case studies

[geekster]

I think there is a better Air America avatar at http://www.moveonplease.org/ and he should use that one.

Anyway, I think both Air America stations are thanking him profusely for letting people know that they exist. CA was the only marketing they could afford. Actually I don't mind him having the avatar, it is to me exactly like someone having an EIB Network avatar. Tells me what to expect from them. Kind of a warning ahead of time. It tells me I am not likely to get much original thinking from his posts, just propoganda. It makes him easier to ignore, I don't mind it.

[DVD Burner]

complaining about a stupid avatar is even dumber than that stupid Badger thread created about Mr. K.

I'm glad my llife is better than Joel and Badger.

This is not a bitch fest. I'm not really ranting. Just telling the truth.
Anyone is welcomed to hang with me then hang with Badger or Joel and see where the most fun is to be had.

What does any of this have to do with making eplaya or burningman better? Really.
Locking that Badger thread is more important to me because it is being very hurtful without having any othe purpose.

complaining about ones avatar is such a whine.

[DVD Burner]

Forget my last post.

Eplaya has just reminded me of why I dont interact with end users.

I'll just post the chatrooms that I have and let eplay do it's thing.

[joel the ornery]

I'll just post the chatrooms that I have and let eplay do it's thing.

we can only hope.

[emily sparkle]

The eplaya accounts Badger and Isotpia have been suspended for one week in response to a complaint lodged by Tancorix for the thread:

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=8182

The eplaya administration team agrees this thread is slanderous and violates the Community Guidelines and Terms of Service. This thread is a shining example of how we do NOT want our community memebers to treat eachother in an open forum.

PLEASE, EVERYONE! If you have issues with other community members, we would appreciate you working them out away from the eplaya and without instigating such a hateful exchange in the public view.

The offending thread has been removed.

[DVD Burner]

.

[emily sparkle]

and also a reminder that the case studies thread is not a welcome place for thread drift, uncontributory remarks or bickering. if you are lodging a formal complaint, please email the eplaya administrative team (the address is at the bottom of every page) with the urls of the offending post(s), quotes from the posts, and the TOS/CG section it violates.

thanks.

[spectabillis]

The eplaya accounts Badger and Isotpia have been suspended for one week in response to a complaint lodged by Tancorix for the thread:

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=8182

The eplaya administration team agrees this thread is slanderous and violates the Community Guidelines and Terms of Service. This thread is a shining example of how we do NOT want our community memebers to treat eachother in an open forum.

PLEASE, EVERYONE! If you have issues with other community members, we would appreciate you working them out away from the eplaya and without instigating such a hateful exchange in the public view.

The offending thread has been removed.

How long, and what was the contents of the thread?

[DVD Burner]

The eplaya accounts Badger and Isotpia have been suspended for one week in response to a complaint lodged by Tancorix for the thread:

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=8182

The eplaya administration team agrees this thread is slanderous and violates the Community Guidelines and Terms of Service. This thread is a shining example of how we do NOT want our community memebers to treat eachother in an open forum.

PLEASE, EVERYONE! If you have issues with other community members, we would appreciate you working them out away from the eplaya and without instigating such a hateful exchange in the public view.

The offending thread has been removed.

How long, and what was the contents of the thread?

What I was gonna say earlier was that the thread should have stayed up but locked, it's too late now.
Plus I knew if I were to say anything I would get chewed out.
That earlier post was an accident but I knew no one would belive me so I left what was there well enough alone.

i IMHO dont think it's worth discussing myself but as I say IMHO.

[spectabillis]

What I was gonna say earlier was that the thread should have stayed up but locked, it's too late now.
Plus I knew if I were to say anything I would get chewed out.
That earlier post was an accident but I knew no one would belive me so I left what was there well enough alone.

I dont see a problem with deleting it, banning lets the people learn from thier mistakes in returning. Locking without deleting makes people think they have to: dumb themselves down, be constantly defensive, embarassment, hidden resentments that surface at a later time... its much easier to move on without polluting the forums with social scars.

[DVD Burner]

I dont see a problem with deleting it, banning lets the people learn from thier mistakes in returning. Locking without deleting makes people think they have to: dumb themselves down, be constantly defensive, embarassment, hidden resentments that surface at a later time... its much easier to move on without polluting the forums with social scars.

Hmm,

That's a good point.

[Don Muerto]

Could somebody post the relevant sections of the CG and/or TOS violated by Badger's post?

