I thought we were discussing it.. 3 pages here and ongoing, 5 pages in the apology whatzit thread, another 3 in the aftermath before closing of the first one.
I thought this was about one guy, now you mention a lady, and 'those' and apparently this is much a bigger problem than I had any idea of.
Originally Posted by budman33
Depending on how severe you think outing someone or threatening to out someone is, it is not uncommon. We've had 3 providers go UTR or leave the business entirely because of stalkers, threat of outing, or being outed in less than 2 years or so. Probably more that I don't know of.
In the context of this one event, I think its plainly obvious what you wanted, that apparently didn't happen. I think there is more outrage in your posting because there wasn't an overwhelming public outcry resulting in mods stepping in and pulling a permanent ban against another member.... than you are about honest discussion. lets vote on it, mods want to know what we think. my poll would be:
O 1 month ban
O 3 month ban
O lifelong ban
O keep your private information private and don't expect a SHMB to attempt to protect it for you with a ban from said SHMB website.
I think you're making some assumptions here 1) that there is outrage in someone else' posting 2) even if there is outrage, that it was caused by the single event posted in this thread as an example. Whispers mentioned another provider that left because of a like situation, that could just as well be cause for any outrage, if there is one.
Outing has always been one of the worst things that one could do in this community. Question is this, is a threat to out someone just as bad as outing someone? I think that distinction may be the cause of any perceived outrage than desire to see a specific action against Yssup thwarted.
I am on the fence about a threat being treated the same as outing. On one hand it shows that someone has the mental capacity to think of that as retaliation, and if it happens more than once, it's a trend or a tendency that would only take time to see it come true. Then again, you could take it as someone yelling "I'll kill you!" in an heated argument. Technically a threat, but most likely empty.
My guess is that staff made the distinction between a threat and actual act, executed punitive actions, and let it go. I would guess that there would be a more severe punishment in plan if it happens again. If there was an outing on the board or threat made on the board and carried out in real life, I think that would result in a permanent ban.
this almost reads like a movie. Now I wonder if Yssup was an original member of the Attack-Pack, but there was a falling out over a stripper named candy, he knows where she's buried, but you cant get rid of him because he's connected. so we hatch a plan, yeaaa, a plan...
/sarcasm off
/discussion on
That would be poor writing. He would have to be a new guy, a rising star. Her name would be Tatianna, and there would have to be a baby involved.
I mentioned THREE separate incidents that make this a subject of current interest to me.
A friend is dealing with a stalker right now threatening to out them.
Naturally the Stalker posts here under one handle and uses a certain Email.
That Stalker also has created a 2nd email that they use to harass this individual, displaying much instability as well as hostility.
Because of the amount of personal information the Stalker has displayed, the injured party has been at an extreme disadvantage. But, after much research, the person being stalked now has proof of who the Stalker is.
And naturally now has a wealth of information about the person stalking them.
Laws regarding this type of activity, repeatedly threatening an individual and making repeated unwanted contact are fairly well covered and it appears to even be a Felony.
What is unknown is how the law would actually deal with the person and whether or not that person would carry through on their threats.
Considering the current education and professional status of that individual though I would fathom a guess that their life could be turned upside down as well.
No matter HOW the law would deal with it I DO BELIEVE that every member of this community, man and woman alike, has the right to know when members start down these paths.
Wouldn't you want someone like this out of this community?
****************************** **********************
Sec. 42.07. HARASSMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, he:
(1) initiates communication by telephone, in writing, or by electronic communication and in the course of the communication makes a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene;
(2) threatens, by telephone, in writing, or by electronic communication, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the threat, to inflict bodily injury on the person or to commit a felony against the person, a member of his family or household, or his property;
(3) conveys, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the report, a false report, which is known by the conveyor to be false, that another person has suffered death or serious bodily injury;
(4) causes the telephone of another to ring repeatedly or makes repeated telephone communications anonymously or in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another;
(5) makes a telephone call and intentionally fails to hang up or disengage the connection;
(6) knowingly permits a telephone under the person's control to be used by another to commit an offense under this section; or
(7) sends repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another.
