Flag to: SonOfLiberty, OWK, texoma, annalex, askel5, John Deere

Thanks again for your suggestions. My current plan is to move TC's "opus" thread onto the main forum, once I have the approval of everyone who posted upon it. I will not move the "Intrusions" thread to the main forum.

JD came up with a suggestion that hadn't occurred to me regarding the "Intrusions" thread. The moderators have a private "holding tank" topic, to which they can move questionable threads without actually deleting them. Perhaps I will move the "Intrusions" thread to that topic.

That way, the inappropriate content will be removed from this forum, but the privacy of those who posted on the thread will be maintained. No one but the moderators will have access to the thread.

Your thoughts?

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

=== so much as the presumptions that people who posted here were posting under.


Bill of goods, my butt.

Shall I go start pulling Thoughtcriminal's defenses of the Gulch as strictly above-board and immune from the sort of behind-the-scenes intriguing which plagued the FAB?

I have no problems acknowledging the expectation of privacy ... my problem is with the abuse of that veil of privacy with the very sorts of antics one has just averred to all do not occur in the Gulch.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

MA:

I think the main concern is whether you want the discussions hosed on your topic. You obviously don't want them here and I think it is not necessary for us to get into another long discussion about this. My suggestion:

- Move the Opus to a public area. Post an explanation for your reasons if you want. If you choose to do that, mention that you had everyone's permission to do so.

- Move the intrusive "intrusions" thread (It's pathetic when one laughs at his own word games but I just did : ) to the Holding Tank. If you chose to post an explanation to the Opus thread, you might also say that there was another thread you didn't want in your topic but you were unable to get everyone to agree to its release so you dumped it.

As several people have said, the expectation of privacy for the folks posting here trumps the LF Public Information Transfer Act (PITA for short -- there I go again : )

This has always been a positive place, let's sweep up the broken glass, put the chairs back, and I'll replace the mirror : )

JD

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

How so?

Why, it is the fundamental freedom of association. Members should be able to form subfora and decide the degree of exposure to the outside world and manner of admittance. How else do you propose we can bring back the Spanish Inquisition?

The awkwardness happens when the mechanism of decision making -- not discussion patterns -- is opaque to the general forum user. For example, if we prevail on JD in the Gulch to ban X, then JD declares to X: "The Gulch has spoken, you're banned". X then can retort, -- who is in the Gulch? Can I address the Gulch?

But this is not what happened. JD decides for himself. He may seek advice in whichever manner he wishes, privately or pulbicly, but the decision is solely his and is declared urbi et orbi as solely his.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Flag to: John Deere

Courtesy bump

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

...whether you want the discussions hosed on your topic.

---

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

=== Members should be able to form subfora and decide the degree of exposure to the outside world and manner of admittance. How else do you propose we can bring back the Spanish Inquisition?


lol ...


I think if I stand by my original assertion that privacy is absolutely necessary for Moderator threads (opened as necessary to pertinent parties), we're pretty much agreed.

I think of the Gulch as just another public forum "owned" by Madame. The fact that it is invitation-only and spared intrusion by un-likeminded sorts on the open forum doesn't translate -- for me -- to a privilege of privacy to snipe about, seek to force Deere and his mods to ban from his forum those LF posters who can't defend themselves from whatever charges or arguments are proferred here.

That's the line I think was crossed and, in crossing it, folks abused their "right" to the privacy this forum was designed to provide.

Again, I wouldn't feel so strongly about this save for the fact that TC, of all folks, was so adamant in his defenses of the Gulch. He'd already evidenced in no uncertain terms his own crystal clear understanding that this was neither conceived nor used as a place for "Star Chamber" sorts of intrigues by the InCrowd or "popular" ones, as one of the dear departed put it.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

MA:

Quote:

---

discussions hosed on your topic.

---

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

But again askel, you're arguing the private forum and the thread, not the expectation of privacy of those who were flagged and merely shared an opinion or two under the understanding that it was a private thread.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

I'd like to know what the general feeling is for why the discussion took place in the Galt's Gulch forum in the first place.

Was it done simply to avoid what might have been seen as the unnecessary off-topic intrusions by some members such as NewsWatcher?

