case studies

We're doing it wrong...we know
Post Reply
User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:10 pm

Look here's the thing so that I dont get too much off track.

I went out of the way to find several plonkers. I did'nt ask for any credit though none was given but i did it anyway.

There were those here that said they were "Php specialists" and "they would donate time to eplaya".


What's up. :?

the only specialists I've seen so far have not specialised in what they've said so far.

these same people are upset with me because of what. they have no plonker? :shock:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

technopatra
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:04 pm
Location: SF, CA
Contact:

Post by technopatra » Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:20 pm

My apologies. I did not mean to make you feel uncomfortable or point fingers. I just don't understand. We can talk more offline.

precipitate
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere near an ocean and a desert and a mountain

Post by precipitate » Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:30 pm

> the only specialists I've seen so far have not specialised in what they've
> said so far.

If you're referring to me, then I am doing what I volunteered to do. And I
said that when finished with that project I would be willing to take a look
at other things as well, as needed. I do have a life, you know.

> these same people are upset with me because of what. they have no
> plonker?

No. I'm "upset" with you because you're a shit-stirrer whose only
contributions to this community, that I've been able to discern, is your
wanton use of content-free smilies.

Plonk only goes so far. In a functioning community, you shouldn't need it,
or at least not much. We had this discussion last year when your activities
prompted the first plonk request.

Listen, Tony, I realize that your ego gets a huge kick out of this. Mine
doesn't. I'd prefer to do nothing more than never see another
communication from you again, but current circumstances don't allow that.

Dammit, I know I'm feeding the troll here, but I'd really like to see
answers or responses to my previous questions re: your use of
sockpuppets.

technopatra
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:04 pm
Location: SF, CA
Contact:

Back to business...

Post by technopatra » Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:36 pm

OK I created a sock puppet thread for this. Please continue this conversation there so we can get back to the business of examining case studies here.

Thank you for your cooperation.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:47 pm

Thank you TP.

I have picked up this topic @ the sock puppet thread
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
Bob
Posts: 6747
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:00 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: Royaneh
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by Bob » Tue Mar 30, 2004 6:04 pm

FWIW, I've seen not much since the changeover that would lead me to suggest evicting anyone aside from the [other person's name][obscene reference] character, but I don't read everything. Not seeing the full record, including complaints to the admin, I'd trust tp's judgment.

Fake identities in general (other than recognizable "playa" names), along with no personal info linked from a profile or able to be gleaned from posting history, automatically lead me to take postings under those names with a 100g grain of salt. Readers who cannot distinguish the few kooks, crackpots & malicious trolls from more sincere contributors, and can't avoid overreacting to the benefit of no one, perhaps deserve to get sucked in, IMO.
Amazing desert structures & stuff: http://sites.google.com/site/potatotrap/

"Let us say I suggest you may be human." -- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam

User avatar
Tancorix
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Post by Tancorix » Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:12 am

Nothing wrong with supporting the ADA, but here? And with our TOS / Etiquette rules? Since it's Thursday, it's a good candidate for "Smackdown" time.

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 3775#43775
I am an authorized coolneon representative with fantastic service and excellent prices. I've been lighting people up for the playa for a couple of years now.

Visit http://www.hovering.com/coolneon/ for all the details.

AND your purchase goes to help out the ADA (American Diabetes Association) so check it out and let's help find a cure while we light up the night!

User avatar
Alpha
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 4:55 pm

Post by Alpha » Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:38 pm

That post got my hackles up, too, but if you go back and read the posts before it (which are long since history in our memories) I think you'll find that the poster did not make too far of a jump in promoting his store. The thread was specifically discussing retail outlets for ElWire and CoolNeon products.

User avatar
Tancorix
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Post by Tancorix » Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:00 pm

Sheesh, another one. Popping up like flies at a picnic today:

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 3807#43807

User avatar
III
Posts: 1507
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by III » Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:00 pm

my take - it's not an inappropriate post, considering the prior discussion. however, it might be prudent for the admin to put a post right after that one (or even add an administrative comment to the post, since they still have the ability to edit them) that the content is skating close to the edge of the user guidelines.
[url]http://3playa.cultureshark.net/[/url]

User avatar
Tancorix
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Post by Tancorix » Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:01 pm

Trey, your right, I think a little electronic caution tape in the form of an admin post would be helpful.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:02 pm

Did'nt I read somewhere that TP was try to decide weather to put such things in a new catagory?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
III
Posts: 1507
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by III » Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:06 pm

the tent one is probably just on the other side of that line, however. it's not as if he just signed up to promote that page, though.
[url]http://3playa.cultureshark.net/[/url]

User avatar
Tancorix
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Post by Tancorix » Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:39 pm

At least we have some textbook examples...which might be something else to consider. Save a few of these threads into a new section where the admins can showcase what is and is not acceptable.