(b) In this section:
(1) "Electronic communication" means a transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system. The term includes:
(A) a communication initiated by electronic mail, instant message, network call, or facsimile machine; and
(B) a communication made to a pager.
(2) "Family" and "household" have the meaning assigned by Chapter 71, Family Code.
(3) "Obscene" means containing a patently offensive description of or a solicitation to commit an ultimate sex act, including sexual intercourse, masturbation, cunnilingus, fellatio, or anilingus, or a description of an excretory function.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the actor has previously been convicted under this section.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 2204, ch. 411, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 10, Sec. 1, eff. March 19, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 657, Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 1995; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 15.02(d), eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1222, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Sec. 42.072. STALKING. (a) A person commits an offense if the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conduct, including following the other person, that:
(1) the actor knows or reasonably believes the other person will regard as threatening:
(A) bodily injury or death for the other person;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the other person's family or household; or
(C) that an offense will be committed against the other person's property;
(2) causes the other person or a member of the other person's family or household to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death or fear that an offense will be committed against the other person's property; and
(3) would cause a reasonable person to fear:
(A) bodily injury or death for himself or herself;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the person's family or household; or
(C) that an offense will be committed against the person's property.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, except that the offense is a felony of the second degree if the actor has previously been convicted under this section.
(c) In this section, "family," "household," and "member of a household" have the meanings assigned by Chapter 71, Family Code.
It is a shame that "in your face" comments by multiple parties have led this board to some difficult circumstances. I believe there does need to be some penalty, and I feel 1 months banning to let the heat of the moment clear. But the character of Yssup that has shown through his postings since I have been reading it, is of one who cares about right and wrong.
Originally Posted by oralick
I'll give you that he gave the impression that he cares for right and wrong. Yet, he's been the first one to cross the clear line of wrong.
For whatever it is worth, there are numerous characters here that spout sinister B.S., but then want to have us believe they are really just big Teddy Bears, yet what they spout can be used as an example of how our Austin Providers should be treated and looked upon. I have seen some very thinly disguised innuendos about outing some of the Ladies and finding out personal things about them, when not liking what they were saying or doing.
Sinister BS? Please show me an example. Maybe our definition of sinister do not match.
In my opinion there have been many more postings by the ladies recently, and I feel that to some degree Yssup has helped them feel more comfortable with posting, knowing that he was usually there to counteract the inevitable smartass "in your face" posting to their thread, with a astute and often witty reply. Guess you could call him a bit of a WK. And that makes some of our members see red. In my opinion Yssup just got a little carried away, fighting the good fight.
Originally Posted by oralick
Maybe they're posting because price of gold is up. Maybe they're not posting anymore than they did in the past. To attribute that to Yssup's "protection" is to do injustice to the women who are posting by implying that they are not capable of "counteracting" the smartasses. I believe they are perfectly capable of defending themselves, especially in a written forum where the female of the species are supposed to have the advantage.
BTW, did you see a drop in number of women posting while Yssup was on vacation? How did they dare posting while their protector was not able to help them?
You buy into his flag waving that he's defending the women, but I believe that he was not. If you've been reading his posts, he did more attacking of what he perceived was the other side than he did any defending. The flag he was waving was just an easy cause to rally with.
To say that he got a "little" carried away is a "little" bit of an understatement. Really, because someone disagreed with him in a political thread, he threatened to out the guy? What fight was he fighting in that thread? The guy doesn't know how or where to draw the line and keep things in perspective.
He can play the WK all day. I'll argue with him on points I think he's full of shit, not because he's a WK. For him to cross the line from discussing something on a board to threatening someone's livelihood, public and personal reputation is getting a lot carried away.
The staff has made their decision and dealt with the incident accordingly. Though looking at the evidence presented in this thread, I'm beginning to think the guy is more of a threat to people here than previously thought. I've previously told him to share a drink and hash things out in person. I retract all such invitation and will do everything in my power to protect myself and my personal information from that man going forward.