Or was it done because members of Galt's Gulch see themselves as the "more serious" or "more libertarian" members of the forum, and that they were the only ones capable of coming up with a "more correct" decision on what should be done? I'm not sure that a case couldn't be made that this is just another way of doing voir dire so that the "right" jury gets put into place.

I side with askel on this, unless somebody wants to try and change my mind on it somehow. I still regret my actions in the old "texoma moderator incident", and would rather act in accordance with the maxim "honesty is the best policy", which I had to write for my 5th grade teacher and school principal 1500 times as a result of being part of a group that ate sunflower seeds during a movie in the multi-purpose room, when, after the lights came up, sunflower seed shells were found to have been scatterered all over the room on the floor (since the mess was the concern, and I didn't contribute to the mess, I didn't see the point in confessing to a crime I didn't commit, but my fifth grade teacher, Mr. Wilson, saw it differently).

I don't want to give anyone any room at all for being able to raise any "backroom decision" objections on what is supposed to be a libertarian board. I mean, is somebody going to make the case that since not all were allowed input given their lack of access to the forum, they've been aggressed against somehow?

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

I have no idea. I was flagged, essentially said that if these things were true and real life harm was coming to somebody, then JD should probably address it. That's about my level of participation during this entire mess.

Whether we like what they did in the thread or not is irrelevant. The time to address those things is when they are happening (which I would agree with and say that it should have been), not two days later after everybody has posted under a given set of assumptions.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Flag to: askel5, MadameAxe

doesn't translate -- for me -- to a privilege of privacy to snipe about, seek to force Deere and his mods to ban from his forum those LF posters who can't defend themselves from whatever charges or arguments are proferred here.

No it doesn't, I agree. It was not correct use of the Gulch. MadameAxe, as the deaconness here, could have objected to the discussion as it was unfolding, and if she did, that would be a better outcome. The Gulch etiquette was always to avoid discussing non-gulchers. Thoughtcriminal's thread belonged to Forum Development as it started, and to moderator forum as it progressed. But, once the discussion took place, it stays here, in my opinion. It will happen again: MadameAxe cannot be expected to always be on top of what is posted here.

Note that Thoughcriminal started the thread innocently enough, as a theoretical discussion about forum policy. It then morphed into Death to WRS discussion, perhaps by design, perhaps not.

For the record, I do not mind if my (mealy-mouthed, as they were) opinions expressed here on TC's thread are reposted or otherwise referred to openly, and in fact I stated my opinion publicly as well.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Flag to: annalex, askel5, CubicleGuy

Quote:

---

MadameAxe, as the deaconness here, could have objected to the discussion as it was unfolding, and if she did, that would be a better outcome.

---

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Madame, I did not mean to admonish you. You "could" as in "would be able to, if present and fast on the trigger".

That is the risk of any forum, private or not. I can start a Gulch thread this minute, since you tell me you are gone, about Madrid bombing, Mossad, and Skunk-lynching, and there is no one to stop me.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Yes, by all means protect the identity of the lynch mob at the Gulch.

I have no idea why I was flagged to TC's thread and just got around to reading it a while ago. I found it utterly disgusting and understand your desire to protect the identity of most of the participants.

What a bunch of low life worms, throwing accusations around, producing little, if any, evidence to back up the accusations, and not having the common courtesy to allow the accused to defend themselves. Real honorable system ya' got there.

Yep, I would sure want it hidden from public view had I participated in that cluster ****!

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I found it utterly disgusting and understand your desire to protect the identity of most of the participants.

---

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Or was it done because members of Galt's Gulch see themselves as the "more serious" or "more libertarian" members of the forum, and that they were the only ones capable of coming up with a "more correct" decision on what should be done?

---

Quote:

---

I don't want to give anyone any room at all for being able to raise any "backroom decision" objections on what is supposed to be a libertarian board. I mean, is somebody going to make the case that since not all were allowed input given their lack of access to the forum, they've been aggressed against somehow?

---

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Note that Thoughcriminal started the thread innocently enough, as a theoretical discussion about forum policy.

