It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:42 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:42 am 
EAllusion wrote:
Just focusing on the sexually vulgar comments, the line you are drawing is fairly arbitrary and the criteria you highlighted to choose it is a path to stifling thought through censorship.


A line has already been drawn. For example, am I allowed to post pornographic images anywhere on this board? No. So we've already decided to 'stifle thought through censorship' it's simply a question of where we've decided to draw that line. IMHO that line was crossed, and reasonable 'censorship' should employed to remove such comments.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:48 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
Quote:
I allowed to post pornographic images anywhere on this board? No.
Shulem's avatar is offensive to me. However, his posts are not. Therefore, I choose to see no-one's avatars. Similarly, I had DE's socks on ignore. I took them off ignore in a moment of mistaken liberality.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:58 am 
MCB wrote:
Quote:
I allowed to post pornographic images anywhere on this board? No.
Shulem's avatar is offensive to me. However, his posts are not. Therefore, I choose to see no-one's avatars. Similarly, I had DE's socks on ignore. I took them off ignore in a moment of mistaken liberality.


I think my point still stands. There are certainly avatars I could upload that would be censored. Again, it's not a question on if we draw a line, but where the line is drawn. You can censor sexually explicit material without becoming MD&D.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:00 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
And we have the choice of where to draw our own personal lines.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:07 am 
MCB wrote:
And we have the choice of where to draw our own personal lines.


We certainly do. My concern is that if content such as this is permitted some will exercise that right and choose not to post here, and that some will choose to leave.

I'd rather the site maintain a quality user base than allow content such as this.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:14 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 3817
honorentheos wrote:
Personal philosophy when it comes to crazy people on message boards: treat them like you would if you encountered them in real life.
If, in real life, someone is loudly raging on a street corner about some personal demon or other, it is best not to engage this person. To the outside observer, it will only appear to be two crazy people talking to one another. For this reason, I hold limited sympathy for those who chose to engage with Derrick. You engaged in a conversation with the crazy person, you chose to be part of the crazy person conversation, you became the second party in the crazy people dialog. Sorry, but that's just the facts as I see them.
But there is another case to be considered - when the crazy person is saying things or acting in a way that implies they are a threat to a person in real life, an intervention is the correct action. This doesn't mean engaging the crazy person except in extreme cases where immediate harm is likely and to not intervene will have sad consequence. What it does mean, though, is alerting the appropriate authorities.
MDB Moderators - please consider overlooking the second party crazy people and focus on the credible issues related to this episode.


I second these thoughts, especially the last sentence. "the second party crazy people" in this case are also long standing -"members in good standing" and the Board rules from Straight Dope, which JG posted rings true to me.

I hope (and assumed) that Shades's philosophy of uncensored free speech was centered on "Mormon Discussions", not every topic in the world … especially not the scary guy on the corner's sick sexual issues with women.


Last edited by RockSlider on Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:16 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 13636
Location: Off the Deep End
LDSToronto wrote:
Board,

The mods are slow to react to the latest Derrick 'break from reality'. Derrick has insinuated violence against MCB and Dan Peterson. This place has turned into a gong show.

I am starting a boycott - "You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get both". Until Derrick is removed from this board, and a commitment is made to ban any and all Derrick-like sock puppets as they pop-up, I will not associate my name with this board. I will have no hand in Derrick carrying out a violent act towards any person.

Consider this my last post until Derrick is gone. All who will join this boycott, make your last post in this thread.

H.


LDST,

I'm sorry that I failed to directly respond to your OP here. I want to make clear that Daheshist's remarks to the effect that "Sometimes blood needs to be shed" were directed towards me. I agree with you that his behavior became increasingly unstable to the point of obviously posing a threat via his remarks and multiple efforts to obtain the identity of MCB. As I observed him, he often became confused about which poster he was referring to. He attached and attributed comments made by MCB to me or vice versa. When his tirades escalated to the "Sometimes blood needs to be shed" statement, that is where I became more than concerned.

To say that his behavior and demeanor was unhinged is a gross understatement of fact. He obviously suffers from some sort of disorder.

While I have deep compassion for persons who suffer from mental illness, I don't think it wrong to remove the tools that enable such illness to escalate, which in this case, is access to this board.

If ever there were an obvious call to make by blocking, at least temporarily, a poster's access to this board until Shades became available to sort things out, this was it.

I have no current plans to participate in a boycott. I've chosen alternative methods of complaint, and have informed Shades.

I understand why you chose Boycott as your method of protest. I am simply saying that, at the moment, my ways are not yours.

You did an honorable thing by asking for compassionate banning. Banning, at least temporarily, would have been the appropriate response. I know that many times you and I have rubbed each other the wrong way, but when it comes to matters concerning the well being of people, my experience is that you and I appear to be of one mind.

JG

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:21 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
Quote:
As I observed him, he often became confused about which poster he was referring to. He attached and attributed comments made by MCB to me or vice versa.
His confusion is related to his habit of sock-puppeting. Our personalities are quite different, actually.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 13636
Location: Off the Deep End
MCB wrote:
Quote:
As I observed him, he often became confused about which poster he was referring to. He attached and attributed comments made by MCB to me or vice versa.
His confusion is related to his habit of sock-puppeting. Our personalities are quite different, actually.


