# About Persephone and Dex **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 7, 2003, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688 "2003-07-07T02:37:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/81 "2003-07-07T13:57:26Z")
I agree with **mhendo**. So many people, including **Persephone** , have said that **Dex** should have found out the rest of the details of the story before starting the Pit thread. Why? I’m not sure why we should be expected to do a bunch or additional research before we respond to something that was posted on the boards. How are we to know when the additional research is expected? And how do we know where to look for the missing details? If you post it on the boards, then you should expect people to respond to what you posted. In other words, I don’t think **Dex** should have been expected to do additional research before he posted. And I don’t think he did anything wrong by starting the Pit thread. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/82 "2003-07-07T14:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Rilchiam \* > [BPeople can’t be banned from the SDMB for off-board behavior. If they could, I can think of several people who would be long gone. Including me_. Or did you mean that she shouldn’t be shunned by other Dopers IRL and banned from Dopefests? If so, that would be up to those others, wouldn’t it now?\*\* I meant just what I said, **Rilch** : If she is still living in a rat’s nest six months from now, we should take in on ourselves to remove her from the SDMB. Why? 'Cause this place can’t be helping her. 'Cause we don’t need someone who goes to Dopefests and reads the SDMB but neglects her own living space and the living space of her children. 'Cause while CPS may be overly-jumpy, it often has a point, and the point it’s just made couldn’t hardly have been clearer. I know that we currently don’t have a rule covering this. I know that can change. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/83 "2003-07-07T14:02:12Z")
Hit submit too soon. That post must look like gibberish. Okay. If they’re not the board police, then what are they? What purpose could they possibly serve, if not to enforce the rules of the message board? > [@](#): > > But even if I did, a cop doesn’t have his radio on 24 hours a day; neither does a moderator moderate 24 hours a day. Some of them actually do other stuff! And they should be free to do so. And I don’t see that Dex broke any rules, much like a cop should be free to do what he wants provided he doesn’t break the law. You missed the analogy. I am not talking about breaking the rules. I am talking about being an upstanding citizen. After all, there’s a reason they don’t just take the first person off the street to do this often-thankless job. They want to make sure the person possesses a good, strong character, one who is unafraid to make unpopular decisions but one who will rein in their emotions as often as possible to avoid any conflict of interest. > [@](#): > > In fact, I think the OP is really quite clear as to Ed’s ideas on the matter and leaves little room for interpretation, which I would read as “mods and admins have always been free to be regular posters outside their duties” and now everyone’s panties are wadded and this needs to be adjusted. Uh, no, that’s not clear at all. He didn’t say that. He just alluded to a new rule. He did not say why this rule was being implemented. For all you know, it could be that he disapproved of the pitting - which is how it seemed to me - and not that “everyone’s panties are wadded.” Give the man some credit. > [@](#): > > I would think that makes someone other than mods and admins fucking childish, **dan** , that such a thing is necessary… wouldn’t you? Nope. You’re looking at it too simplistically. This is not a simple matter of either restraining oneself or being childish. There’s plenty of room for interpretation here. > [@](#): > > Of all places? I check MPSIMS like once a month and I see all sorts of things that feel flame-like and whiny. In fact, I see that kind of stuff in all forums. My personal feeling is that there are degrees of such behavior rather than obvious lines that divinely inspired moderaters (who, remember, have now sworn a vow of posting-abstinence to keep themselves clean) can clearly find and demonstrate with nary an argument from us. This means there will always be issues of interpretation. I am saying “of all places” because MPSIMS is one of the last places you would expect people to bicker. IMHO, sure; everyone has an opinion. Same with GD, GQ (unfortunately), CS, and even the comments forums. > [@](#): > > I’m glad. I have met a few dopers and like them very much as well; some I consider very close friends. And I could expect to be a little upset about such a thing, should such a thing happen to people I knew closely. I don’t believe I indicated that anyone’s reaction was wrong, but I hope I get the sense across that righteous indignity is a little over the top to say the