Leaving the forums

[Brandal]

Without Justin's angry "good-bye" message we would have never gotten to the bottom of this.

 

--Sigi

A bunch of people taking sides,and a few in the middle

is getting to the bottom of it?

 

:)

[inquiry]

Evidently, BBO administrators have decided that xxxxxx needs to be protected, because people in the internet bridge world ridicule him, not just on BBO, but on other sites as well. I don't understand or agree with this policy.

Nice post. I will try one last time to explain the "protection" provided to anyone, includeing the person you refer too.

 

BBO's policy is clear, and is stated by Fred in this very thread, where he said: "The issue that that we try to protect all of our members by dealing with the people who abuse them. We believe that we have a responsibility to respond when our members are abused or offended on our site."

 

That is a fairly simple standard, and for the most part is strictly enforced. Oh, people take shots at some regulars who like to give back in kind. As long at they word it correctly "you are acting stupid" rather than "you are stupid", or the generic "only an idiot would bid 2♠" when someone bid 2♠ we generally let it slide. If the person who bid 2♠ comes back and responds hostily, both post are likely to be edited or deleted.

 

Let me give an example, there was a thread within this very form on an "unnatural" sex act that was crime in an Asian country. The moderator left it alone for days. Eventually the temptation to expound on the act made the entire thread offensive to some. And so, rather than editing the overtly new offensive additions, the solution was to remove the entire thead. Because once it became too offensive in the context of the new post, the original post became tainted by the replies. So the context of what is being said is also important... the original post lasted three or four days, it wasn't until it escalated that the all the post went away, changing the way the thread was viewed (certainly by me).

 

In the Justing case, as in the case where you posted the member by name earlier in this thead, there is no need to wait for the inevitable reply to the post. At least a few members -- and clearly one -- will have found it offensive AND within the context of not only this forum, but also the BBO and previous intereactions between the players in question here, there is simply no way rain would allow the link to stay (without some very serious explaining as to its harmless nature).

[Brandal]

The problem was the forum's reaction to Justin's post here. He was ridiculed, called names, disrespected, condescended to. People posting did not stick to the issue at hand. Justin's reaction was a reaction, OK. Many of the people who tried to protect Rain, (who never needed protecting in the first place) did so by attacking Justin.

I have to disagree again.

 

The problem was Justin's post,not the responses,

the way I read it he "attacked" Rain.

 

Then the responses became a "problem"....

He received some supportive responses and some

"attacked" him,and/or his post.

 

Now,I didn't attack Justin,but clearly my opinion is he

is/was wrong on all counts.

 

 

:)

[Winstonm]

I am offended by those too easily offended. :)

 

To Justin: I like you, bro, but this time you're a little out of line to suggest that the time you spend writing something makes that something worthwhile and therefore your efforts shouldn't be summarily dismissed - this is but arrogance of youth at work. I should know as I used to suffer from the same malady. Truth is that what we think is important may be total drivel to others - like junk mail that just needs to be tossed without opening. You cannot force another to change his or her mind so you end up with two choices: find someone else who appreciates what you have done; or shrug your shoulders and admit that others have as much right to their view as you do to yours and you could be wrong in that what you thought was wonderful may not have been all that good to start.

 

And to anyone else who would be offended by a post to another sight or blog, well, all I can say is get over it...sheesh. It is one thing to be called by name and told, "You suck". But how can you be offended by someone else's personal tastes.

If you don't like it, don't read it. You are probably one of those types who tries to get Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn banned by his local library.

 

So whoever you are that was offended by something basically that was none of your business - like a t.v. channel - if you don't like it change the channel instead of writing to the station to complain - well all I have to say to you is:

You suck

 

:P

 

Winston

[fred]

Evidently,  BBO administrators have decided that Gxxxxxx needs to be protected,  because people in the internet bridge world ridicule him,  not just on BBO,  but on other sites as well.  I don't understand or agree with this policy.  There may be more to this than I understand,  but if most of us put ourselves in a position to be ridiculed,  we would not be protected in this way.  However,  it is a well known policy on BBO.  Rain certainly had not only the right,  but also the responisbility,  in this light,  to remove the posted link,  which she did.  Justin then reacted to that,  and he forced her hand;  she had no choice but to further delete his posts.  I am certain Justin knows and knew about BBO policy to protect Gxxxxx.  It was fine,  of course,  to have posted the link initially.  Justin's response to having his post deleted was not optimal,  and it was understandable.  He puts a lot of thought into his posts,  makes a sincere effort to help clarify understandings,  and has in other instances been unfairly judged.  It would have been nice if he could have not reacted and forced Rain's hand.  All of that would likely blow over over time.  The problem was the forum's reaction to Justin's post here.  He was ridiculed,  called names, disrespected,  condescended to.  People posting did not stick to the issue at hand.  Justin's reaction was a reaction,  OK.  Many of the people who tried to protect Rain,  (who never needed protecting in the first place)  did so by attacking Justin.  Things have gotten far more hurtful than they ever would have if no attacking had happened.  It would be nice if the people who were attacking in their posts could see it,  so that maybe in another instance they will modify their behavior.  I suppose a public acknowledgement and/or apology would be too much to expect.    I hope Justin returns soon;  his contributions to this site,  as well as his blog,  are tremendously beneficial to people of all levels trying to learn this game.

