For whom the bell tolls

Howard Wallace

Howard Wallace

.
Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
4,855
Donne was writing of death when he wrote his famous sermon. In our little world of the forum we have banning, where the individual is removed from the community.

I don’t shed many tears for the spammers who are banned, or the businessmen who come in trying to undermine a competitor and are summarily banned.

It’s funny though. Some of those who are banned are among those whose posts I enjoy most. Perhaps it’s the unusual thinking. Perhaps it’s the challenges to prevalent values. Perhaps it’s the chutzpah. Maybe it’s the challenges to an individual to look at himself from a different angle. Socrates had them all, and the Athenians finally got fed up enough with him to mix him a hemlock cocktail.

Which is not to say that individuals should never be banned. One of the posters I really enjoyed got himself banned the first time a few years ago when he flipped out and started threatening a woman on the forums. The behavior was definitely over any reasonable line. However, I still missed his unique perspective after he was gone.

It may be something that has to be done, but we pay a heavy price each time.
 
I've heard many times that a great cop is someone who could have been a great crook but for a flip of fate. I dont know if that's true, but people like to think it is. I don't think there are many expressions in this society of redemption, or of the sometimes blurred line between 'good' and 'bad'. We like most of our villians and heros black and white.

The men I admired most, the friends I loved the most deeply, often had some trouble in them.

We cry at funerals for ourselves- some large portion of grief, anyway.
I don't know that banning is such a 'great cost', but it is a cost.

A lot of people return from being banned and are fine. They may have been fine while banned- life caught them at a troubled time, and it was their turn in the spotlight, and none of us shine all the time.

If you are banned and wish to return, it's a good idea to know what went wrong, and to accept it.

munk
 
I had a hand in one of those bannings. I mentioned that when it happened. I didn't really go into why, at least not publically. He never did email me about it although he's certainly still welcome to. I never retracted the invitation.

The other guy? His motives confuse me. He had some really great stories and there was wisdom in some of his insults, but only some of them. I'm not sure what the others were for. His abrasiveness didn't bother me as much as it bothered most. What I can't understand is why he persisted with it. Had he just toned it down a little bit, I don't think anyone would've even known it was him.

I missed him the first time he was banned and I miss him this time, but I'm not sure that too many other people do. He already knew what was acceptable and what was not. It was his choice to make. I'm still trying to figure out why he chose the way he did.
 
Ben A A could have asked the new crew to come back. He didn't. He snuck in, and immediately went for a vein. Why? It's not mine to think about why too much.
If he didn't care, he wouldn't expect us to either. He wanted it this way.

Edit; I'm going to add this, because it bothers me. There was no reason for Bwray to be banned. He lost sight of context, and what he was doing. I can't imagine publishing letters in our forum, and it is hard to think an otherwise reasonable fellow would do that. That scares me, that bothers me: the thought that someone might have egged him on to do that. He may have been given a bum steer.

munk
 
To me most conflict is a mask for pain , a solace for those afraid to be alone in the shadows . It feeds the id of someone with a damaged ego .
 
munk said:
Ben A A could have asked the new crew to come back. He didn't. He snuck in, and immediately went for a vein. Why? It's not mine to think about why too much.
If he didn't care, he wouldn't expect us to either. He wanted it this way.

Edit; I'm going to add this, because it bothers me. There was no reason for Bwray to be banned. He lost sight of context, and what he was doing. I can't imagine publishing letters in our forum, and it is hard to think an otherwise reasonable fellow would do that. That scares me, that bothers me: the thought that someone might have egged him on to do that. He may have been given a bum steer.

munk
Click to expand...

Given a bum steer? Why would you even think that? He was certainly capable of making his own decisions, and did so. He did it on his own. He clearly was trying to get some understanding of what he percieved to be a problem with the current direction the forum is heading, as he was asked to do. If it truly bothered you a fraction of what you say here, you would attempt some small part of self-examination which might lead you to some needed personal realizations. His context and his post within the confines of that context, as defined and indeed solicited by you, were appropriate.

That he was subsequently banned is more telling and more illustrative of the point he was trying to make than if he had posted another ten thousand words.

That's all I'll say right now. I have another 10 thousand words myself to say, and they are sitting written on my computer ready to be copied here, but I am too angry and dismayed right now to dare post them.

We will see if tomorrow I am even going to be allowed to.

Norm
 
I think there ismore to this than meets the eye and more than meets any members eyes . It is up to the moderators as it is they who are privy to all the facts . To me what is up to the moderators is their own business .
It has recently become clear just how difficult and unpleasant their job can be . I hope they can also see the good they do .
 
Kevin the grey said:
I think there ismore to this than meets the eye and more than meets any members eyes . It is up to the moderators as it is they who are privy to all the facts . To me what is up to the moderators is their own business .
It has recently become clear just how difficult and unpleasant their job can be . I hope they can also see the good they do .
Click to expand...

The problem need not have ever happened. It could have been nipped in the bud and never seen the light of day. A hundred such near calamities have been averted in the past with a kind word or a simple acknowledgement of the validity of the other persons position. Uncle Bill did it constantly. Nasty did it here. Howard did it with the "soul" thread. Yvsa followed suit. Those decisions were overridden.

We are all privy to the facts. Bill sacrificed himself to make you personally privy to the facts.

The job is indeed difficult, as Howard and Yvsa can attest, but is made doubly so if one is not suited to it by temperamant or disposition.


Norm
 
There is one incontrovertible fact here.
Bill, although a good guy, was using the forum to promote his own enterprise.
He is not unique in this. But he was promoting and selling a competitor in ethnic blades. He was an agent taking a cut!

I would love to hear this is o/k.
 
