case studies

DVD Burner · 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.?

Zephryus · 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.

DVD Burner · 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.

Tancorix · 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!

DVD Burner · 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.

NeXT?

Panther · 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".

DVD Burner · 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.

(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.

stuart · 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?

anticdevices · 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.

Panther · 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.

DVD Burner · 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.

anticdevices · 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.

juanicoheal · 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?

III · 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.

stuart · 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.

juanicoheal · Post by **juanicoheal** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:21 pm

So does this set precedent on how long someone has to act like a donkey's butt before they get the boot?

Panther:
What would you rather have happen? Let a troll keep on creating animosity with the newbie droves signing up?

III · Post by **III** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:27 pm

>>don't let perfect be an impediment to good

absolutely. which leads into:

>>does this set precedent on how long someone has to act like a donkey's butt

of sorts - though there are different ways of acting like a donkey's butt, which may all have different consequences. there are a broad range of good actions, and this thread is intended to analyse thw boundaries of that range.

III · Post by **III** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:38 pm

new case study:

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=3332

someone creates a eulogy thread. some other people come in and start badmouthing the person being eulogized, obviously (though *perhaps* not intentionally) pushing the original posters buttons. the orginal poster then explodes into a personal attack.

the user guidelines do not allow for mitigating circumstances in a personal attack (there was such a clause in an early draft, and it was removed).

what is the proper action (or inaction) in this case?

angrykittie25 · Post by **angrykittie25** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm

Although understandable that the person who posted the eulogy became angry she kind of flew off the handle. The "badmouthing" post was unneeded and disrespectful due to the original post's intentions, and in no way did it warrant a personal attack in a public forum, where all opinions have a right to be posted. The author of the original post should have sent a private message, if anything, to deal with their issues. Their comments in retaliation were far worse than the original "badmouthing". At the very least the admin should have a serious talk with this person, and if they feel their posting rights should be revoked, then so be it. This person should take a good hard look at what was said originally and her comments back and see who was more rude and innapropriate.
We have a right to state our opinion without being told something as horrible as this.

KellY wrote:So, fuck you and I'm looking forward to hearing the news when you choke on your own bile. If anyone bothers to throw a memorial, I'll send a telegram to your family letting them know what a waste of air you were and scolding your Mom for not aborting you in the first place, you soulless piece of shit.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:55 pm

I think we need the mitigating circumstances section back. Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and what is overly aggressive to one may not be to another. I feel she was fully justified in her actions and should be left alone, no further action is required.

Lydia Love · Post by **Lydia Love** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:53 pm

I think we need the mitigating circumstances section back.

Then again, someone (ok, ME) would be likely to claim that "because they were acting like a donkey's butt" is a sufficient mitigating circumstance. It's a slippery slope.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:03 am

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment06/
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Panther

-------------------
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 0568#40568
ePlaya Forum Index -> ePlaya Feedback -> Policies & Our Community -> case studies

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:52 am

Holy Smokes Panther, this is not the 9th Circuit here, it's just an online BBS. A privately run and funded BBS for that matter. Can't the BMORG and it's official designated staff run their private affairs in a reasonable manner?

This whole thing has kinda went off the deep end, and it's bordering on the absurd.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:34 am

I think it's time for TP's input.

Hey, I may be wrong here but..........

polzicons · Post by **polzicons** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:24 am

I guess I'm on the wrong thread but came here by clicking the link... I wanted to defend the person of "Ms. Y Depraved" against the charge of "spamming" or sending unwanted promotions to the Thread. I had just asked (with all honesty) what this "Rescue" stuff was, what it did, and in plain language asked for a link, which she posted. Is that a CRIME? I'm fairly new at the "chat" scene, so fill me in, I thought that a requested link for a hard-to-find or otherwise esoteric object would be well within the "mission" of these pages. Please forgive any improprieties , I found her links to be educational. -POL

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:09 am

I read through that thread and while it was certainly equal measures harsh and in poor taste, due to the history of both users I would not do a thing unless it escalated into a sustained nuissance. Hands off I say. I think Kelly had a right, in the thread he started, to flame someone for acting in poor taste (although accurately by my reckoning) wrt his op. I am glad it all happened in one thread rather than the response going into a new thread or poll creating even more clutter.