"Ridiculed" is not a good word to describe what has happened to Gerard. He has been publicly humiliated and tortured over an extended period of time.

 

But I think I understand your vision of how the world should be:

 

It is OK to ridicule (or humiliate or torture) Gerard because he has put himself in a position to be ridiculed (or humiliated or tortured).

 

It is not OK to ridicule Justin because he has not put himself in such a position.

 

And everyone gets to decide for himself who has put themselves in such a position and who has not. Then everyone can ridicule to his heart's content.

 

Rain can decide for BBO who deserves to be ridiculed on our site. If Rain thinks that a given BBO members deserves to be ridiculed it will be open season on them - they won't get any "protection" from our abuse department. If Rain thinks that a given BBO member has does nothing to deserve ridicule, we will "protect" that person by selectively applying our rules.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Al_U_Card]

Posted: May 1 2006, 07:41 PM

Al_U_Card

 

 

And they're off! Just what we needed, another reason to debate endlessly about personal areas that the debate cannot possibly resolve. Post or don't as you please. Rain is brilliant in her functions and I support her decision 100%. Case closed for me.

 

And you went ahead and posted another eight times after this. :)

As John Lennon sang (or rather spoke)....Number 9....Number 9....Number 9

 

It was more of a prediction that a disclaimer....roflmao

[jocdelevat]

Hi all

I think this discussion went far enough and we should put a stop.

 

My opinions:

1. Delete the whole thread discussion and forget about it

2. Call Dr. Phil and Judge Judy if #1 is not good enough:))

3. BBO should have a disclaimer or a better policy

 

 

Best regards

Jocdelevat

[Sigi_BC84]

Without Justin's angry "good-bye" message we would have never gotten to the bottom of this.

A bunch of people taking sides,and a few in the middle

is getting to the bottom of it?

I was simply talking about the reasons Rain had for deleting the posts. She did not explain why, but in this thread it came to light. There is not much more to it, really -- the moderator could have been a bit more careful and Justin could have been a bit less emotional. No big deal to me.

 

I'm now reading the website that Justin was about to link. In a way, this entire thread was the best ad for the site you could imagine.

 

--Sigi

[mikeh]

It seems to me that we have to distinguish between ridiculing a member (or non-member... I don't think it should matter) on the one hand and evaluating posts on the other.

 

I did not read any of Justin's original posts but I understood that it began with his posting of a link to a webpage which has, as a small portion of its content, a series of entries which clearly depict a BBO (and/or an OkBridge) member in a very poor light.

 

I do not know the extent, if any, to which Justin's reference to this website was intended or could be reasonably perceived as intending to draw attention to that portion of the site: I gather and accept that Justin did not personally intend to make that particular topic the focus of the link, but it might reasonably be perceived by others as such. And while I accept that the offending area is only a small part of the site, it is readily findable and, in itself, quite substantial. It is also, if I may express an opinion on it, quite funny is a perhaps unfortunate way.... also quite sad, in more or less the same way. Laughing at the behaviour exhibited (assuming the posts to be an accurate tale) is a guilty pleasure.

 

I can very easily see why the subject of that part of the site felt targeted: and a visit to that individual's own website makes it clear that he feels that he has been persecuted.

 

More importantly, I recognize that zero tolerance must be the rule for this forum: otherwise, as Fred's post makes clear, the forum could degenerate into censorship based solely in the extent to which an individual offends those in charge. The slippery slope argument is valid in my view.

 

It is the extreme cases that test our dedication to such zero tolerance approaches. I have personally witnessed some of the conduct of the 'target': I was once actually invited by him to express a view on a topic he was teaching in one of his classes.... his approach was unorthodox and, more importantly, he was dismissive of the orthodox approach without even admitting that his view was unusual (a gamblng 3N opening on a 6 card suit) I have watched him play a number of hands, altho the 'pleasure' soon palled. I was, at the time, one of those who, in kib mode, and never so that any player or he could hear it, made sarcastic remarks.. for which I am sorry. The truth is that if ever anyone set themselves up as a target, he did... with claims to a skill level that was remarkable for its lack of insight... and I say this in the context of an online community in which self-ranking has run wild.

 

But the point has to be that a public forum cannot directly or indirectly condone OR BE SEEN EVEN BY A SMALL MINORITY OF READERS to condone any suggestion of a campaign to humiliate any one, member or non-member.

