In a recent thread, one member asked for opinions on whether board members should be allowed to reinvent themselves and return. I didn't speak up in that particular thread because I was too busy to respond with the amount of attention I believe it warranted, and before I could respond, the thread was locked.
First, I will say that I believe anyone should be allowed to reinvent themselves on the board, provided they go about it properly. Disable or Guest their old account, and return as whatever they'd like to be. I did the exact same thing last year for reasons having nothing to do with the board, and I know others who have done the same. I see no harm in it.
That said, I do believe that if a board member has a history of alert-worthy behavior, has leaked private information, or is known to harass and threaten to "out" other board members, they should not be allowed to return to the board under a new incarnation. Why? The answer is simple. If we are not allowed to connect one board handle to another board handle when there is definitive proof that the two members are the same (i.e., old photos being used by the new incarnation), then there is nothing to prevent someone from coming back and wreaking havoc on the board (or in someone else's personal life) again.
When the senior mods have been made aware of misconduct by a board member via forwarded emails, PMs and testimony by respected board members, and they not only allow that person to return, but put a moratorium on anyone "outing" that member by connecting his or her old identity to the new one, I can't help but question what's going on behind the scenes.
I know for a fact that when I returned as Natalie Reign, there was locker room talk about my prior identity, and the gentlemen were talking about who I was prior to my return. I know this because several people who contacted me mentioned that they only found out I was back because of a thread in the locker room. I didn't mind that at all. Why? Because I had nothing to hide. My prior identity was well-respected, I posted in the same tone, and I didn't have any board "drama" attached to my name, aside from my frequent verbal battles with Whispers.
Why, if someone isn't trying to hide their past behavior from prospective new ladies or clients, would they care about an old board handle being connected to a new board handle? As far as I can see, there is no violation of rules in that case.
Forum Guideline #5 - Outing or threats of outing are taken seriously. Membership here is anonymous and for the privacy of our members it will remain that way. That means any effort or attempt to connect a person's real world information to their username on this board will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. This includes real names, employment, medical info, addresses past or present, images, criminal or driving record, etc. We expect everyone who participates here to respect and go to great lengths to protect the anonymity and privacy of one another. Reckless disregard or accidental outing will also be taken very seriously.
Based on my interpretation of Forum Guideline #5 alone, which was the rule quoted in the aforementioned thread, the only instance in which discussion of someone's identity on the board is a punishable offense, is one in which real-world or personal information is connected to a username (handle), to include real names, employment, medical info, addresses past or present, images, criminal or driving record, etc. From what I can see in the thread, none of those personal details were ever mentioned, or even hinted at in the thread in question.
It is the board owners' prerogative, and responsibility, to define the rules of the forum and see that they are followed in the manner they desire.
However, I don't see how it's effective, or fair, to use specific guidelines to moderate threads and issue punishments when the guideline(s) being cited are not even applicable to the situation at hand.
What I'm seeing is akin to a police officer writing someone a ticket for running a red light, when the only actual ticketable offense was that the driver's passenger side headlight was burned out.
Beyond all of that, when senior moderators do have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific board member has threatened/harassed another board member, said in writing that they knew the other board member's real name, address and make and model of vehicle, and threatened to "out" the other board member on the board, or even to LE, and those same moderators allow the misbehaving board member to return as another incarnation and refuse to allow anyone to connect the dots, it makes me question how much the board actually cares about the safety or privacy of any of its members, male or female.
I know for a fact that a specific board member has been contacting other board members to find my home address, and other personal information about me. And I know for a fact that someone has loose lips, because that person definitely knows where I live. Do I have any hope at all that the senior moderators care about the obvious danger this board member presents to me and others? No.
If ECCIE seeks to use its forum guidelines to protect the privacy of its members, then it should amend those guidelines to include any additional information that is off-limits for discussion. And, its senior moderators/owners should be prepared to deal "swiftly and harshly" with any member that violates the privacy of others as defined in the guidelines... not just the ones that are irritating.
- Natalie Reign
- 03-04-2011, 12:14 PM
- austinkboy
- 03-04-2011, 12:16 PM
Wow, thank you Natalie. I think this sums it up pretty well.
