Where in the hell are you getting that? Where did she say anything about provoking someone else to sue, and how is that an understandable reading of her comments?

Take a look at her actions which coupled with her statements. Take a look at what she did. She filed an inquiry with the web host. And the content of the inquiry was not something that involved lawsuit at all. Her purpose in all of this was singular...to get Darrick off the board. If you can't understand that, then you have worse reading comprehension problems than I thought.

I'm afraid that JG's appeals have no impact and will not reverse this case. She is more foolish than I originally thought.

No offense to you Liz for sticking up for your friend but I find her defense to be ridiculous. I can hardly even read it with an open mind it sucks so much. I can hardly even respond. Her actions were blatant and her punishment is just. She's just a dumb girl. Sorry.

JG, go get a life. I did. ;-)

Paul O

This is where the whole major split between me, Harmony, JG, and you and Shades differ. Darrick's previous history has EVERYTHING to do with his behavior on our board being alarming. And I didn't say that his behavior was criminal, but it was close. You even admit that.

I think threatening the Web Host for perceived behavior by this board is tantamount to messing with this board by proxy. It's a ridiculous argument to say otherwise. JG was picking a fight with the Zen Master, Dr. Shades, and she lost. That's that.

Go find another board to mess with, sister.

- VRDRC

I have had my say. I will be interested in Shades' response. I am going swimming.

It's one or the other. She threatened to initiate a legal fight. Either that means she was going to sue herself or she was going to take some action that would cause others to create the legal fight. What, is she trying to make the whole legal threat thing disappear in a cloud of rhetoric?

Perhaps it would be better for her to assert she's being misread and ask comments about the incident to be reworded that she threatened to "initiate a legal fight" against us rather than "sue."


First, I read that inquiry and it passive-aggressively encourages the webhost to see this board in violation of its terms of use, so I don't agree with this characterization. That's what she said her first step would be in initiating a legal fight and she made good on that. As far as that goes, her actions did match her rhetoric. Second, Darrick was banned at that point, so there was no opportunity for a next step in her threat chain. But, as you know, I thought her threat was an idle one. She never was going to initiate that legal fight, if only because there's no legal case about "liability" to be had and the very idea is laughable. It still doesn't change the fact that she made the threat she did.

Shades, himself stated that he had no problem with JG, or any other member suing the board. Those are his own words. At worst, that is what JG was threatening to do. Beyond her clarification in her email, her basic actions show that she was pursuing the webhost...and she was pursuing the webhost not for dollar amounts which would take money out of our individual families' hands, but pursuing the webhost to do one thing and one thing only....block Darrick from the board. That was her sole purpose! It is blatantly clear.

JG did not threaten to sue us, as individuals. Period. The very thing that Shades stated is simply not true, and has been proven false, not only by her own clarifications which she offered Shades, but also by the very actions which she took.

Ok, some context has to be added here.

Harm, and to a lesser extent you, were arguing that JG shouldn't be banned because she broke no explicit rule where banning is explicitly listed as the consequence. I countered by pointing out that this is true of Joseph and Darrick as well, yet no one was advocating for them to be unbanned. Everyone was on board with their banning in the first place. Harm, in particular, vociferously advocated for Joseph's banning at the time. I found this to be intellectually inconsistent.

Anyway, JG, clearly up to date on this chain of argument, argues in that email response to me that Darrick did break a board rule by involving the board in illegal activity by cyberstalking. So I'm pointing out here that, no, Darrick's posting behavior here wasn't illegal. That's exaggerating it.

At minimum when anyone threatens legal action of any kind you return fire. Cut them down as fast as you can and go for the throat. Don't just sit there and let the ememy take shots and do God knows what. JG crossed the line. The hell with the rules. Protect yourself first and foremost. Protect your family. Protect the message board too.

Shades was slow to react but he did what he needed to do. He took her out and shot her. I'd do the same to anyone who threatened to sue me or my board, if I had one.