I am not as wonkily engaged in the eplaya rules as some are, but I am having trouble understanding how poor taste and meanyheadness are actionable here.

[Bob]

Can we have all the threads that ridicule DVD Burner deleted?

I'm too lazy to look for them, but I'm sure the search engine will help. Try searching on "DVD Burner".

[rodent]

Can we have all the threads that ridicule DVD Burner deleted?

**gasp** that would delete HALF the eplaya...!

But seriously folks, the only other little spat was between Rob the Wop and DVD in the "Fuck" thread and it's been fucking taken care of so don't you dare delete "Fuck"

---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)

[emily sparkle]

The section of the TOS that was violated was 7.e. Please everyone, go refresh yourselves. It is not my job to educate you on the TOS/CG.

The thread Isotopia/Badger posted was slanderous to Tancorix insinuating that his claims of illness were untrue, self inflicted or drug induced. Additionally, the tone of his thread was hateful and the eplaya administration team is becoming less and less tolerant of this type of content.

Look you guys. You are making my little job on the eplaya less and less appealing. I don't want to mediate this crap. PLEASE TAKE YOUR PERSONAL ISSUES WITH EACHOTHER SOMEWHERE ELSE.

[Ranger Genius]

The eplaya administration team agrees this thread is slanderous

The problem there is that in order for it to be slanderous, it would have to be proven to be 1) false, and 2) motivated by malice. If the allegations are true, it by definition cannot be slander. Furthermore, if Iso/Badger had what he felt to be a good reason to make the statements he made, then it again, could not be slander.

Slander is telling a malicious lie about someone. If it's not a lie, or not malicious, then it's not slander. The topic matter may have been presented in a way that was indelicate, even inappropriate, but unless the admin board has seen conclusive proof that it was a lie, I'm not sure the action taken was appropriate, at least not for the reasons stated.

Uh, feel free to pummel me now, everyone.

[emily sparkle]

the admins were asked to review the situation. we did. we decided. we acted. period. we do not have to justify our decision.

I AM REALLY GETTING SICK OF THIS YOU GUYS.

[Don Muerto]

Emily, I think the heat of your response is all out of proportion to the request. This is the case studies thread started to discuss such matters. If there is a more appropriate thread please let me know and I will enquire there. If you response is meant to quell discussion, then I think we have a rather large problem here.

To the point: 7 e is a rather large, catchall section. I assume the violation falls under the 'defamation' category? Presumably, Badger's post has been deemed libelous (not slanderous) by the eplaya admins. I question whether that is really appropriate given that there does not seem to be definitive proof one way or the other as to whether the object of Badger's thread truly was in a coma.

I guess it comes down to whether we define 'defamation' by the legal standard, or the one seemingly applied here which is more akin to "perhaps true, but not nice."

Additionally, I disagree that the tone of Badger's thread was hateful. I think mocking, callous and disrespectful would fit the bill better. Even if it were hateful, there are many, many such interactions here on this board. Does this signal a crackdown on such posts?

[Ranger Genius]

Wasn't meaning to upset you, or imply that I question what you did. Sorry. My point was mostly that this kind of behavior doesn't seem to have any provision in the TOS/CG, unless we want to call it harassment, but using that as a catch-all seems to set a dangerous precedent.

Now that I read elsewhere than 7e, though, I see this phrase (edited for brevity) under 7a:

"You understand and agree that Burning Man may review and delete any content...that in the sole judgment of Burning Man violate this Agreement or which might be offensive, illegal, or that might violate the rights, harm, or threaten the safety of Members

It's totally your call, and I think I am on record as being rather angry about the animosity that was present on the thread in question. I still say that the thread wasn't slander, but I'd be hard pressed to say it wasn't offensive, and it likely was harmful to more than one of our members. The sheer volume of acrimony it created is evidence of that.

[Bob]

The admins aren't legal professionals, and have to make their own judgment calls. I wouldn't argue with the decision re: Badger.

But I have to say what bothers me much more than occasional theatricality and ridicule is making a consistent practice of being nonconstructively argumentative or repetitively adding no useful content to discussions. If the main purpose of the eplaya is to be a community discussion board, and certain users are allowed to make a practice of posting useless crap or personal diatribes in the middle of discussions, adding up to hundreds and hundreds of posts that must be paged through to get to something relevant, you might have to accept that others are going to go off the deep end now and then.

[rodent]

Additionally, I disagree that the tone of Badger's thread was hateful.