I don't mean to insult anyone with that comment because most of us know the difference, but some people learn things in different ways. You can tell them something over and over and they don't get it but you show them once and it clicks. And vice versa.

Panther
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 6:11 pm

Power and Authority for Evicting E-playans

Post by Panther » Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:32 am

technopatra wrote: at this location:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 3324#43324
ePlaya Forum Index -> Burning Man 2003 -> Rumors & Lies -> Dont visit the Springs in 2003 - Complete BULLSHIT

Citing Section 7. e of the TOS, I have deactivated Allanon03.
Which leads to thread change to Case Studies-
technopatra wrote: at this location:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 3339#43339
ePlaya Forum Index -> ePlaya Feedback -> Policies & Our Community -> case studies

I have been fair, tolerant, and objective, and have finally come to the conclusion that Allanon03's continual harassment of members of this community and his relentless, unfounded accusations are severe enough to invoke the TOS for the deactivation of his account.
Dear Community,
Relatively speaking, it would be pointless for all present to stir and pick through the e-threads for the he-said, she-said where it involves ex-member "Allanon3". Granted, it is also pointless to speculate on whose hand wears the sock named "Allanon3": There's really 'no getting our arms around it- all loose laundry like- without it spilling out somehow, this way and that, in confusion'. To save scroll, as necessary, let's relegate that load of replies about "Allanon3" to its own topic (I'll leave it to another user to create such a thread.) named perhaps "The Trial of Allanon3".

The case in point for this post, and its location in Case Studies, is about Eviction, meaning the de-activation of accounts by a single Admin. Since this draws from the experience of witnessing an Admin make an eviction, particularly that of Allanon3, this name cannot escape mention entirely: There are points to be made as it plays out in this Admin's rationale for evicting a member. In this case, no formal complaints had been lodged against Allanon3; Nonetheless, the Admin decided that Allanon3 possessed a negative pathology and therefore this Admin would take it upon herself to eliminate the user.
technopatra wrote: I took it upon myself to deactivate him after reading yet another muckraking comment, this time in Rumors & Lies.
In this case, whether or not, intentional, sub-intentional, or subliminal, this single action demonstrated this Admin's power to make a unilateral decision and evict a member. She, single-handed, has access to that trigger that can deactivate accounts. While a person may be able to hold a gun on you, and therefore have the power to dictate your actions, intimidate your movements, and even to eliminate you, to snuff out your life, as it were, this does not mean this person has the 'authority' or is 'morally correct' to do so.

When this kind of power is 'state' sponsored, effectively the state of this Bulletin Board, the best and healthiest thing for the better welfare of this state is to dilute that capital power so that no one Admin can demonstrate such full power by themselves: If an Admin should decide to evict a member of the community, at the very least, that Admin should have to make her case to a minimum of two other Admins- that this member needed to be evicted- before such an action were carried out. What say you?

Panther :)

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:58 am

Tell you the honest truth, this Allanon3 thing from what I see really isn't going to go away do to several reasons but I really want to only focus on one.

Who really is Allanon3? is it Allanon or Badger? this really has to be solved otherwise people can be banned left and right for impersonating someone that they are not for what ever reason. I've been impersonated before (as so many remember when I was DIGIMAN.) and if the same TOS/CG were in place at the time it would have been a problem.

until this problem is solved I'm afraid that eplaya may loose hit counts one day do to malicious prosecution.

P.S. not trying to create any DRAMA. ok.?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
Zephryus
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:06 am
Location: On A Goddamn Boat
Contact:

Post by Zephryus » Sat Apr 03, 2004 4:12 am

Stubbornly furthering an inflammitory argument after it has been declared moot is the very essence of drama. I respectfully ask that you stop poking and allow the wound to heal.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Apr 03, 2004 4:20 am

Zephryus wrote:Stubbornly furthering an inflammitory argument after it has been declared moot is the very essence of drama. I respectfully ask that you stop poking and allow the wound to heal.
What's moot to one may not be moot for another. I still get PM's about this. I can choose to ignore it however I'm sure it will still persist.