---

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

The Gulch was really not an appropriate place for TC to post his "Intrusions" thread. He has given me permission to move both that thread and his Opus to the main forum

TC gave you permission to move it to the main forum, then this:

UPDATE 8:44 a.m. PST: Based on the discussion in this thread so far, I have decided not to move the "Intrusions" thread to the public forum, but am considering moving it to a 'moderator only' topic so as to remove what I consider to be inappropriate content from this forum. No one but the moderators would be able to access the posts on the "Intrusions" thread if I do this. Thanks again for your assistance.

UPDATE 9:11 a.m. PST: To address the dual concerns of privacy issues and my desire not to have what I consider inappropriate content in this topic, I intend to move the "Intrusions" thread out of the Gulch, to a topic that is viewable by moderators only. The thread will be moved at approximately 12:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 13, 2004. Please retrieve any data you wish to retain before that time. Thanks.

I certainly agree that it was inappropriate that it was posted at Galt's Gulch. It should have been posted on the main forum from the beginning rather than convene a lynch mob in secret. Of course, TC and those that posted on it had an expection of privacy. That was the intent and purpose of putting it at the Gulch. That way they could carry on their little lynching without interference from those that might not agree nor would it allow those accused to defend themselves.

TC and several others wanted WRS banned and he/they used the Gulch to accomplish their purpose. No one that might have disagreed with them were invited, the accused where not allowed a defense, and no real evidence was presented for a number of the accusations. That stinks to high heaven and beyond.

I suspect the only reason I was flagged is because I had not expressed an opinion in regards to WRS, et al. and was maybe assumed to be an ally of TC and the gang.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

TC and several others wanted WRS banned and he/they used the Gulch to accomplish their purpose. No one that might have disagreed with them were invited, the accused where not allowed a defense, and no real evidence was presented for a number of the accusations. That stinks to high heaven and beyond.

---

-There were numerous threads on the open forum discussing several incidents in which the banned poster was involved.

-The privacy violations discussed on the thread regarding telephone calls and what not were peripheral issues at best, since they seemed to primarily stem from indiscretions on the part of the alleged victim.

-Nothing was decided on the thread.

-Every single Gulch member was flagged to the thread, it looked like to me, there was no picking and choosing. I'll admit that I didn't compare every name on every flag to the Gulch's membership list, but you're certainly welcome to. The list is posted on our welcome thread.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Flag to: annalex, CubicleGuy, John Deere, texoma

latest status, fyi.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

There were numerous threads on the open forum discussing several incidents in which the banned poster was involved.
The privacy violations discussed on the thread regarding telephone calls and what not were peripheral issues at best, since they seemed to primarily stem from indiscretions on the part of the alleged victim.

Agreed

Nothing was decided on the thread.

Not so sure about that.

Every single Gulch member was flagged to the thread, it looked like to me, there was no picking and choosing. I'll admit that I didn't compare every name on every flag to the Gulch's membership list, but you're certainly welcome to. The list is posted on our welcome thread.

To my knowledge, I was never invited to be a member of Galt's and until the flag to this particular thread, had never been flagged to any other Galt threads. So, when did I become a member?

I don't fault you for not being present at the beginning of the thread when it would have been easier to move it or whatever.

It's just completely repugnant to me that TC felt it necessary to start this thread in a place where the majority of forum members were not allowed to participate. He had already called for banning WRS, as had some of the others, on the main forum, so why drag it over here?

I just have this thing about people ganging up on others in secret. Doesn't make one iota of difference if it had been on the public forum for all to see, to bring it over and carry on the discussion in secret was shoddy and a misuse of Galt's Gulch, if indeed, the Gulch was not intended for gossip and backstabbing of other members. This incident sure makes one wonder about that since it appears that is exactly what transpired here.

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Nothing was decided on the thread.

Not so sure about that.

---

Quote:

---

To my knowledge, I was never invited to be a member of Galt's and until the flag to this particular thread, had never been flagged to any other Galt threads. So, when did I become a member?

---

Quote:

---

...why drag it over here?

---

Quote:

---

...to bring it over and carry on the discussion in secret was shoddy and a misuse of Galt's Gulch, if indeed, the Gulch was not intended for gossip and backstabbing of other members.

---

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Was it done simply to avoid what might have been seen as the unnecessary off-topic intrusions by some members such as NewsWatcher?

---

Reply | Rate Post | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context

Post Extras: