and explained.

You are and have been missing the point entirely!! Justin didn't say Rain should have done nothing, or that she shouldn't have deleted the link necessarilly. He is clearly mad because the entire post was deleted, and his next post, and his next post, rather than JUST the link.

Would you not be mad, and probably never show up in that town again, if the cop beat you to a bloody pulp and sent you to jail for 6 months for speeding, instead of just giving you a ticket? I'm not saying that's what Rain did (nor denying it), but that's what Justin feels like she did.

[Badmonster]

I think it's sad that Justin is leaving and Fred is apologizing and Rain is defending herself. So, generally the whole thing is Not Good. But it happened and it can't unhappen and hopefully everyone is going to get past it and feel better.

I used to moderate on a forum and one of our policies was that when you edited a post you emailed the person whose post you moderated with an explanation. (Did we OWE people explanations? No. Did we avoid these situations by opening a dialogue? I think we did.)

Maybe if Rain had messaged Justin privately and said I removed your post here's why. I'm open to discussing this with you, Justin might have written back and said, you could just remove the link, and Rain could have said ok, and life could have gone on as usual. Maybe Rain did. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference. But maybe the situation would have been diffused. My experience is you can say almost anything to people as long as you phrase it correctly and they feel like they're being heard when they reply.

So... um... long winded, but my suggestion (the short version) is maybe when editing or deleting posts moderators could shoot an explanation by way of a private message or email.

[Al_U_Card]

jdonn, on May 2 2006, 10:41 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on May 2 2006, 10:27 AM, said:

One last analogy.  You decide to drive faster than the speed limit (the published rules of conduct) and a cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket.  Is he restricting your "right" to drive as you please? No, he is enforcing the laws enacted and explained.

You are and have been missing the point entirely!! Justin didn't say Rain should have done nothing, or that she shouldn't have deleted the link necessarilly. He is clearly mad because the entire post was deleted, and his next post, and his next post, rather than JUST the link.

Would you not be mad, and probably never show up in that town again, if the cop beat you to a bloody pulp and sent you to jail for 6 months for speeding, instead of just giving you a ticket? I'm not saying that's what Rain did (nor denying it), but that's what Justin feels like she did.

She exercised her established function. If the cop is supposed to beat me, then so be it. (Obviously not, but Rain did only what was appropriate for her not for Justin, as it should be until Justin is responsible for abuse issues......)

Imagine that, based on subsequent posts, I found (by googleing) the site and saw the material in question. Almost as pathetic as the objections being raised herein.

[rona_]

Posted: May 1 2006, 07:41 PM
Al_U_Card

Quote

And they're off! Just what we needed, another reason to debate endlessly about personal areas that the debate cannot possibly resolve. Post or don't as you please. Rain is brilliant in her functions and I support her decision 100%. Case closed for me.

And you went ahead and posted another eight times after this.

[Sigi_BC84]

jdonn, on May 2 2006, 04:41 PM, said:

Justin didn't say Rain should have done nothing, or that she shouldn't have deleted the link necessarilly. He is clearly mad because the entire post was deleted, and his next post, and his next post, rather than JUST the link.

Exactly! Also a few words explaining to the public the reasons for the deletions would have been appropriate. Without Justin's angry "good-bye" message we would have never gotten to the bottom of this.

Now Rain please don't be offended for pointing this out. It's great that you are volunteering to do all of this.

--Sigi

[h2osmom]