least. Well, yeah. People will always be righteously indignant, especially if they are personally involved. Doesn’t make it right, of course. And the more involved, the more subjective the indignation, too. > [@](#): > > He represents himself, unless he is acting in an administrative capacity, in which case he represents the SDMB. It doesn’t take a tarot card deck to divine this. False. A moderator or administrator is always assumed to be representing the Reader unless they state differently specifically. (Admin hat on, off, etc.) > [@](#): > > Is it confusing to you to think that > > 1. moderators and admins are people all the time but > 2. only moderating some of the time and > 3. that moderating does not involve flaming or suspected flaming so > 4. when a mod or admin flames, they cannot be doing so from the position of moderation or administration? 1. no 2. no 3. no 4. no > [@](#): > > If it is so fucking clear that mods and admins _as_ mods and admins must have a higher standard of behavior, then when you see one not acting that way, you should be able to clearly recognize, “Hey, maybe Dex is a real person with real opinions and isn’t acting as an administrator at this particular time!” Ah, but they don’ t make that distinction here. Besides, that’s faulty logic. If they’re “behaving,” I should assume they’re a real person? Horsefeathers. They should behave themselves at all times or not be moderators or administrators. It’s their choice to be one. > [@](#): > > Funny, though I think this is an overstatement, I don’t believe he intended to come off any other way. And, added to that, I don’t see why he should have to avoid something like that. You don’t think people should avoid making crass comments in a forum in which they’re forbidden? Okay. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/84 "2003-07-07T14:04:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Green Bean \* > \*\*I’m not sure why we should be expected to do a bunch or additional research before we respond to something that was posted on the boards. How are we to know when the additional research is expected? And how do we know where to look for the missing details? > > \*\* **Green Bean** , no additional research was needed. If the information was necessary, it would have been posted. You’re right; we should react to what’s posted, not to what was implied. Lest we forget, the thread was a massive thank you for the people who helped her out. That was the point of the thread. Some people decided to take it further and rip the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/85 "2003-07-07T14:05:10Z")
**Derleth** writes: > [@](#): > > Let me reiterate: If Persephone doesn’t clean up her act in every way, we as a community should rise up in revulsion and kick her sorry ass out. Not learning from what she’s been through should be damned near impossible, and if she is still in the same position in six months, she’s either terminally stupid or just doesn’t care. First warning. I said at the outset that standard rules, not “Pit rules,” apply to all discussion of this topic. That means no name-calling, including conditional name-calling. One more outburst and you’re outta here. ---
**Author:** ![StarvingButStrong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/starvingbutstrong/32/335_2.png) [@StarvingButStrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvingButStrong)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/86 "2003-07-07T14:10:14Z")
I think we all have different “hot” buttons. Person A reads a post that seems to denigrate fat people, and doesn’t really react to it – s/he may disapprove of the sentiment, but it doesn’t resonate with her/him, and s/he just goes on to read the next message. Person B reads the same post and DOES responds viscerally. The subject is sensitive to her/him, perhaps it hits home personally, perhaps it calls up unpleasant past history, whatever. Person B is righteously upset over that post and thus we get a pit thread opened. The same thing applies to many issues. There are posters here who can be counted on to react Pittishly to posts that appear to put down gays. The same can be said about Mormons, George W. Bush, and cat declawing, and Hillary Clinton, and Fundamental Christians, and other topics that aren’t coming to my mind right now. My interpretation of Dexter’s actions is that the child neglect/abuse/endangerment area is something that resonates very strongly with him, for whatever reason. He saw the OP, and the part where it looked like her children were being neglected really, really hit him. Then he read the follow up posts, and instead of others responding to that part (as he would) he saw others going ‘poor you’ to Persephone. Each time someone seemed to ignore the children in favor of comforting the mother probably felt like a further outrage. And finally…well, we know how it went from there. To understand what happened, maybe you could mentally substitue one of your own hot points into the OP. As for the new rule: I think it’s a shame to restrict what admins/mods are allowed to post about. I don’t see that the ‘pleasure’ of having to devote time to editing posts by requests, moving threads, dealing with newbies, etc. etc. is something that offsets losing the rights that any member has. As others have suggested, though, maybe they ought to make a point of indicating when they are posting officially and when it’s their own opinions they’re expression. Actually, I’d do it the other way: mark the ‘official’ posts in some totally obvious way. How about turning administrivia bright green or something? ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/87 "2003-07-07T14:10:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Persephone \* > **No one condemned you for speaking the truth. You were condemned for speaking without finding out what the truth was, when you had the resources available to you to do so. Had you spoken the truth, not one word of THIS thread would be happening.** Am I reading this correctly is it saying that the post that **Dex** responded to didn’t contain all the relevant information? Is it also saying that **Dex** should have gotten more information because it was available to him? Will we have our hands tied because we can’t answer a post because there MAY BE more information available than originally posted? Maybe this should be a new SOP here. Always engage in private communication with a poster you are responding to, lest they didn’t give you all the information you should or shouldn’t have known. Needless to say, I think that this sets a bad precedent. Also, it shows that, once again, people need to put thought into their posts, because it is all that the rest of us have to go on. If **Dex** is wrong for posting without all the information that he needed, then **Persephone** is just as wrong for not including it. ---
**Author:** ![XJETGIRLX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9fc29f/32.png) [@XJETGIRLX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XJETGIRLX)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/88 "2003-07-07T14:12:31Z")
Just wanted to add a hearty rock-the-fuck-on to **mhendo**. Very well said. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/89 "2003-07-07T14:17:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adam yax \* > \*\*If **Dex** is wrong for posting without all the information that he needed, then **Persephone** is just as wrong for not including it. \*\* Not really. If this were a thread that discussed CPS and the problems one may have with them, then surely that information should have been included, and people would be rightfully upset if it were not included and they had posted assuming all information had been provided. But that wasn’t the thread’s intention, and therefore the information was not needed. (I’m speaking of the original thread, not the Pit thread.) ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/90 "2003-07-07T14:17:32Z")
Right, we have 2, possibly three, people involved in a situation. let them resolve it themselves. We don’t need a parade of self flagellating martyrs. Let it go, people, let it go. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/91 "2003-07-07T14:27:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > Okay. If they’re not the board police, then what are they? What purpose could they possibly serve, if not to enforce the rules of the message board? To clean up posts, for one thing 😉 Also, I hear some of them are here because they like being SDMB posters. Perhaps you recognize that characteristic? > [@](#): > > They want to make sure the person possesses a good, strong character, one who is unafraid to make unpopular decisions but one who will rein in their emotions as often as possible to avoid any conflict of interest. Reign in their emotions _when they are acting for an interest larger than themselves_, sure. This does not remove their interests, however. To continue this analogy, if a cop wears a Swatch brand watch on his wrist, I don’t suppose this is a State Recommended Timepiece[sup]TM[/sup] whether he was on duty or not. Nor would I suppose that red is the Official Color of the US Government should the president wear red ties all the time. Why? Because colors and watches are not obviously a function of policework and being a politician. Neither is the expression of personal opinion obviously a function of moderating. > [@](#): > > Uh, no, that’s not clear at all. He didn’t say that. He just alluded to a new rule. He did not say why this rule was being implemented. For all you know, it could be that he disapproved of the pitting - which is how it seemed to me - and not that “everyone’s panties are wadded.” Give the man some credit. I think I did when I suggested we not speculate in the first place, but if we were to etc. Much like I can entertain the policeman analogy even though I do not like it. I am not above stepping outside myself should the need arise, nor am I below expressing myself plainly should that need arise, nor do I expect anything less from other people I interact with, even if our respective power-postions are not equal. > [@](#): > > Nope. You’re looking at it too simplistically. This is not a simple matter of either restraining oneself or being childish. There’s plenty of room for interpretation here. Really? Like interpreting whether or not **CKDH was acting in his capacity as an administrator or as a posting member of the SDMB?