Paul O

Had she known that Darrick was banned, she wouldn't have filled out the inquiry form to begin with. And yes, she pointed out that the board was in violatioon of its terms of use. That is exactly the same type of claim that Seattle Ghost Writer and Joseph claimed, and they were both allowed to continue to post!

Again, this is NOT about JG being allowed to post here again. This is about clarifying her statements and what she did because she is incapable of doing that for herself.

As Ray indicated, you and Shades have both GROSSLY misunderstood and therefore misrepresented her motives. That is the bottom line here.

I will not be able to respond for a while. I am going swimming with my family, which is a hell of a lot more important than this board.

That may be so, but I am trying to hold Shades accountable for HIS OWN WORDS.

For the record, LDST keeps showing up in the chain of events (JG's words) because I:

1. Did the rational thing - I used my feet to say how I felt
2. As much as I can't stand DCP, Derrick was threatening him and I don't want any physical harm to come to anyone, so I warned DCP
3. JG asked me who the host of this board was. I did a traceroute and told her it was Dreamhost

See? That's what *rational* people do.

H.

While I am proud of my title, the thing that's really classless is JG's inability to take responsibility for her actions, and her posse of pussies whining about her banning every few weeks.

H.

Sometimes you are a classy piece of s***.



Paul O

She sent that before he was banned. You can see the timeline. She gave me 15 minutes to ban Darrick, then sent it 15 minutes later when I didn't. Harm banned Darrick something like 30 min after the ultimatum when she got on, though she didn't make an announcement at the time.

I have not misrepresented her. Goodness. I'm saying she threatened to initiate a legal fight against the board admin. As for evidence of that claim, how about this quote:


and


It seems like she might be claiming that she wasn't threatening the board admin, but as you can see from her words, that is complete BS if that is indeed the case.

In any event, I'm clearly not misrepresenting her.

Yes, you are. And Shades most definitely is.

We can let the readers decide for themselves. Clearly, you and I will never agree. But these are the facts, and they are laid out as follows:

1. Darrick was allowed to post on this board even after having a prior history of both IRL and cyber stalking. Shades was very strongly encouraged to not allow Darrick to post because of this history by other board members who had previously dealt with him. Shades ignored this advice, and allowed Darrick to post anyway.

2. Shades further attempted to tie his Moderator's hands by stating that he, and he alone needed to make the call should a banning be initiated on Darrick.

3. While Shades was off the board, Darrick threatened posters on this board, and attempted to find out IRL info about them.

4. JG was one of the posters who felt threatened because she was aware of how far away Darrick actually lived from her IRL residence.

5. She asked that Darrick at least be suspended from the board so that he wouldn't harm anyone else.

6. EA dismissed JG's claims, thought they were silly, and refused to suspend Darrick.

7. JG became angry, and, in my opinion, rightfully so, and said that she would initiate a legal fight if Darrick wasn't suspended.

8. Unbeknownst to her, Harmony had already suspended Darrick, but JG had no way of knowing this.

9. Since JG did not know that Harmony had suspended Darrick, she filed a formal inquiry form with Dreamhost.

Even if there was misunderstanding from Shades on JG's intention of suing individuals, JG clarified this with Shades via email TWICE, specifically stating that she had no intention of suing the moderators. Her beef was with the board itself ( which Shades now claims he has no problem with). JG's whole goal was to get Darrick off the board. That was all she wanted done. It had nothing to do with any sort of money amount.

And EA, you and Shades have done nothing but defend Darrick, who I consider to be dangerous...along with DCP and several others.

Let's face it. You and Shades got your egos knocked out of joint, and JG paid the price for it.

Again, you don't seem to get that this isn't about JG's membership being reinstated. She is quite happy on my board, and I am quite happy to have her there.

This is about her being misrepresented. Now, the facts are out. Everyone can read JG's statements, your statements, and Shades' statements.

The readers can decide for themselves, but at least all of the information is out there.