 

So the link was properly (imo) removed: could it have been handled by a simple deletion, with or without a note and with or without a private email to Justin (which may have been done for all I know)? Yes, and that topic is a legitimate topic for users of this forum to debate... how would we want our troublesome posts dealt with?

 

And I write this aware that passages of this post could be construed as potentially adding to the troubles of the 'target', altho I hope that I have made it clear that I feel sorry for him....while his teachings and claims to expertise are deserving, in my view, of strong criticism, he personally does not deserve to be humiliated before the world.

 

I may get my first warning or even have part or all of this deleted :)

[Guest Jlall]

I've gained a little bit of perspective in the last day. Some thoughts...

 

I have talked to Rain. She assumed when I posted the website that my intent was or likely was to draw attention to the certain "offensive" section. This is because that member very recently started attacking me for my post on RGB (which told one of his harassers to move on and stop posting about him). I even reported him to abuse for this. Because of the timing of that event as well as my history with the member, it wasn't a far leap to think I might be taking a subtle jab at that person.

 

Honestly, when I posted the link I didn't even think about the offensive section. It has been defunct for years, and I don't even think about the person who it was targetted at. Despite the altercation, I really thought nothing of it. Aaron Haspel is perhaps my closest friend in the world. I also think he is a great author, and he has helped me tremendously. I really enjoy reading his stuff so when I saw a post asking for favorite non-bridge blogs I just posted his link thinking nothing of it.

 

When I saw my post was deleted, I responded poorly. I was hurt by the implication that I was trolling. It was a rational assumption (which I failed to realize at the time) but I felt that perhaps I deserved the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this was wrong to feel, but I have put a lot into these forums (and gotten even more back), and that's why I felt that way. Not only this, I was upset in the manner in which it was done which made it look like I had been trolling and was a poor reflection on me.

 

Upon reflection, while I don't agree with Rain's decision I should have given HER the benefit of the doubt that she had a good reason for doing what she did. It still didn't click to me that I had recently had an incident with the member, and I felt like I was being targetted as was Aaron. Of course, Rain is not vindictive and a private message would have been more appropriate. When I said that I would leave if my post was deleted, I meant it but I didn't state it well. What I meant was, I would not want to take part in a forum where any post I make that I feel is not remotely offensive could be construed that way and deleted despite any argument I make against this. I do not fault BBO or Rain for this, I just don't like the system and feel it would be best if I were to post somewhere like RGB or my blog. I agree with the posters who say it doesn't matter whether I agree with the deletion or not, the moderators decisions must be respected.

 

I have been called childish, an attention-whore (roughly), and an arrogant youth for making this thread. I made the thread because there were three deleted posts of mine saying I had posted inappropriate content. I wanted to state my side of the story. I could have used a much better tone and not made comments that implied rain was doing a bad job. I am glad that people at least know what happened. That being said, I can definitely be childish, and I have certainly bid known to be arrogant. I don't shy away from attention either. I think it is remarkable that anyone would say things like that about me because of my original post and I think it speaks worlds about the character of those who said it. If those posters are so mature and wise they would likely know that saying such things adds nothing to the conversation, and that if they didn't care about the topic they would either not post or say something relevant. If the intent was simply to hurt or attack me, that is very sad indeed.

 

Everyone is entitled to their say though.

[inquiry]

I've gained a little bit of perspective in the last day. Some thoughts...

 

I have talked to Rain. She assumed when I posted the website that my intent was or likely was to draw attention to the certain "offensive" section. This is because that member very recently started attacking me for my post on RGB (which told one of his harassers to move on and stop posting about him). I even reported him to abuse for this. Because of the timing of that event as well as my history with the member, it wasn't a far leap to think I might be taking a subtle jab at that person.

Well said justin, and I might add, my comments on this unfortunate stream of events included a parragph on the same topic... were I said...

 

And let me add, there are additional behind the scenes issues that rain is dealing with concerning some of the principles involved here that makes the timing of Justin's post, unfortunate. This timing could easly give the appearance that there were extenuating circumstances that lead to the both the post being posted and the thead being edited. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

 

Pehaps instead of "nothing is as every as simple as it seems, I should have quoted the Billy Joel's song. "shade of grey"... There is a song about shades of grey, that goes something like this...

 

"Some things were perfectly clear, seen with the vision of youth

No doubts and nothing to fear, I claimed the corner on truth

These days it's harder to say I know what I'm fighting for"

[Brandal]

Everyone is entitled to their say though.

Glad you're back,no doubt your contributions in general

are much appreciated here Justin

 

:)

[pigpenz]

Good thing George W. Bush isnt a member :)

[luke warm]

I don't believe I even implied such a thing. [justin's miscreantcy, if that's a word]  If that was your inference, sorry.

well i think it's safe to say that you did imply *something* along those lines when you wrote,

 

"Keeping the riff-raff out will only improve the situation as those miscreants will either toe-the-line or leave, and good riddance to those that do."