I would also tend to agree. From my recollection, the hatefull stuff was spouted via Rob the Wop vs DVD Burner (a continuation of which spattered over onto the "fuck" thread), not from Badger/Isotopia. Unfortunitely, the thread is now gone so I have no evidence to appeal the 1 week ban with.

I also agree with admin (though, not for the reasons stated) that the thread needed to be deleted. The "discussion" was neither constructive nor really even entertaining and was like a big turd lying in a custard cream pie (yeah, that image will haunt ya).

But since there aren't any Rangers on the admin team to mediate, serious chopping and pruning was used rather than friendly handholding and coddling.


---
rodent (putting the eek I geek)

[Don Muerto]

"Turd" is in the eye of the beholder, and while I agree with you that this one met my definition for such, I don't feel comfortable deciding what constitutes a turd for other people. For my part, I am more comfortable self-censoring what I put into my brain that I am censoring what people output from their own.

In summary, it appears *to me* that the admin team might have misapplied the TOS in this case as I don't think "defamation" has been shown, and I don't see any other 7 e item that comes closer. Barring any helpful input or discussion from them on the matter, that is the analysis I am stuck with.

However, they do have the right to pull posts that they find objectionable which I do not have a problem with.

The questions I have are:

1) Will this standard be evenly applied, or is this a case where a squeaky wheel got some oil?

2) Is there, or will there be, an active effort by the admin team to limit/mitigate/quell acrimonious interaction with the intent of changing the tenor of this board?

[Ranger Genius]

acrimonious

Thanks for grabbing that word, Don. On further thought, what does everyone think of adding this word to the TOS after "Abusive?"

It could prevent any future FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in dealing with such content in future by the admins. There's room for disagreement and even argumentation here, but when it becomes acrimonious, it's not a community discussion board anymore. It's a couple of people using the board as a tool in their dispute, at the expense of the community.

[Don Muerto]

"But I have to say what bothers me much more than occasional theatricality and ridicule is making a consistent practice of being nonconstructively argumentative or repetitively adding no useful content to discussions."

This is covered under the CG under "Expected Behavior:"

Contributions should be intelligible and add value to the discussion. Before jumping into a discussion, be sure to read the messages posted and reply in context.

It would be difficult to enforce, but in light of the realities of this board, I agree that working on that issue would make this a far better board than going after the squabblers.

[Rian Jackson]

I can certainly agree with that these things are good in theory (though i've been known to engage in the occasional flame war myself), but I'd rather not see this as a police state board. I suspect some of the admins would agree.

[III]

>REALLY GETTING SICK OF THIS

that is, however, the purpose of this thread. when this thread started, the admins had little interaction with the board, and this thread was started to provide a way to take the pulse of the community. it wasn't meant to invalidate decisions made by the admins, or second guess them. as far as i can see, the admins now have even less interaction with the board than they did back when, and therefore the feedback is even more crucial.

my impression of the thread was that badger/isotopia was directly questioning the claims of someone who has engaged in numerous behaviors ranging from moderate deception (frequent and ongoing sock puppets) to outright lies (claims of having created, or even helped create, the t.o.s. and community guidelines.). the method in which this was done was in poor taste, and the ensuing discussion was pure vitriol, but it wasn't by any means libelous considering the history of the person being discussed.

i won't claim that this was an improper action, but something about it strikes me as only addressing a minor symptom of a much greater problem, and perhaps indicates how reliant this board has become on requested censure as a means of enforcing civility, as well as how ineffective that method is.

[stuart]

Absolutely infuriating

[stuart]

It seem as though if we stay the current course there will be a dozen or so consistent posters left on this board, though tragically only two people.

[blyslv]

The eplaya administration team agrees this thread is slanderous and violates the Community Guidelines and Terms of Service. \\....................


The offending thread has been removed.

One more sometimes poster (me) driven away. This place is no longer worth it.

[blyslv]

Look you guys. You are making my little job on the eplaya less and less appealing. I don't want to mediate this crap. PLEASE TAKE YOUR PERSONAL ISSUES WITH EACHOTHER SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Then find a different job.

We're all grown ups and can police ourselves. Scrolling is the only tool I need to deal with idiots, but I cannot tolerate paternalistic, control freak "admins" deciding what and what is not appropriate. That smacks too much of the real world. Burningman appeals (appealed) to me partly beause it asks people to take care of themselves and to be responsible. Your actions undercut that ethos and show contempt for those of us who are willing to take care of ourselfs. It's shameful.