Facing the problem is best. when someone lies it should be put out in the open. Consequenses will still exsist if not solved. That's not drama that's life.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
Tancorix
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Post by Tancorix » Sat Apr 03, 2004 8:39 am

De Facto, A3 is dead, his account has been permanently banned. Let it go.
This board has suffered enough and since his suspension, imho it seems the overall quality and number of posts have increased. Let's focus on keeping that trend alive instead of doing more muckraking.

What I would do is make one final post saying clearly saying that you are not A3, then drop it. If others keep PM'ing you, alert Technopatra and let the rules covering harassment of others kick in. Your subject to the same protections as anyone else on here. We may not like some of what you say from time to time, but your voice is just as important as anyone else's so use those TOS and Etiquette rules to your advantage.

Besides, counting from today the man burns in 153 days. There are more important things to be doing and planning for!

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Apr 03, 2004 9:10 am

Well Mr. K. that's good enough for me.


It's Killed.



Lets move on.


Thanx for understanding. :wink:



NeXT?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Panther
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 6:11 pm

Shadow Puppets

Post by Panther » Sat Apr 03, 2004 6:21 pm

Zephryus wrote: Stubbornly furthering an inflammitory argument after it has been declared moot is the very essence of drama. I respectfully ask that you stop poking and allow the wound to heal.
Tancorix wrote: Let it go...There are more important things to be doing and planning for!
Zephryus, Tancorix, while it would seem "big of you" both to tell DVD Burner to "Let it go", yours is more likely an example of how "talk is cheap": It is quite easy for you both to tell DVD Burner to dismiss his own frustrations. This is easier said than done.

DVD Burner has a valid point about Allanon3. Zephryus, if we are truely interested in "allowing the wound to heal", then it might be best that we give some validation to DVD Burner's point. This would help DVD Burner's particular wound to heal (and then we can be done with it).

With regards to Allanon3, as I've written above, we can side-step much of the he-said, she-said of Allanon3 in particular, but nonetheless make a few points about how that individual life-cycle played itself out on e-playa. We will never really get to the answer of whose hand fits that sock: This IS something that we'll have to "let go of". Nonetheless, I believe DVD Burner's point was that Allanon3 was not necessarily a third manifestation of Allanon2, who would not necessarily have been a second manifestation of Allanon1, who would not necessarily have been a first manifestation of Allanon0. I think what DVD Burner would like to do is to be able to point out that Allanon3 is more of a "shadow puppet", than a "sock puppet".

As a solution, if we add to to our E-playa lexicon, the term- "shadow puppet", as opposed to the existing term of "sock puppet", which has so-far been abridged as "sock", this should codify the phenomena and people can refer to it for what it is.

Shadow puppet as an example: If I wanted to create a "shadow puppet" of another user, Tancorix would be a good candidate to shadow. I could create Tancorix II, mimicking the writing style of Tancorix until I had lulled or duped people into believing that Tancorix II was simply the past user Tancorix who'd been subjected to some bureaucratic name change for some reason. At some point, I could begin perverting the original Tancorix's writing style to make it appear that Tancorix (now named Tancorix II) was somehow going insane and had begun flinging excrement. This could also serve to prank the Admin into deactivating all accounts that began with "Tancorix". This would be a malicious prank. This is what it would mean to "shadow puppet" another user.

Shadow puppets are a nefarious form of sock puppet. Sock puppets alone, are not necessarily bad or negative. Where would we be today if someone had taken away all of William Shakespeare's socks? Using the indiscriminate power of the TOS, E-playans may be trying to tame something that doesn't necessarily need to be tamed or cannot ever be tamed.

The TOS can be misused to mistakenly eliminate the diversity of the eplaya to a point where everyone looks the same and thinks the same and sounds exactly the same. I believe that some users want everyone to be the same, to play nice, be polite, and always vote for Larry Harvey. But this is not Burning Man. Go to Burning Man (Online or Event) and you will find drama, whether you like drama or not. We're a bunch of artists. The socks and shadows will always be with us.