BrentH said:
There is one incontrovertible fact here.
Bill, although a good guy, was using the forum to promote his own enterprise.
He is not unique in this. But he was promoting and selling a competitor in ethnic blades. He was an agent taking a cut!

I would love to hear this is o/k.
Click to expand...

#1) This is so unfair. I have never met Bill and barely knew him, but he cleared his reference to company with the forum and the mods, so yes, it was OK. Nasty asked him to reduce the size of the banner and he willingly complied.

By the way, how did he "promote" his company? By displaying the banner? So he just did that for several months and no one said anything? But now that he's been given the heave it's suddenly bad? How convenient. Try reading the thread he posted, assuming it is still there, instead of jumping to conclusions.

#2) This also had nothing to do with his being banned for life, so why mention it?

Apologies if I seem short tempered and frayed at the edges Brent, but this post is piling on after the fact, in a very weak attempt to justify a blatantly unfair action, in the worst way.

Norm
 
What thread is everyone talking about? I can't find it. Has it been deleted? If so, why? Was it profane, or untruthful, or did it just make someone uncomfortable?

Steve
 
No apologies required pal:)

This needs to come out!

A) not jumping to conclusions..have not a problem with bill!!!
Do some research -

B) Seems this has EVERTHING to do with banning.

Became personal when bill posted all.. vendetta???
 
ferguson said:
What thread is everyone talking about? I can't find it. Has it been deleted? If so, why? Was it profane, or untruthful, or did it just make someone uncomfortable?

Steve
Click to expand...

Steve, Page 3 of "The Sap." Post #54. Bwray came back and posted based on requests for same on the 3/24 thread (post #32) on the main forum, and "The Sap" thread Post #1 on 4/5/06, specifically in response to: "This is our forum. If anyone has a problem, thinks things have changed for the worse in some areas, speak up, do something about it. Don't stuff it inside."

Bwray could not let go of this issue and it cost him. He felt strongly enough about this that he disclosed personal correspondence via email, which I admit was not something he should have done, and then he quit BF last week. Wrote to Cougar and Yangdu and a bunch of forumites via email and made a grand exit.

After reading the request for people to speak up about what they felt was going wrong with the forum, (if anything), he came back today and posted again in #54, and showed the same _private_ email thread again. So, the short answer is, yes, he made someone uncomfortable and got banned for it.

That is my personal interpretation only though. YMMV.

Regards,

Norm
 
Norm, I concede.
Cannot and will not match your passion on this subject.
Try to understand that there may be a different take on this.
The wonderful thing about this place, is the room for opposing views.
It may not be democratic, but it is liberal:eek:
 
I sweep. I toss out the sweepings when I am done.

Dustpan 1 - Bwray
1. The original post was despammed by Cougar.
2. It is never appropriate to post private discussions.
3. Three senior responsible individuals concurred on the banning. I support their decision based on my respect for them.

Dustpan 2 - Rice
1. Contentious postings
2. Repeat offender
3. Alternate identities for the banned are an *automatic* justification for a repeat ban.
4. *I* will not tolerate personal attacks. I did not tolerate them as a member and I will not tolerate them as a mod. If someday I return to regular member, I will not tolerate them.

It's a good time for a stand down...everyone back into the Cantina and I'm buying the beer.
 
I agree that a deep breath and a cold beer is what is needed here.

No one is perfect Norm. This job that Munk does for us isn't easy or fair on him. Having three boys and this place to guide will sometimes make a man react instinctively. He does a great job as our mod. He's human. Were his reactions right on, probably not, but its really not a large part of this issue. You're right, he asked for it in the thread, and got it. However, publishing of a private correspondance is wrong and shouldn't have happened. Bill could have made his post count for more by leaving that out, and addressing the apologies that had been given for good or bad. When two men are disagreeing, and one is refusing to accept any shred of responsibility and meet in the middle, there is going to be a brew up. This is in all our nature. Men make peace by meeting in the middle and trying to understand the other mans position. Concessions must happen on both sides for true peace. A man's pride wasn't going to let that happen here. I liked Bwray too. I don't think he ever tried to compete with HI because he promoted their products with his posts a lot. He will be missed. I, personally, don't want you (Norm) leaving, or banned over this. I understand that you think it went wrongly, and you're mad, thats fine, but understand how much this place needs Svashtar and his knowledge and friendship. Let it go brother, please.
 
The man lost my respect when he posted private correspondence in public. He had every right to state his side of the story respectfully, but posting private e-mails was not the way to do it.
 
No matter what one thinks of this matter, one definite thing is that this gentleman is no longer allowed to post here. That means that he is no longer allowed to directly respond to what may be written here.

With that being the case, would it not be better if we all just kept from mentioning him in a negative manner. I think in the long run, it may reflect better with all involved.

Maybe my way of thinking is wrong, but maybe we can all at least consider doing this............. a true stand down :)
 
I will respect Nasty's wishes and stand down. I promise this is the only thing I'm going to say about it. However, I have to say that Bill was out of line on several points. Some of the fun and rib jabbing I have done with you guys via e-mail would not be cool to post here for the whole forum. IMHO, posting e-mails is like taping phone calls and playing them back. However, Norm, as always i respect your opinion very much. I see your point, but I think Bill hurdled over what the thread was supposed to be about and made it about himself.
BAA confuses me. You know, this would have been a great opportunity to come back and rejoin. It's been over a year since he was banned for peeing in the Wheaties. Bill and Rusty are gone, but there are plenty of us that liked Ben for who he is even if he is a bit rough around the edges.
The forum is a society, and society must have regulations. Munk and Nasy and Yangdu have to be the police, the judges, the handy men, and the wise old Sages all at the same time. You're doing fine work Lady and Gentlemen.

Jake
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top