What is missing in this discussion is the context. JG had a personal experience of a family member who took his own life and nearly the life of her daughter earlier in the year. I don't know what the psychological words are but I think she viewed Darrick in much the same way as the deceased family member who obviously unstable was potentially dangerous to others. In addition ..on a few if not more occasions it has been painfully slow trying to get mods to respond to situations. In some cases the mods or Shades have decided nothing should be done ( I had personal experience with that myself) and in other cases after much discussion eventually something gets done, but it took lots of time and perseverance to get that accomplished..and I know JG has had that experience. Couple that context with JG posting behavior I've observed over many years where from time to time she likes to talk tough..but it's basically internet bluster.

So imo JG over-reacted but I think that was because she perceived Darrick as a similar threat as the family member. She got caught up emotionally in the moment..as sometimes happens with posters on message boards..myself included. I don't believe she got any feedback from you EA even though you were on the board. She likely thought it would take days before any mod would handle anything..because that's what has happened in the past. And perceiving Darrick to be a real and dangerous threat...she was trying to do her damnedest to get a mod to respond.

So I think given the background info..some slack should be given JG. She got caught up in the moment,over reacted but what I know of JG's behavior via messageboards ..I don't think for one minute she would have ever initiated any legal action..that was to some extent typical bluster from her taken up a notch. Yes she contacted the admin host...but that was to find out if the board didn't handle it ..then if she could get the web host to handle it. Granted she shouldn't have reacted so quickly and make demands with such short time frame but again based on her personal experience which involved a family member likely in her mind time was of the essence.

So...I'm positive JG was never a threat to this board or to any mod...her goal rightly or wrongly was to get Darrick banned..because she perceived him as a dangerous threat.

JG posted this on my board, and said that if I felt it was worth posting, to go ahead and post it on MDB. I do find this worth posting:

JG is guilty as charged. Her appeal is rejected. She crossed the line and now is spewing pure b***s***. Is this how people from New Jersey act? People from the east are screwed up?

Hey, I'm from Dallas Texas. JG has been shot dead and damn well deserved it. She drew a weapon and Shades toasted her ass. Her excuses are pure b***s***.

Good shooting, Shades. You protected yourself and the board. You're a hero. You did your duty. The next time someone threatens with legal lawsuits -- feel free to shoot them too. We don't need that crap!

Paul O

No I'm not. My stated position about what she did is simply repeating quotes from her. I'm saying she threatened to initiate legal action against the board admin. My evidence for that is the posts where she threatened to initiate legal action against the board admin.

That's untrue, which you should know. I didn't dismiss her claims. I requested patience as the mods had discussed just such an incident possibly happening. I advocated banning Darrick in that circumstance. I said, "Darrick is clearly disturbed and we have to make sure his behavior doesn't metastasize from creepy to dangerous. I favor a banning the second he starts using threatening/stalking like language towards others. The kind of things he's talking about, probably to himself, can get this board shut down in the fallout."

Shades responded, "I agree with that idea, but I nevertheless respectfully request that you let me be the one who does the banning."

I respected that. I informed relevant parties that the matter was being taken seriously. No meaningful risk was obtained from waiting a little bit. In a matter of a few hours, Shades arrived and confirmed the ban based on my call. That does not equate to being dismissive or regarding claims as silly.



That's absolutely absurd. I advocated banning him on basis of his troubling behavior, of which I was quite critical. Shades upheld banning him. I haven't done "nothing but defend Darrick." That's offensive, and a reflection of how irrational you can get when you want to give your friends preferential treatment in moderating. Because I don't think his behavior on this board was criminal doesn't mean I'm the president of his fan club.



No they can't. Most of the pertinent information is unviewable in the mod forum. Where can readers learn that Harm believes in moderating people based on how much value she thinks they have for the board, with JG, her personal friend, apparently being a high value poster? Where do people get to read that? Or when you initially denied that JG made any legal threats for quite some time despite direct quotes indicating the opposite? Where do people get to read PM's from JG about her thought process at the time? How about the tortured attempts to create a distinction between why Joseph's banning was Ok despite it not violating a rule, but JG's not? Or how about the promises to defend JG to the bitter end because of previous friendship from her? Honestly, I'm not even sure people have seen the webhost complaint.

Who cares about Jersey Girl? Bring back Darrick Evenson.