 

what riff-raff to whom you would wish good riddance were they to leave did you have in mind?

 

the way I read it he "attacked" Rain.

this isn't the first time someone has accused justin of attacking rain... please show me where this happened or have the decency to retract it

 

So if you happen to disagree with a particular decision we make, please try to have a little sympathy for the position we are in before condemning our the actions that we decide to take.

sounds reasonable to me

[Winstonm]

Btw, Justin, just want you to know when I speak of "the arrogance of youth" I do not mean it in any way critical; It only seems to me that a degree of arrogance is a natural part of youth.

 

Winston

[Sigi_BC84]

Btw, Justin, just want you to know when I speak of "the arrogance of youth" I do not mean it in any way critical; It only seems to me that a degree of arrogance is a natural part of youth.

 

Winston

That's true and I think it's safe to say that Justin comes across way mature for a 19 year old! (and not that arrogant at all -- we're all losing it sometimes and this is an emotional issue for Justin after all)

 

--Sigi

[luke warm]

frankly, i'd prefer to (once again) be young enough to be arrogant... even so, i think winston might be a little offended if, in a thread about him, someone referred to the narrow-minded stoginess of old age ;)

[Winstonm]

I only hope Justin took it the right way. We've met in person and played each other and I know he knows I like him. I also know that I was "way arrogant" at 19 and nowhere near as mature as Justin.

 

Old? Did you call me old, Jimmy????

 

DIRECTOR!!!

 

;) :P :P :P

[pclayton]

Bla-bla-bla - glad to see everyones all touchy-feely again.

 

Can we get back to the topic of BRIDGE? I got a star to earn and a national to win already ;)

[Brandal]

the way I read it he "attacked" Rain.

this isn't the first time someone has accused justin of attacking rain... please show me where this happened or have the decency to retract it

Don't accuse me of accusing Justin,show me where

I accused him,not this where I stated how I read his

post,or have the decency to retract it

 

;)

[nickf]

<snip>

 

Let me give an example, there was a thread within this very form on an "unnatural" sex act that was crime in an Asian country.

 

<snip>

Unnatural? We're not in Kansas now Dorothy.

 

nickf

sydney

[luke warm]

the way I read it he "attacked" Rain.

this isn't the first time someone has accused justin of attacking rain... please show me where this happened or have the decency to retract it

Don't accuse me of accusing Justin,show me where

I accused him,not this where I stated how I read his

post,or have the decency to retract it

 

:rolleyes:

sophistry... the phrase "... he attacked rain" is an accusation...

[Chamaco]

the way I read it he "attacked" Rain.

this isn't the first time someone has accused justin of attacking rain... please show me where this happened or have the decency to retract it

Don't accuse me of accusing Justin,show me where

I accused him,not this where I stated how I read his

post,or have the decency to retract it

 

:rolleyes:

sophistry... the phrase "... he attacked rain" is an accusation...

Sorry to stick in here...

 

But if Brandal's is an accusation, Justin's post too is an attack to Rain (still making use of sophistry)...

 

Justin was simply plain wrong to post the complaint about Rain and all the moderation procedure.

We can forgive him because of his age, but the tone was plain angry and bitter and aggressive...

 

I do do think Justin is a cool guy, passionate for bridge and eager to share his golden suggestions with our community: I will never be able to thank him enough for this.

 

 

But this time, IMO, he went plain wrong: I can understand forgiving posts, but not supportive posts for that reaction.

 

Just because I like someone, it does not mean I will support him when he does something i feel wrong...

[Brandal]

the way I read it he "attacked" Rain.

this isn't the first time someone has accused justin of attacking rain... please show me where this happened or have the decency to retract it

Don't accuse me of accusing Justin,show me where

I accused him,not this where I stated how I read his

post,or have the decency to retract it

 

:rolleyes:

sophistry... the phrase "... he attacked rain" is an accusation...

If you say so

 

It wasn't meant as an accusation

[Al_U_Card]

I don't believe I even implied such a thing. [justin's miscreantcy, if that's a word]  If that was your inference, sorry.

well i think it's safe to say that you did imply *something* along those lines when you wrote,

 

"Keeping the riff-raff out will only improve the situation as those miscreants will either toe-the-line or leave, and good riddance to those that do."

 

what riff-raff to whom you would wish good riddance were they to leave did you have in mind?

Not being shy about speaking my mind, the statement was very direct and to the point. Miscreants (villains, evil-doers or from the old french mécreants meaning wrong thinkers or heretics) MUST be removed or accept correction to remain. Just part of the rules. Justin's "self-imposed hiatus" of whatever length was not forced so he does not qualify under the above terms.