- Spacemtn
- 03-04-2011, 12:55 PM
As the Moderator that made the referenced post about "outing" let me state that based on the way that I felt that the thread was going, I felt it necessary to remind everyone to not stray further in that direction. No one was pointed or "officially" warned, it was a blanket courtesy statement made to keep everyone that was participating out of harms way.
I am not the Mod that closed the thread. It wasn't my call. I won't even say that I agree with the re-invention policies here, but I don't get to make the rules, I just get to make sure that we try to stay in the vicinity of them.
If someone will send me the evidence mentioned above that ties the member to activities that would "out" another member, I can assure you that I will handle it appropriately. To date, I have not seen the evidence mentioned. I cannot act on things if I have no concrete proof.
Spacemtn
Lone Wolf Moderator
I am not the Mod that closed the thread. It wasn't my call. I won't even say that I agree with the re-invention policies here, but I don't get to make the rules, I just get to make sure that we try to stay in the vicinity of them.
If someone will send me the evidence mentioned above that ties the member to activities that would "out" another member, I can assure you that I will handle it appropriately. To date, I have not seen the evidence mentioned. I cannot act on things if I have no concrete proof.
Spacemtn
Lone Wolf Moderator
- Guest102312
- 03-04-2011, 12:55 PM
High fives my lover natalie and smacks her on the ass. Well said
- Vyt
- 03-04-2011, 01:07 PM
Well said, Natalie, as always. I hope your break finds you well and if you choose to return that you contact me in whatever identity you assume.
- Natalie Reign
- 03-04-2011, 09:23 PM
Space, I know I clarified with you personally, but I was in no way referencing you or your moderation on the topic. I deduced that another Mod closed the thread based on the last post before it was locked. In my experience, you (and Sixx, when he was a Mod) are usually very consistent and even handed in your moderation, and do an excellent job of explaining whenever confusion becomes an issue.
- MarleyMonroe
- 03-04-2011, 09:42 PM
Natalie, I am so off topic, but I love ur pics... The one overlooking the city, r u in a drs office? The green table/chair made me think of that. Because if so, thats where I need to go. Lol a view like that is much better than those pictures on the ceiling, ya know. Lol sorry to get off topic.
- Damon Bradley
- 03-05-2011, 06:48 AM
Eloquent, and articulately stated. One of the reasons I love you....
- Codybeast
- 03-05-2011, 07:39 AM
Articulate yes, Eloquent yes, Applicable maybe. Let's see.
As they say “I have no pony in this race” and still do not know who the the provider was however let's step back in time to that thread.
As I recall, the general consensus by all present at the time was that this particular provider was Not a threat in anyway to the board nor had been banned by the moderators. It was the general impression by those of us outside the loop that she was being cleverly outed purely due to a personal agenda and bad history between both parties and that both were equally to blame for the bad blood between them.
If what you are stating is that the provider at question was at the time actually considered a threat to the board by the moderators and had been forced to retire her old handle as a result of punishment before the outing and then that changes matters entirely.
However if these claims of board wrongdoing have been brought into the light for the very first time well after the fact and subsequent banning then the impression given is that although articulate and beautifully written, this post was basically constructed for the purpose of coming to the defense of a friend who was banned.
So the Real question at hand is whether or not the above-mentioned misbehavior was known by the moderators at the time of the thread and had this provider been forced to retire her old name as a result? If so then this well written post is 100% appropriate and applicable to the referred situation. If not? Well then I suppose it isn't.
Any New evidence of wrongdoing unrelated to that particular thread would be something between you and the moderators to sort out. Wouldn't you agree?
As they say “I have no pony in this race” and still do not know who the the provider was however let's step back in time to that thread.
As I recall, the general consensus by all present at the time was that this particular provider was Not a threat in anyway to the board nor had been banned by the moderators. It was the general impression by those of us outside the loop that she was being cleverly outed purely due to a personal agenda and bad history between both parties and that both were equally to blame for the bad blood between them.
If what you are stating is that the provider at question was at the time actually considered a threat to the board by the moderators and had been forced to retire her old handle as a result of punishment before the outing and then that changes matters entirely.
However if these claims of board wrongdoing have been brought into the light for the very first time well after the fact and subsequent banning then the impression given is that although articulate and beautifully written, this post was basically constructed for the purpose of coming to the defense of a friend who was banned.
So the Real question at hand is whether or not the above-mentioned misbehavior was known by the moderators at the time of the thread and had this provider been forced to retire her old name as a result? If so then this well written post is 100% appropriate and applicable to the referred situation. If not? Well then I suppose it isn't.