Don Muerto · Post by **Don Muerto** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:31 am

Panther, despite your impassioned and sesquipedalian plea, the bottom line is that participating in a BBS has nothing whatsoever to do with diplomatic convention or constitutional law.

People choose whether or not to participate in this community. Participation in this BBS comes with acceptance of a set of rules, the violation of which is subject to sanction by the moderating forces here.

Unlike the world or the United States, if you do not agree with the rules you may leave at any time. No protection of the individual or their right to say what they want is guaranteed or even warranted. The moderators are charged with the protection of the community and its standards, and clearly have both the right and the obligation to excommunicate an individual who is deemed a threat to either. If the moderators become overzealous and make the community intolerable, then the voluntary participants will leave. It is that simple.

What is also missing from your highly abstract viewpoint is that A3 can come right back and sign up as someone else, thereby giving himself access to the community again. In fact, I believe this has already been done. Should the new skin A3 is wearing manage to transgress again, I expect and support Technopatra's right to exile that ID as well. That is her job.

Now, it should be painfully obvious that yours is the minority view here, that Technopatra's restraint and judgement are trusted by the majority of the community, and also that this issue has been discussed, debated and settled. I see no value in you continuing to flog this particular dead quadruped.

Why not put that energy into creating a BBS along the lines of your democratic vision instead?

DangerMouse · Post by **DangerMouse** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:01 am

angrykittie25 wrote:Although understandable that the person who posted the eulogy became angry she kind of flew off the handle. The "badmouthing" post was unneeded and disrespectful due to the original post's intentions, and in no way did it warrant a personal attack in a public forum, where all opinions have a right to be posted. The author of the original post should have sent a private message, if anything, to deal with their issues. Their comments in retaliation were far worse than the original "badmouthing".

Since I'm now a topic of debate might as well throw my hat into the arena.

What I said was indeed tacky/crass/rude. It did, however, state my opinion. I wasn't out to bait a personal attack, nor did I attack the original poster.

As for the responders verbose outburst? I could care less, and it was directed towards me. Their intentions were based upon his/her feelings at the time of reading my response. Did I take it personally? Hell no, I thought it was pretty funny to be honest. Everyone loses their temper from time to time and says something they regret, inappropriate, or obtuse.

Zero tolerance policies are in my mind a bad thing. I've done the message board admin bit, and the more often you have to step in the more people resent you. I'd like to think we're all mostly civil enough to not sink to name calling, but I do know better than that. The person in question did not pursue additional verbal attacks, just as I didn't take the bait and attack them personally in retaliation.

Occasionally you will come across people who just don't take a hint after warnings from admins, etc. Those people just need to be booted. While you ideally want to foster freedom of speech, when it become disruptive for the majority of your users then the service you provide loses value and interest.

As for first ammendmant rights. This is a private message board accessible to the public. They have the right to refuse you entrance for any reason as they do not receive government funding that I am aware of.

angrykittie25 · Post by **angrykittie25** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:28 am

DangerMouse, I was refering to Kelly when I said personal attack.
Maybe I was unclear. You had a right to say what you did and I think that she overreacted and could have responding to you in a private message. I don't think you were trying to bait a personal attack either. That is all that I meant.

Ms.Y.Depraved · Post by **Ms.Y.Depraved** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 11:38 am

Please excuse me. Had I known it was out of line I would not have posted it. I will re read your guidelines. If I have offended anyone i'm truly sorry. Just trying to be informative and helpful.
y

case studies

Shadow Puppets

Re: Power and Authority for Evicting E-playans

Re: Power and Authority for Evicting E-playans

Re: Power and Authority for Evicting E-playans

The Sixth Amendment

Must be some kind of Mistake!

regarding post on flower remedy