Panther :)
----------------
Also read my post above-
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 4121#44121
ePlaya Forum Index -> ePlaya Feedback -> Policies & Our Community -> case studies
"Power and Authority for Evicting E-playans".

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:59 pm

Hmmmm,


diffrent topic.

seems awhile ago there was a discussion that was discussed http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... ght=#39852

that is now being reviseted.
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=3313

You guys are really IMHO gonna have to get it together as to
really thinkin through end results better, instead of ignoring them.

I've just given you 2 points to think about that are serious.
Please dont say later that you dont understand after some nitwit on this board gets you in trouble.
and dont anyone give me shit about grammar. it's a JOKE. please dont miss the more serious point.
sorry but that's the best most suttle way I can put it. You know I love you guys but seeesh. :shock: :? :wink:

(is this topic really diffrent after all. not trying to be an asshole and no drama.) In response to the PM's I just recived. :?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:23 am

I fully support TP's unilateral decision to can A3. The fact that it was unilateral does not diminish it's worthiness. I do not find that the specualtion over whose sock, shadow, er whatever bears any relevance to the action.

So, Panther, whose sock, shadow, er whatever are you?

User avatar
anticdevices
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:01 pm
Location: NOLA
Contact:

Re: Power and Authority for Evicting E-playans

Post by anticdevices » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:28 pm

Panther wrote: If an Admin should decide to evict a member of the community, at the very least, that Admin should have to make her case to a minimum of two other Admins- that this member needed to be evicted- before such an action were carried out. What say you?
Here's what I say. No, let me start with what I thought. When I first read this, I thought it was ridiculous. My immediate reaction was to write (in my usual lumberingly unwieldly & verbose style) a post giving my vote & support, FWIW as a small member, to Technopatra & her style of government & organization (or to the current style of government & organization that allows Technopatra the athority and power she enjoys, if that's effectively different). Fortunately it looked like the thread had drifted away from Panther's original comments (quoted above) by the time I'd read them, so I felt the best thing to do was to let the thread roll along it's merry way and not draw attention back.

However, it appears Panther's concerns will not go quietly into the night, and I feel compelled to disagree with Panther's premise that an Admin should have to do this or that.

I look at it like this: The eplaya isn't my party. I'm not in charge. I agree to play by certain rules by participating here. It's as if the eplaya were someone's theme camp. They provide a service to the community (or what they percieve as a service to the community) in the way they best see fit. I may suggest ways in which they could do things more efficiently, or discuss ways they could serve the community better, but should has no place in my vocabulary. Their services are volunteer, which, as far as I'm concerned, gives them 100% control over how they choose to use their time, effort, materials & space. I don't like the way things are run here, I vote with my feet. I set up a competing gig across the street. Conversely, neither is Technopatra (nor any theme camp) required to put up with me.

But even if the question were approached in what I thought was the appropriate way (and who else's opinion counts?) I would still have to 'vote' for Technopatra. I don't believe she has abused the community, and I find it difficult to believe that requiring her decisions to pass review before a commitee would improve the experience of the majority of the eplayas.
O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention - Henry V, Prologue

Panther
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 6:11 pm

Re: Power and Authority for Evicting E-playans

Post by Panther » Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:29 am

Panther wrote: When this kind of power is 'state' sponsored, effectively the state of this Bulletin Board, the best and healthiest thing for the better welfare of this state is to dilute that capital power so that no one Admin can demonstrate such full power by themselves: If an Admin should decide to evict a member of the community, at the very least, that Admin should have to make her case to a minimum of two other Admins- that this member needed to be evicted- before such an action were carried out.
at location: http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 4121#44121
stuart wrote: responded: I fully support TP's unilateral decision to can A3.
anticdevices wrote: responded: Their services are volunteer, which, as far as I'm concerned, gives them 100% control over how they choose to use their time, effort, materials & space.
Panther responds:

This case study is about an Admin's decision to 'de-activate' a user's account. This is not about Technopatra's decision; Rather, this is about an Admin's decision. And in this case, Technopatra was that Admin.

You may support Technopatra. You may support the decision to ban Allanon03 (A3). But do not support the ability of a lone admin to wield that one capital power of 'account de-activation': To do otherwise would be poor statesmanship.