Any New evidence of wrongdoing unrelated to that particular thread would be something between you and the moderators to sort out. Wouldn't you agree?
- Natalie Reign
- 03-05-2011, 10:11 AM
Cody:
I certainly see how there could be some confusion from your perspective. In general, I feel it is neither necessary nor appropriate to call out bad behavior that is taking place "behind-the-scenes" in a public forum. In the past, I've felt that personal issues should remain between the people involved, and, where indicated, any Moderators that have been made aware of the situation. In the situation at hand, local mods did their best to curtail harassment and threats directed at certain board members, to no avail. At that point, senior moderators were made aware of the transgressions, long before any new incarnation was spotted.
If a provider or hobbyist were to "out" another member, or even threaten to out them, I think the entire board should have the opportunity to be made aware of it. Recent events have shown just how damaging it can be to disregard another board member's right to privacy in the hobby, and just how vindictive some people can be.
You mentioned my buddy Whispers, and your concern that I might just be jumping to his defense. Yes, I am jumping to his defense. But, anyone who knows me, including Whispers himself, knows that I would only jump to his defense if I feel he was wrongly punished. If you have enough free time (and the inclination) to read through my posting history with Whispers, you'll see that I have no problem calling him out when I feel he's out of line. I'm lucky enough to see a completely different side of Whispers (and several other prolific posters) than many people witness here on the board, yet I will never defend their actions if I truly believe what they are doing is wrong. Our personal interactions are even more matter-of-fact and blunt than what you see on the board. We both know that we can count on the other to be honest, direct and unemotional in our evaluations of the other's behavior. It's a strange sort of checks-and-balance system, but it works for us. In the end, Whispers is a big boy and can take care of himself. My post was made out of genuine concern for several members of the community, including myself, because I'm just at a loss as to why this behavior has gone unchecked.
Some members are pointed/banned and learn their lessons, then come back to be active, positively contributing members of the community. Others are pointed/banned and develop a nasty vendetta, and continue to push the limits beyond what the rest of the community would find acceptable, with no real concern for their reputation or anyone else's personal life. Allowing a board member to consistently put the safety and privacy of others at risk, and effectively stalk and mentally terrorize other members is just dangerous.
I certainly see how there could be some confusion from your perspective. In general, I feel it is neither necessary nor appropriate to call out bad behavior that is taking place "behind-the-scenes" in a public forum. In the past, I've felt that personal issues should remain between the people involved, and, where indicated, any Moderators that have been made aware of the situation. In the situation at hand, local mods did their best to curtail harassment and threats directed at certain board members, to no avail. At that point, senior moderators were made aware of the transgressions, long before any new incarnation was spotted.
That said, I do believe that if a board member has a history of alert-worthy behavior, has leaked private information, or is known to harass and threaten to "out" other board members, they should not be allowed to return to the board under a new incarnation.I believe board rules exist for a reason, and that the primary concern of any Moderator on ECCIE should be to promote the privacy and safety of its members.
When the senior mods have been made aware of misconduct by a board member via forwarded emails, PMs and testimony by respected board members, and they not only allow that person to return, but put a moratorium on anyone "outing" that member by connecting his or her old identity to the new one, I can't help but question what's going on behind the scenes. Originally Posted by Natalie Reign
If a provider or hobbyist were to "out" another member, or even threaten to out them, I think the entire board should have the opportunity to be made aware of it. Recent events have shown just how damaging it can be to disregard another board member's right to privacy in the hobby, and just how vindictive some people can be.
You mentioned my buddy Whispers, and your concern that I might just be jumping to his defense. Yes, I am jumping to his defense. But, anyone who knows me, including Whispers himself, knows that I would only jump to his defense if I feel he was wrongly punished. If you have enough free time (and the inclination) to read through my posting history with Whispers, you'll see that I have no problem calling him out when I feel he's out of line. I'm lucky enough to see a completely different side of Whispers (and several other prolific posters) than many people witness here on the board, yet I will never defend their actions if I truly believe what they are doing is wrong. Our personal interactions are even more matter-of-fact and blunt than what you see on the board. We both know that we can count on the other to be honest, direct and unemotional in our evaluations of the other's behavior. It's a strange sort of checks-and-balance system, but it works for us. In the end, Whispers is a big boy and can take care of himself. My post was made out of genuine concern for several members of the community, including myself, because I'm just at a loss as to why this behavior has gone unchecked.
Some members are pointed/banned and learn their lessons, then come back to be active, positively contributing members of the community. Others are pointed/banned and develop a nasty vendetta, and continue to push the limits beyond what the rest of the community would find acceptable, with no real concern for their reputation or anyone else's personal life. Allowing a board member to consistently put the safety and privacy of others at risk, and effectively stalk and mentally terrorize other members is just dangerous.
- Codybeast
- 03-05-2011, 11:05 AM
Given a clearer picture I can fully understand your frustration. If I am understanding you correctly then the thread is about the following
a) Provider X has Not been banned for her very dangerous off board community related behavior which the mods were made aware of but unable to stop.
To add insult to injury she is allowed to reinvent herself on the board even though the proof of her actions had been submitted.
b) Monger X gets banned for simply cleverly outing her reinvention which given the facts most would want to know about.
You are seeking a reasonable explanation as to why board poicy is such that one gets banned but not the other.
Is this correct?
If so I'm guessing it might have something to do with one taking place publicly on the board with no complexity or undeniable proof required. The other takes place off the board which is a slippery slope for the mods to mess with. Of course I'm just guessing as I'm sure there is even far more to this situation which is unspoken. There always is.
a) Provider X has Not been banned for her very dangerous off board community related behavior which the mods were made aware of but unable to stop.
To add insult to injury she is allowed to reinvent herself on the board even though the proof of her actions had been submitted.
b) Monger X gets banned for simply cleverly outing her reinvention which given the facts most would want to know about.
You are seeking a reasonable explanation as to why board poicy is such that one gets banned but not the other.
Is this correct?
If so I'm guessing it might have something to do with one taking place publicly on the board with no complexity or undeniable proof required. The other takes place off the board which is a slippery slope for the mods to mess with. Of course I'm just guessing as I'm sure there is even far more to this situation which is unspoken. There always is.
- sixxbach
- 03-05-2011, 11:26 AM
Given a clearer picture I can fully understand your frustration. If I am understanding you correctly then the thread is about the followingsixx
a) Provider X has Not been banned for her very dangerous off board community related behavior which the mods were made aware of but unable to stop.
To ad insult to injury she is allowed to reinvent herself even though the proof of her actions had been submitted.
According to Spacemtn, nothing has been submitted. This Provider X has made myself and Whispers the subject of her "newsletters", etc. We are the reason Austin providers morale is low, etc. I guess we are to blame also for the economy as well? I didn't know I had powers like that. I just like to find the cheapest BBBJCIM that I can get.
She is able to spew her BS with her newsletters that are comprised of ECCIE members YET can come on the board and hide under a different handle. She is also allegedly doing the things that she is accused of by Natalie and others. I also have personal insight on Provider X and would not be surprised that those allegations are true. I am not saying a ban is in order until proof is submitted but I certainly would not allow a reinvention of a handle.
b) Monger X gets banned for simply outing her new handle.
Well he did not name her handle but another member actually did
Originally Posted by Codybeast
- Damon Bradley
- 03-05-2011, 11:48 PM
- Damon Bradley
- 03-05-2011, 11:50 PM
Given a clearer picture I can fully understand your frustration. If I am understanding you correctly then the thread is about the followingCody, in all your posts, you've never been as spot on as this.
a) Provider X has Not been banned for her very dangerous off board community related behavior which the mods were made aware of but unable to stop.
To add insult to injury she is allowed to reinvent herself on the board even though the proof of her actions had been submitted.
b) Monger X gets banned for simply cleverly outing her reinvention which given the facts most would want to know about.
You are seeking a reasonable explanation as to why board poicy is such that one gets banned but not the other.
Is this correct?
If so I'm guessing it might have something to do with one taking place publicly on the board with no complexity or undeniable proof required. The other takes place off the board which is a slippery slope for the mods to mess with. Of course I'm just guessing as I'm sure there is even far more to this situation which is unspoken. There always is. Originally Posted by Codybeast
Nailed it....
- sixxbach
- 03-06-2011, 06:29 PM
Really Sixx? Who?? Originally Posted by Damon Bradley
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=182362
Scroll to Post #5.....
sixx