[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

[Al_U_Card]

rona_, on May 2 2006, 12:43 PM, said:

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.

As John Lennon sang (or rather spoke)....Number 9....Number 9....Number 9

It was more of a prediction that a disclaimer....roflmao

[jocdelevat]

Hi all
I think this discussion went far enough and we should put a stop.

My opinions:
1. Delete the whole thread discussion and forget about it
2. Call Dr. Phil and Judge Judy if #1 is not good enough:))
3. BBO should have a disclaimer or a better policy


Best regards
Jocdelevat

[Sigi_BC84]

Brandal, on May 2 2006, 07:21 PM, said:

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.

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

I was simply talking about the reasons Rain had for deleting the posts. She did not explain why, but in this thread it came to light. There is not much more to it, really -- the moderator could have been a bit more careful and Justin could have been a bit less emotional. No big deal to me.

I'm now reading the website that Justin was about to link. In a way, this entire thread was the best ad for the site you could imagine.

--Sigi

[mikeh]

It seems to me that we have to distinguish between ridiculing a member (or non-member... I don't think it should matter) on the one hand and evaluating posts on the other.

I did not read any of Justin's original posts but I understood that it began with his posting of a link to a webpage which has, as a small portion of its content, a series of entries which clearly depict a BBO (and/or an OkBridge) member in a very poor light.

I do not know the extent, if any, to which Justin's reference to this website was intended or could be reasonably perceived as intending to draw attention to that portion of the site: I gather and accept that Justin did not personally intend to make that particular topic the focus of the link, but it might reasonably be perceived by others as such. And while I accept that the offending area is only a small part of the site, it is readily findable and, in itself, quite substantial. It is also, if I may express an opinion on it, quite funny is a perhaps unfortunate way.... also quite sad, in more or less the same way. Laughing at the behaviour exhibited (assuming the posts to be an accurate tale) is a guilty pleasure.

I can very easily see why the subject of that part of the site felt targeted: and a visit to that individual's own website makes it clear that he feels that he has been persecuted.

More importantly, I recognize that zero tolerance must be the rule for this forum: otherwise, as Fred's post makes clear, the forum could degenerate into censorship based solely in the extent to which an individual offends those in charge. The slippery slope argument is valid in my view.

It is the extreme cases that test our dedication to such zero tolerance approaches. I have personally witnessed some of the conduct of the 'target': I was once actually invited by him to express a view on a topic he was teaching in one of his classes.... his approach was unorthodox and, more importantly, he was dismissive of the orthodox approach without even admitting that his view was unusual (a gamblng 3N opening on a 6 card suit) I have watched him play a number of hands, altho the 'pleasure' soon palled. I was, at the time, one of those who, in kib mode, and never so that any player or he could hear it, made sarcastic remarks.. for which I am sorry. The truth is that if ever anyone set themselves up as a target, he did... with claims to a skill level that was remarkable for its lack of insight... and I say this in the context of an online community in which self-ranking has run wild.

But the point has to be that a public forum cannot directly or indirectly condone OR BE SEEN EVEN BY A SMALL MINORITY OF READERS to condone any suggestion of a campaign to humiliate any one, member or non-member.

So the link was properly (imo) removed: could it have been handled by a simple deletion, with or without a note and with or without a private email to Justin (which may have been done for all I know)? Yes, and that topic is a legitimate topic for users of this forum to debate... how would we want our troublesome posts dealt with?

And I write this aware that passages of this post could be construed as potentially adding to the troubles of the 'target', altho I hope that I have made it clear that I feel sorry for him....while his teachings and claims to expertise are deserving, in my view, of strong criticism, he personally does not deserve to be humiliated before the world.

I may get my first warning or even have part or all of this deleted

[inquiry]

Jlall, on May 2 2006, 02:59 PM, said:

I've gained a little bit of perspective in the last day. Some thoughts...

I have talked to Rain. She assumed when I posted the website that my intent was or likely was to draw attention to the certain "offensive" section. This is because that member very recently started attacking me for my post on RGB (which told one of his harassers to move on and stop posting about him). I even reported him to abuse for this. Because of the timing of that event as well as my history with the member, it wasn't a far leap to think I might be taking a subtle jab at that person.

Well said justin, and I might add, my comments on this unfortunate stream of events included a parragph on the same topic... were I said...

inquiry May 1 2006, on 03:26 PM, said:

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.

Pehaps instead of "nothing is as every as simple as it seems, I should have quoted the Billy Joel's song. "shade of grey"... There is a song about shades of grey, that goes something like this...

"Some things were perfectly clear, seen with the vision of youth
No doubts and nothing to fear, I claimed the corner on truth
These days it's harder to say I know what I'm fighting for"

[Brandal]

Jlall, on May 2 2006, 02:59 PM, said:

Everyone is entitled to their say though.

Glad you're back,no doubt your contributions in general
are much appreciated here Justin

[pigpenz]

Good thing George W. Bush isnt a member