A Conflict of Interest?

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Senator Dzrekpo Amegnran, Sep 25, 2000.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. Sith Vicious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 1999
    star 4
    " It's not meant to be a witchhunt, just an examination of the facts and a posing of questions that need to be answered."

    If this isn't a witchhunt, SDA, then why did you state:

    "(...) for PreacherBoy to step aside, and for consequences to be doled out appropriately. "

    after PB answered your original questions (and the only ones you wanted answered in this thread according to your initial post) and after several current admins backed up his reasons?

    Sorry, but it appears that you have far too much animosity against the person you are asking questions of to even listen to his answers.

    It is very clear that you do not like PB and that you will try any angle to get him removed. That qualifies this as a witchhunt.
  2. Senator Dzrekpo Amegnran Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 6, 1999
    star 3
    Sith Vicious, to answer your questions:

    "..after PB answered your original questions (and the only ones you wanted answered in this thread according to your initial post) and after several current admins backed up his reasons?"

    As is evident from the continuing discussion going on here, fueled neither by my presence nor my posts, there are still questions yet to be answered. As you have seen, most of the posts to this thread were made yesterday evening, when I wasn't even here. It's an issue that concerns very many people, even a former Administrator with some insight into these matters. It's a legitimate debate, and the questions and concerns of many others, not just myself, have dictated that, for the time being, it should remain open for consideration.

    "Sorry, but it appears that you have far too much animosity against the person you are asking questions of to even listen to his answers...it is very clear that you do not like PB and that you will try any angle to get him removed. That qualifies this as a witchhunt."

    I have no animosity toward PreacherBoy as an individual. I have had very limited dealings with him. I don't know him. I'm sure that he's a great guy in "real life".

    I'm not calling for his removal when I ask him to "step aside"; I was simply asking that he be fair and equitable when it comes to the treatment of the JC member we know as Lord Chewy. By stepping aside, I was calling on him to be objective in evaluating the situation and doling out consequences, or else step back and allow the other Administrators to handle the issue. That's all.

    This isn't a witchhunt; it's a fair and civil discussion, with the purpose of getting to the bottom of things, keeping the truth and objectives in focus, and looking for objectivity, fairness across the board, and justice.

    I'm sorry if you can't understand this.
  3. PreacherBoy Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 1998
    star 5
    Fair? I decided to take a position on things so I could inform you.

    Fine, since you're complaining about how I handled things, I'll just sit here quietly from now on. You don't have to know most of the things that go on out of your domain, and you shouldn't, either, because you always go on about mass conspiracies. Heh.

    <--- Insert something here that causes wave after wave of post from DA, DE, etc... speculating on its meaning and quoting it in the most obscene ways --->
  4. Padme Bra Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 1999
    star 6
    Well said, Senator DA. There have been so many questionable things going on with these people for a while now and I'm glad that I'm no longer the only one who sees it.
  5. Sith Vicious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 1999
    star 4
    I understand what you wrote, SDA. I don't like and I don't deserve to be talked down to, so refrain from doing so.

    I have a hard time believing that you are 'looking for objectivity, fairness across the board, and justice.'

    If Mr K had been the one to joke with Legal instead of PB, would you write a thread complaining about Mr K? It certainly wouldn't have been a conflict of interest, but I'm sure you get the idea.

    It has become apparent that your sense of 'justice' is not at all equivalent to mine, so please don't act like you're some forebearer of justice looking out for the good of the JC. That's hardly your or Padme Bra's job.

    I'm content with the current admins deciding what should be done without arguing and debating every finer point. As it stands now, the current admins have accepted/supported PB's version of things, LC hasn't been banned, PB is still an admin, and you need to move on to a new topic.
  6. Vertical Former Head Admin

    Member Since:
    Apr 6, 1999
    star 6
    Just to answer a few questions:

    Yes, the Dopple_Ganger alias has been banned. I did so the moment Kerry posted with it. It's been nothing but trouble, so I had no qualms about it.

    No, this is not a witch-hunt. Kerry is not welcome in these forums, in any fashion. If we leave his posts up, he continues to be part of this forum, which we do not want. If we remove any and all posts of his, he will likely realize (hopefully, anyway, but he's a smart guy, he'll figure it out) that his 'existence' on this board has been widdled down to scrambling between aliases, posting once, being banned, having his posts removed, and then moving to a new alias, never to make an impact on this community again. With this realization, perhaps he will move on. If we continue to leave his posts up, no matter how relevant they are, he will continue to believe that he is a welcome and important part of this community, like the other members here. And he is most certainly neither welcome nor important. So, I respectfully disagree with you that this is a witch-hunt.

    Yes, PreacherBoy has answered Senator's original question ("why was Kerry's alias not immediately banned?") - He simply didn't think of it. Now, whether or not this is an acceptable (to the membership) answer is up for the membership to decide. However PreacherBoy wants to take this reaction, that is up to PreacherBoy to decide. But for anyone to come in here and tell others how to feel is absolutely ridiculous. Let the discussion continue.

    Vertical
  7. Sith Vicious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 1999
    star 4
    Vertical:

    Do all admin actions/inactions warrant debate by the membership?
    Does their collective opinion really have an effect on the matter?
    Will we see a new thread each time a member is upset at something an admin has done?
    Is this a precedent that needs to be set, or has it already been set?


    The term 'witchhunt' was first used by Shar Kida with regards to Legal, and SDA countered.

    I used the term with regards to PB, not Legal.
  8. Padme Bra Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 1999
    star 6
    Excellent post, Vertical. Thank you for your candor.

    In answer to your question Sith Viscious, yes. The time of admins doing whatever the hell they want and the members just going with it is over. Ultimatly they can still get away with whatever they want but at least the members are opening their eyes to it and will bring it up.
  9. Jedi Knight Seyrah Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 1999
    star 3
    Kida -- I cannot see the attempt to rid the forum of a verbally abusive member as a witch hunt; yet I DO recognize the beginnings of such. And you are right -- this is how they start.

    With an "examination of the facts." (Let's be careful, folks. McCarthy probably explained it exactly the same way.)

    Let's make it clear what this is about. Kerry needs to be banned. Consistently and permanently. There is NO QUESTION that he has done lots and lots of WRONG things. PB and LC are beside the point here. Do I trust either of them? No. But that is my own personal opinion, and it can ONLY be a personal opinion, no matter who holds it -- unless something conclusive has been DONE that violates the rules.

    I think Kerry thrives on this attention and he will continue to do what he's doing until he is a)banned COMPLETELY or b) ignored.

    I agree that Kerry's posts should NOT be deleted. Flaming content, if any should be removed -- sure. But the posts themselves should remain.

    But then, this too -- is JMHO.
  10. Vertical Former Head Admin

    Member Since:
    Apr 6, 1999
    star 6
    Do all admin actions/inactions warrant debate by the membership?

    I would hope not. That's why we try to select responsible admins, so there won't be much debating about their actions/inactions. But if there were a problem with an admin, you'd want to be able to discuss it, right?


    Does their opinion really have an effect on the matter?

    It matters to me. My purpose as an admin is to make things better for you guys, so if the membership has concerns about something, I'd think it *should* have an effect, if nothing more than consideration and discussion. It doesn't always have any visible effect, but that's not always the point, or necessary.

    Will we see a new thread each time a member is upset at something an admin has done?

    There are other avenues of discussion, such as PM or email. This isn't the only option. And it really depends on the nature of the situation. We see lots of threads from trolls who have been banned and are upset about it, but when other members who are in good standing bring something up, I think it's valid.

    Is this a precedent that needs to be set, or has it already been set?

    Questioning the admins has been and always will be a part of this community, so long as this Communications forum is here. How we as admins choose to handle those questions is up to us, and is what the members will use to judge our abilities to admin on.

    Bottom Line: In a perfect forum, there would be no questions. The admins would always make the right call, and members would obey all the rules. Sure, there would be trolls, but those are easy to spot. But this is far from a perfect forum, and it is administrated by humans. You can expect mistakes. But some mistakes will be accepted and others not. That's just the nature of the beast.

    I'd rather not see hundreds of threads questioning every admin action. But I also don't think that's really likely, as I think, for the most part, we do a fairly good job. So, unless the general consensus is that all of the admins are truly horrible people, I don't really see it as a possibility.

    And your insinuations are mostly based on the logical fallacy known as "slippery slope", intended to create a sense of the inevitable end situation when no such situation actually exists; and in this case, it's not likely to exist. There is no slippery slope.

    Vertical
  11. Senator Dzrekpo Amegnran Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 6, 1999
    star 3
    Yes, thank you for your response, Vertical. It cleared up a couple of things that were "up in the air" and served to validate the usefulness of this discussion. Thanks again.

    Sith Vicious, I don't want to turn this into a personal argument, as that isn't the purpose of this thread, and therefore isn't the place for such an exchange. However, I will elaborate upon the points you made that were relevant to the issue at hand.

    "If Mr K had been the one to joke with Legal instead of PB, would you write a thread complaining about Mr K?"

    If Mr. K had bantered with Legal without banning him, I most certainly would have brought up the same point. The oversight/ignoring of a banned alias would have been addressed regardless.

    However, the fact that PreacherBoy has a "real life" relationship with Lord Chewy, and that Lord Chewy is friends with (and one of the biggest defenders of) Legal complicated the matter.

    It would have caught my attention, and the notice of others, regardless of the Administrator involved. In this case, there were a few more issues at play that warranted scrutiny.

    "It has become apparent that your sense of 'justice' is not at all equivalent to mine, so please don't act like you're some forebearer of justice looking out for the good of the JC. That's hardly your or Padme Bra's job."

    Your sense of justice is neither the gold standard nor the benchmark by which justice is measured. Neither is mine. The fact is, we're all entitled to opinions here. My opinion was that there were some inconsistencies that warranted investigation. This opinion has been supported by others. There is no "right" or "wrong" opinion. However, this is a Forum, and the purpose of a Forum is for discussion.

    That's what we're doing here.

    I am looking out for the good of the JC, as you are in your own way. Together, we will arrive at a happy medium, hopefully. That's the hopeful goal of such a discussion.

    "I'm content with the current admins deciding what should be done without arguing and debating every finer point. As it stands now, the current admins have accepted/supported PB's version of things, LC hasn't been banned, PB is still an admin, and you need to move on to a new topic."

    You might be content, but I believe that this issue requires further discussion. Many others echo this sentiment. Many things stand unresolved since the initial debate started more than a month ago. This thread was created, and exists, to continue shedding light on such issues.

    It isn't wrong to ask for clarification. It is wrong to sweep legitimate concerns under the carpet.

    "Do all admin actions/inactions warrant debate by the membership?"

    Certainly not all actions. There are, however, actions that seem inconsistent or overly subjective (i.e. not explicitly upheld by Forum rules). Such actions should be taken to task. As long as any member has a question or concern, it should be addressed and responded to. That's not too much to ask for.

    "Does their collective opinion really have an effect on the matter?"

    The Forum exists for the members. Without members, there would be no need for Administrators.

    So, yes, the members' collective opinion does have an effect on the matter.

    "Will we see a new thread each time a member is upset at something an admin has done?"

    If a member feels that they've been treated unfairly, or that there's a general procedure or issue that is questionable, it's fair to create new threads to address the issue. That's part of what the Communications Forum exists for. Members should feel free to bring up concerns without fear of retaliation.

    "Is this a precedent that needs to be set, or has it already been set?"

    It's being set as we speak. It will continue to evolve, based on the opinions and desires of the membership. It should be a joint effort, with cooperation between Administrators and members. No one's opinion should be discounted.

    This thread exists within the Communications Forum. Let's continue to discuss this issue, to leave the lines of comm
  12. Jedi Knight Seyrah Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 1999
    star 3
    (After reading Vert's post.)

    You're wrong, Vertical. His existence will NOT be whittled down. Why? Because he gets to see all these people talking about him, every day!! It's greeeeeat!!

    That's what needs to stop. He needs to be banned; and it must be made clear to EVERY admin that this is his status. And then we can all stop talking about him -- right? Good?

    And oh, if I were LC, I'd change her email password. (Or does she not want to?)
  13. Sith Vicious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 1999
    star 4
    I don't like the fact that a select few have decided to place PB's actions under a microscope. I'm afraid that he has helped bring about this lack of confidence in his abilities, but it is not fair to continue to have him do his job while detractors keep saying "Oh, it's PB, he's such a bad admin". I saw it happen to LC even when she was simply doing her job. Since he's still an admin, and since most of his actions are agreed to by other admins, I believe that he deserves the same amount of scrutiny as any other admin, not more nor less.

    I'm not using a 'slippery slope' fallacy in an attempt to scare people into thinking debate about admin actions will lead to an avalanche of new threads.

    What I'm more concerned about is how much information the members are entitled to when an admin makes a decision that upsets one or more members.

    Recently, the admins were on dangerous ground openly discussing the banning of Darth_Servo with members who demanded to know why he was banned.
    A simple, "the admins decided so" wasn't enough for a few people who even requested others to sign a petition for more information.

    It forced the admins to divulge info they would have preferred to keep confidential, and gave everyone a chance to know something that I don't believe they should have (unless you were a victim) and, if eventually proven innocent (which I doubt), their comments could be used as libel and defamation of character.

    Do you believe that there are any limits in how openly we debate what the admins have done and what information we are entitled to?
  14. Padme Bra Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 1999
    star 6
    If all of the admins were like Vertical then people like me would shut the **** up and go back to discussing Darth Tyranus. Openness and accountability towards the members is all we ask.

    Regarding Sith Viscious' question about Darth Servo, I think the admins did the right thing...eventually. Simply banning him without explanation to the questioning members was wrong but when they came forth and said that it was a serious legal matter I was the first to come in and ask everyone to trust the admins on that one. There's a difference between not divulging sensitive information and the simple, "You're not in the loop so you don't need to know" attitude that a lot of admins have.
  15. Vertical Former Head Admin

    Member Since:
    Apr 6, 1999
    star 6
    I'm WRONG!?! Just where do you get off telling ME I'm wrong?!?!

    Hehehe. Just kidding. :)

    The way I see it is this:

    The Kerry situation is unique. We cannot IP ban him effectively here, as other members are effected and unable to access the forums when we do. So, this solution is not really possible.

    The best we can do is continue to remove his posts, and every trace of him on these boards. So long as he is allowed to voice his thoughts, his thoughts will be discussed, because that's the way things happen here. Every time he says something, it's a big controversy. The only option is to remove his voice altogether. Kerry has had second chances. He has had third, fourth, fifth, sixth... HUNDREDS of chances. He has blown them all. He has zero respect for the forums, their members, or their rules.

    He is no longer a part of this community. If you wish to hear Kerry's voice on any matter, I suggest you do it over personal email because I will not tolerate his presence here in any form whatsoever, and will do all I can to limit his ability to make any sort of impact here. I *will* remove his posts. He is NOT allowed to post here, period. We cannot IP ban him, therefore we must be more strict and vigilant when looking for him. He is *BANNED* from these forums. What he has to say about his 'status' is absolutely irrelevant, as he has NO status. He is a thing of the past. His thoughts no longer concern this community.

    Vertical
  16. Shar Kida Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 1999
    star 4
    Ol'val.

    I think I misphrased.

    I have no qualms with the action taken with regard to the one specific poster under initial discussion (nor were the specific instances mentioned the only ones which would have merited that ban). It is the nature of administrating, that sometimes severe action must be taken -- and followed up. (Whether or not such following up was taken by _all_ administrators in a position to do so and who held full knowledge of the current situation is an issue I will not address here; nor will I address here a difference between current IP ban and then name ban.)

    Nor do I have any objection to banning of substitute usernames for those IP-banned. By its very nature, IP banning is among the last disciplinary actions possible on the JC -- and, as such, should usually be a last resort. It certainly was in this case.

    Tone in which an action is undertaken means much, however. At points during this thread, the tone of action taken was becoming very nearly a personal vendetta (and that is leaving aside the tone of off-Forum interactions). That, I object to: and strongly -- although I can see how it might have involuntarily arisen. We tend to be sharpest in defense of others than ourselves -- and especially in defense of those weakest to defend themselves.

    Similarly, while I can appreciate the immediate after-post banning: I see no purpose achieved in removing the posts.

    Finally, increasingly: this thread was once again beginning to curve out and away from the core issues of:
    1) Alias posting while under a name v. IP ban;
    2) Password access to a shared alias.

    Focus on what is core. Such discussions should be approached with passion -- but not ruled _by_ passion.

    Kida
  17. Padme Bra Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 1999
    star 6
    Thanks once again Vertical, for giving the definitive stance on Kerry (and Chyren tried to go off on me for predicting this exact problem with IP banning :p). That should be the last word on Kerry.

    Ok, Shar's telling us what to talk about, well let's see....
    1) Alias posting while under a name v. IP ban
    --I think there's a firm policy on this now. Either case will result in the deletion of posts and banning of the user name. Period. No further discussion necessary.

    2) Password access to a shared alias.
    --Well, heh. Everyone knows what went on, everyone knows who did it, and everyone knows that nothing will be done about it. I'm sure the official policy is that the sharing of passwords is frowned upon and if I did it I'd be hanging out at Jedi.net or wherever. But that's not the case so what can ya do? Some people are bulletproof and some aren't. The quicker you learn that in life the better.

  18. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Just to add a point before getting some much needed sleep:

    On a message board forum such as this it is quite easy to ascertain a consensus by reference to the 'success' of the thread in question.

    If SDA posted this thread with some lamo theory just to complain about PB,then the thread would degenerate into a flame fest, there would be no intelligent discussion and the thread would die an early death as Vertical or Mr.K would jump in and delete it.

    However, given that members still want to discuss the issues that have been raised here in a calm, intelligent and coherent manner indicates that the issues are valid and warrant debate.

    While I have nothing further to add, obviously many do and should be given the opportunity without having to defend themselves against accusations of being the 'forebearers of justice looking out for the good of the JC'.

    Goodnight :)
  19. Vertical Former Head Admin

    Member Since:
    Apr 6, 1999
    star 6
    Well said, LoH.

    Vertical
  20. Sith Vicious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 1999
    star 4
    " (..) obviously many do and should be given the opportunity without having to defend themselves against accusations of being the 'forebearers of justice looking out for the good of the JC'. "

    Shouldn't the same amount of courtesy be shown to LC when she posted her opinions?

    In the Darth_Servo thread, she gave her opinion of why he was banned and you accused her of being bitter that she was no longer an admin.


    As a side question that's somewhat unrelated, are you the once-banned poster known as Lost in Coruscant, by chance?
    If you are, I wonder if the people who have been quick to jump on every Legal or DH alias will start asking for this alias to be banned.
  21. Wald Loves Balf's Ghost Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1999
    So what if the guy was once banned as Lost in Coruscant? Being banned once does not mean you are never allowed to return. I've been banned twice under two different names, once for using a name an admin thought was innapropriate, and once again some time ago for starting a thread with an obscene insult to Chyren and jasman in the title. I was allowed to return, and haven't done anything to be banned since. Banned members should be allowed a second chance to shape and become a productive member, but members such as Kerry, who consistently break practically every rule of the forum - over and over again, without remorse - should not be given unlimited chances. That's the difference between Kerry's permanent ban status and LostOnHoth (if he even is the former Lost In Coruscant).
  22. Sith Vicious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 1999
    star 4
    It's not surprinsing that you used kerry as an example, Not George Lucas, when the more difficult example of Dark Helmet was also available.

    If this person is LiC, which I have no reason to believe it is other than in their similar names, she was banned permanently as far as I understand. Perhaps I'm wrong on this. Unfortunately, I can't find the post where she called LC bitter for losing the admin position, so I withdraw my first question.

  23. Wald Loves Balf's Ghost Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1999
    Not George Lucas? LOL! Better get your sockpuppets straight...
  24. C Creepio Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 25, 1999
    star 3
    What does this have to do with Star Wars?

    WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH STAR WARS?

    We used to discuss things and have fun. Now, whenever I come back here, most threads have some sort of personal vendetta attached to them and how 'someone is acting bad, so we don't want them around here'. When in fact, these are not even problems. As far as I'm concerned the only things this forum can call a 'problem' are:

    1. The death of George Lucas
    2. An earthquake that swallows the Lucas ranch
    3. The assassination of Natalie Portman by either Lybian or Arabs. Her death at the hands of The Bloods or The Crypts would NOT be a problem.

    But oh no, someone posted something you didn't like. By all means- BAN HIM IMMEDIATELY!!




  25. FreeBeer.com Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 21, 1999
    star 4
    Ban that jerk Creepio. Who the heck does he think he is?
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.