The global, historical, logical benefit behind the distribution of capital power is well-established: If a cop wants to search a house, then the cop must convince a judge to agree that the search is warranted; If a small business owner wants to pay out a check of an amount over 1,000 dollars, then two signatures on the check are required; If a North Korean dictator wants to launch a nuclear missile, then two people at opposite ends of a room have to simultaneously turn their key. The 'de-activation' of a user's account should reflect the same semblence of checks-and-balances that are expected in so many other situations. This would point e-playa in the direction toward fail-safe. This would bring back lost confidence in e-playa.

E-playa is a collection of messages. E-playans are e-playa. E-playa is a cooperative. Where would Burning Man be today if artists could not be bold? I am not shy about telling the Admins what to do. If the Admins are adults, they are not actually going to slap themselves when ordered to do so (To spank themselves, however, this could be a possibility.); I flatter myself to think that I should posses such powers of e-text! I'll only try a few times. E-playans, members or admins, aren't going to do anything that I can't persuade.

Panther :)
------------------
The originating thread on this case is on this page, above.
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 4121#44121
ePlaya Forum Index -> ePlaya Feedback -> Policies & Our Community -> case studies
"Power and Authority for Evicting E-playans".

Stuart, anticdevices, thank you for your thoughtful replies.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Tue Apr 06, 2004 4:08 am

Nevermind about http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=3313

seems to have solved itself quite nicely.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
anticdevices
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:01 pm
Location: NOLA
Contact:

Re: Power and Authority for Evicting E-playans

Post by anticdevices » Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:51 am

Panther wrote: But do not support the ability of a lone admin to wield that one capital power of 'account de-activation':
But I do support the ability of a lone admin to wield capital power. I'm fine with that, especially when the circumstances are within the parameters they have been historically.
Panther wrote: To do otherwise would be poor statesmanship..
I'm not sure if you mean it would be poor statesmanship on my part to support this position, or if I'm supporting poor statesmanship. Either way, as an American, you have to know I'm all about poor statesmanship in every direction.

Unfortunately, statesmanship has nothing to do with the subject. You're on private property. The management has the right to refuse service to anyone, or bar any patron. Within that context, you would like to see a different method and/or process applied to the use 'capital power' by the management of the eplaya. From what I gather, you feel more comfortable with the consensus of a committee. Honestly, I trust individuals more, and prefer 'the buck stops here' resting on one persons desk.

A casino can kick you out if they think you're counting cards. They don't have to prove you're counting cards. Someone just has to think you are. The Supreme Court has determined that card counting is not illegal. Even if you actually are counting cards, you aren't cheating. But the casino can kick you out. I have to admit, how many layers of bureaucracy the management had to go through before they kicked you out strikes me as irrelevant. I'd be more interested in the 'why they made the decision', and less in 'how they made the decision'. Theoretically I'll concede it's all inextricably interrelated. Practically - no. The current administration passes the 'why' test. Apparently the 'how' works fine.
Panther wrote: This would bring back lost confidence in e-playa.
I haven't lost any confidence. I may have gained some, I don't know. You're speaking - quite eloquently - for a particular viewpoint. Respectfully, I do not share your viewpoint.
O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention - Henry V, Prologue

User avatar
juanicoheal
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:47 pm
Location: British Columbia

Post by juanicoheal » Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:58 pm

Do we know that Technopatra acted alone?

OR, did she have many lengthy offline discussions with other administrators, and had they come to a consensus?

User avatar
III
Posts: 1507
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by III » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:55 pm

it's very likely that she acted alone, but not without a great deal of deliberation, and evaluation of users' opinions (which counts more to me, since none of the other administrators are actually users of this board, and therefore don't really have a feel for the interactions here.)

that doesn't make it wrong - and the collection of historical precedences, how they were handled, and how they might have been better handled should provide an ever increasingly defined set of guidelines both for her and any other administrator that may take over later.
[url]http://3playa.cultureshark.net/[/url]

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Tue Apr 06, 2004 4:22 pm

don't let perfect be an impediment to good. She did the right thing. I respect her a whole pile for doing what she did. Knowing this community as she does she had to expect at least a basket full of wonks ready to accuse her of erecting an autocracy. I'm glad she had the <erm> balls to boot the chump.

Post Reply

Return to “ePlaya Feedback”