Evidently, BBO administrators have decided that Gxxxxxx needs to be protected, because people in the internet bridge world ridicule him, not just on BBO, but on other sites as well. I don't understand or agree with this policy. There may be more to this than I understand, but if most of us put ourselves in a position to be ridiculed, we would not be protected in this way. However, it is a well known policy on BBO. Rain certainly had not only the right, but also the responisbility, in this light, to remove the posted link, which she did. Justin then reacted to that, and he forced her hand; she had no choice but to further delete his posts. I am certain Justin knows and knew about BBO policy to protect Gxxxxx. It was fine, of course, to have posted the link initially. Justin's response to having his post deleted was not optimal, and it was understandable. He puts a lot of thought into his posts, makes a sincere effort to help clarify understandings, and has in other instances been unfairly judged. It would have been nice if he could have not reacted and forced Rain's hand. All of that would likely blow over over time. The problem was the forum's reaction to Justin's post here. He was ridiculed, called names, disrespected, condescended to. People posting did not stick to the issue at hand. Justin's reaction was a reaction, OK. Many of the people who tried to protect Rain, (who never needed protecting in the first place) did so by attacking Justin. Things have gotten far more hurtful than they ever would have if no attacking had happened. It would be nice if the people who were attacking in their posts could see it, so that maybe in another instance they will modify their behavior. I suppose a public acknowledgement and/or apology would be too much to expect. I hope Justin returns soon; his contributions to this site, as well as his blog, are tremendously beneficial to people of all levels trying to learn this game.

[Brandal]

jdonn, on May 2 2006, 10:41 AM, said:

Justin didn't say Rain should have done nothing, or that she shouldn't have deleted the link necessarilly. He is clearly mad because the entire post was deleted, and his next post, and his next post, rather than JUST the link.

Would you not be mad, and probably never show up in that town again, if the cop beat you to a bloody pulp and sent you to jail for 6 months for speeding, instead of just giving you a ticket? I'm not saying that's what Rain did (nor denying it), but that's what Justin feels like she did.

It doesn't matter why he is mad,or what he thinks Rain
should or should not do.

Rain is a moderator,Justin is not,seems you're saying Justin
should have a say here?

He is,as far as I could read,still allowed to post here if
he wishes.
Getting a few posts deleted can't be this big a deal,so I'm
guessing the content of this particular post was somewhat
controversial.

Not respecting the moderator's decision also backs up that notion.

Fred is a good sheriff,Rain and the other deputies must be doing
one helluva job,because BBO and BBF are fantastic places to be.

So.....every once in awhile we should step away from confrontation,
to ease their workload.

I hope Justin returns,but we all have to respect the moderators decisions.

[Brandal]

Sigi_BC84, on May 2 2006, 12:56 PM, said:

Without Justin's angry "good-bye" message we would have never gotten to the bottom of this.

--Sigi

A bunch of people taking sides,and a few in the middle
is getting to the bottom of it?

[inquiry]

h2osmom, on May 2 2006, 12:58 PM, said:

Evidently, BBO administrators have decided that xxxxxx needs to be protected, because people in the internet bridge world ridicule him, not just on BBO, but on other sites as well. I don't understand or agree with this policy.

Nice post. I will try one last time to explain the "protection" provided to anyone, includeing the person you refer too.

BBO's policy is clear, and is stated by Fred in this very thread, where he said: "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."

That is a fairly simple standard, and for the most part is strictly enforced. Oh, people take shots at some regulars who like to give back in kind. As long at they word it correctly "you are acting stupid" rather than "you are stupid", or the generic "only an idiot would bid 2♠" when someone bid 2♠ we generally let it slide. If the person who bid 2♠ comes back and responds hostily, both post are likely to be edited or deleted.

Let me give an example, there was a thread within this very form on an "unnatural" sex act that was crime in an Asian country. The moderator left it alone for days. Eventually the temptation to expound on the act made the entire thread offensive to some. And so, rather than editing the overtly new offensive additions, the solution was to remove the entire thead. Because once it became too offensive in the context of the new post, the original post became tainted by the replies. So the context of what is being said is also important... the original post lasted three or four days, it wasn't until it escalated that the all the post went away, changing the way the thread was viewed (certainly by me).

In the Justing case, as in the case where you posted the member by name earlier in this thead, there is no need to wait for the inevitable reply to the post. At least a few members -- and clearly one -- will have found it offensive AND within the context of not only this forum, but also the BBO and previous intereactions between the players in question here, there is simply no way rain would allow the link to stay (without some very serious explaining as to its harmless nature).

[Brandal]

h2osmom, on May 2 2006, 12:58 PM, said:

The problem was the forum's reaction to Justin's post here. He was ridiculed, called names, disrespected, condescended to. People posting did not stick to the issue at hand. Justin's reaction was a reaction, OK. Many of the people who tried to protect Rain, (who never needed protecting in the first place) did so by attacking Justin.

I have to disagree again.

The problem was Justin's post,not the responses,
the way I read it he "attacked" Rain.

Then the responses became a "problem"....
He received some supportive responses and some
"attacked" him,and/or his post.

Now,I didn't attack Justin,but clearly my opinion is he
is/was wrong on all counts.

[Winstonm]

I am offended by those too easily offended.

To Justin: I like you, bro, but this time you're a little out of line to suggest that the time you spend writing something makes that something worthwhile and therefore your efforts shouldn't be summarily dismissed - this is but arrogance of youth at work. I should know as I used to suffer from the same malady. Truth is that what we think is important may be total drivel to others - like junk mail that just needs to be tossed without opening. You cannot force another to change his or her mind so you end up with two choices: find someone else who appreciates what you have done; or shrug your shoulders and admit that others have as much right to their view as you do to yours and you could be wrong in that what you thought was wonderful may not have been all that good to start.

And to anyone else who would be offended by a post to another sight or blog, well, all I can say is get over it...sheesh. It is one thing to be called by name and told, "You suck". But how can you be offended by someone else's personal tastes.
If you don't like it, don't read it. You are probably one of those types who tries to get Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn banned by his local library.

So whoever you are that was offended by something basically that was none of your business - like a t.v. channel - if you don't like it change the channel instead of writing to the station to complain - well all I have to say to you is:

You suck



Winston

[fred]

h2osmom, on May 2 2006, 05:58 PM, said:

Evidently,  BBO administrators have decided that Gxxxxxx needs to be protected,  because people in the internet bridge world ridicule him,  not just on BBO,  but on other sites as well.  I don't understand or agree with this policy.  There may be more to this than I understand,  but if most of us put ourselves in a position to be ridiculed,  we would not be protected in this way.  However,  it is a well known policy on BBO.  Rain certainly had not only the right,  but also the responisbility,  in this light,  to remove the posted link,  which she did.  Justin then reacted to that,  and he forced her hand;  she had no choice but to further delete his posts.  I am certain Justin knows and knew about BBO policy to protect Gxxxxx.  It was fine,  of course,  to have posted the link initially.  Justin's response to having his post deleted was not optimal,  and it was understandable.  He puts a lot of thought into his posts,  makes a sincere effort to help clarify understandings,  and has in other instances been unfairly judged.  It would have been nice if he could have not reacted and forced Rain's hand.  All of that would likely blow over over time.  The problem was the forum's reaction to Justin's post here.  He was ridiculed,  called names, disrespected,  condescended to.  People posting did not stick to the issue at hand.  Justin's reaction was a reaction,  OK.  Many of the people who tried to protect Rain,  (who never needed protecting in the first place)  did so by attacking Justin.  Things have gotten far more hurtful than they ever would have if no attacking had happened.  It would be nice if the people who were attacking in their posts could see it,  so that maybe in another instance they will modify their behavior.  I suppose a public acknowledgement and/or apology would be too much to expect.    I hope Justin returns soon;  his contributions to this site,  as well as his blog,  are tremendously beneficial to people of all levels trying to learn this game.

"Ridiculed" is not a good word to describe what has happened to Gerard. He has been publicly humiliated and tortured over an extended period of time.

But I think I understand your vision of how the world should be:

It is OK to ridicule (or humiliate or torture) Gerard because he has put himself in a position to be ridiculed (or humiliated or tortured).

It is not OK to ridicule Justin because he has not put himself in such a position.

And everyone gets to decide for himself who has put themselves in such a position and who has not. Then everyone can ridicule to his heart's content.

Rain can decide for BBO who deserves to be ridiculed on our site. If Rain thinks that a given BBO members deserves to be ridiculed it will be open season on them - they won't get any "protection" from our abuse department. If Rain thinks that a given BBO member has does nothing to deserve ridicule, we will "protect" that person by selectively applying our rules.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com