He consistently used the same username last evening, MCB.

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:24 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 13636
Location: Off the Deep End
Rock
Quote:
the Board rules from Straight Dope, which JG posted rings true to me.


I can tell you this much, the Straight Dope had been online for years and they know exactly what they're doing regarding balancing free speech and placing limits on conduct.

If you ever choose to look in there, check out the BBQ Pit. It's my favorite forum and one look at it will tell you why.

:-)

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
Jersey Girl wrote:

He consistently used the same username last evening, MCB.
That is not the point. Since he socks, he assumes that most people do.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:27 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 13636
Location: Off the Deep End
MCB wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:

He consistently used the same username last evening, MCB.
That is not the point. Since he socks, he assumes that most people do.


Oh, I get you now. Sorry about that!

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
Of course, he more probably was PUI*















* Posting under the influence of alcohol/drugs.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:50 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18266
Quote:
The mods are slow to react to the latest Derrick 'break from reality'. Derrick has insinuated violence against MCB and Dan Peterson. This place has turned into a gong show.

I am starting a boycott - "You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get both". Until Derrick is removed from this board, and a commitment is made to ban any and all Derrick-like sock puppets as they pop-up, I will not associate my name with this board. I will have no hand in Derrick carrying out a violent act towards any person.

Consider this my last post until Derrick is gone. All who will join this boycott, make your last post in this thread.


Well you know once I was upset at some people here referring to women (or anyone) as "douches". But ultimately this a free speech zone with clear divisions of what type of speech goes in what forum. This is not the MDD where tender eyes are protected by an (incompatible with LDS doctrine) agenda that determines what you can and cannot read. The construct here (not necessarily the denizens) is a more realistic, mature, and democratic place and more compatible with the LDS notion of agency.

Why can't you just ignore what you don't like? I appreciate the removal of your child sexual predator supporting avatar, but while it was up, it didn't stop me from reading some of your posts (or complaining about your avatar).

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13429
I've long thought he is mentally ill and potentially dangerous. I rarely read a thing he posts,and if I ever respond to him, it is against my better judgment. I think everyone who objects to him should put him on permanent ignore. If he never gets the feedback attention he craves, then maybe he'll give up and go away.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:07 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 6847
I feel comfortable pointing this out:

The moderators, and myself in particular, have anticipated Derrick behaving like this because he has shown various signs of mental illness and for lack of a better word, creepy behavior on the board. I have argued that when that behavior tips over into evidence of threatening or stalking like behavior, Derrick should be banned due to a few reasons, not the least of which is the security of board members. Dr. Shades has specifically requested that he be allowed to make the call on this, and I am willing to be deferential to that.

No one is meaningfully safer by banning, temporary or not, Derrick right now than they are by waiting a few hours for a decision to be made. There is no need to act impulsively before Dr. Shades and the rest of the moderators can collectively take stock of what was said, when, and what that means. Every poster, popular or unpopular, insightful or not, deserves to careful consideration when contemplating a ban. Threatening frivolous lawsuits or the existence of the board and taking action on those threats to prompt moderator behavior absolutely should be regarded as worthy of a permanent ban in my opinion and I will advocate that to the moderating team.

Regarding posters who contribute material that you think is offensive, trolling, or you just altogether don't like, ignoring them does wonders. I highly recommend it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:16 am 
Valiant B
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 191
EAllusion wrote:
Threatening frivolous lawsuits or the existence of the board and taking action on those threats to prompt moderator behavior absolutely should be regarded as worthy of a permanent ban in my opinion and I will advocate that to the moderating team.

I agree 100%. Jersey Girl needs to knock it off.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:51 am 
Regional Representative

Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:12 pm
Posts: 673
I'll take Derricks side on this one.

-It's against my values to be amongst a group that attacks someone else for any reason whatsoever. So keep Derrick.

-I don't like LDST I believe him to be a phony and a F**. However, If it were cool thing to gang up on LDST for the fun of it, I'd take LDST's side.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:04 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 6847
The moderators have decided to permanently ban Daheshist due to a pattern of threatening behavior.

JG has been suspended for one week pending deliberation.

This thread will be moved to the telestial forum.

EA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:10 pm 
Classless piece of s***
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 2498
Location: The Orange House, 3rd door on the left.
EAllusion wrote:
The moderators have decided to permanently ban Daheshist due to a pattern of threatening behavior.

JG has been suspended for one week pending deliberation.

This thread will be moved to the telestial forum.

EA


Excellent. My boycott is over.

H.

_________________
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BOYCOTT: You get me, or you get Derrick, you don't get b
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:10 pm 
Classless piece of s***
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 2498
Location: The Orange House, 3rd door on the left.
hatersinmyward wrote:
I'll take Derricks side on this one.

-It's against my values to be amongst a group that attacks someone else for any reason whatsoever. So keep Derrick.

-I don't like LDST I believe him to be a phony and a F**. However, If it were cool thing to gang up on LDST for the fun of it, I'd take LDST's side.


Haters, I wish gang rape upon your anus.

have a wonderful day.

H.

_________________
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group