** Or is that too hard to discern? > [@](#): > > I am saying “of all places” because MPSIMS is one of the last places you would expect people to bicker. IMHO, sure; everyone has an opinion. Same with GD, GQ (unfortunately), CS, and even the comments forums. Well, again, I don’t know, I don’t think the boundries between all the forums are so clear all the time. > [@](#): > > False. A moderator or administrator is always assumed to be representing the Reader unless they state differently specifically. (Admin hat on, off, etc.) Well, whatever. When **Gaudere** would debate religious views I didn’t suppose she was enumerating the official board stance on the topic. But I guess she was wrong for that, too, without first prefacing each post with “I am not acting in my capacity as…” no, wait. You just want her opinions to be kept to herself, isn’t that right? Tell me, at what point do you suppose a mod or admin would even bother to volunteer for this position if we removed what brought them to the SDMB in the first place? > [@](#): > > Ah, but they don’ t make that distinction here. Besides, that’s faulty logic. If they’re “behaving,” I should assume they’re a real person? Horsefeathers. They should behave themselves at all times or not be moderators or administrators. It’s their choice to be one. I don’t see Dex having broken any board rules. In fact, I think there’s a lot of people here who agree that what he didn’t wasn’t wrong in an SDMB sense. So that’s a matter of interpretation, too. > [@](#): > > You don’t think people should avoid making crass comments in a forum in which they’re forbidden? Okay. You think it is ok to load your question when I said this point was overstated? Okay. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/92 "2003-07-07T14:33:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > \*\*Not really. If this were a thread that discussed CPS and the problems one may have with them, then surely that information should have been included…\ > But that wasn’t the thread’s intention, and therefore the information was not needed. > \*\* Then do you agree that the dogpile on **Dex** was, maybe, unwarrented? After all, he just asked questions based on what was posted. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/93 "2003-07-07T14:37:27Z")
No, I don’t. Yes, he did ask questions based on what was posted (although I’m not so sure they were all questions, exactly). What I’m saying is that although the information was not needed for that thread, it **was** needed for him to come to the conclusions he came to. The thread didn’t have much to do with what made him so outraged. Persephone didn’t feel the need to provide the information because it wasn’t pertinent to her thread, which was, after all, a thank you. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/94 "2003-07-07T14:58:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > \*\*Not really. If this were a thread that discussed CPS and the problems one may have with them, then surely that information should have been included, and people would be rightfully upset if it were not included and they had posted assuming all information had been provided. > > But that wasn’t the thread’s intention, and therefore the information was not needed. > > (I’m speaking of the original thread, not the Pit thread.) \*\* **Dan** , i understand the point you’re trying to make here, but i still can’t really agree with you. Sure, **Persephone** ’s original thread was not designed to start a debate, but the fact is that the OP doesn’t always get to control the direction that a thread takes. It has always been thus on these boards, and probably always will be. Further, people often display rather visceral reactions on these boards, especially if something pushes one of their “hot buttons.” Anyone who’s spent more than five minutes here knows this. Given this fact, i confess that i don’t understand why **Persephone** chose to make her situation (at last partly) public by offering thanks on a message board. If the people she wanted to thank are people that she has become friendly with away from the boards, why not just send them emails rather than taking the whole issue into the public eye? Sure, posting in MPSIMS is generally designed to show that you just have something to share, and are not interested in a big debate. And if **CKDH** crossed the line anywhere, it **might** have been in his first post to that thread. But issues get taken from other forums to the Pit all the time, and if you don’t want to risk that happening to your issue, then don’t bring it to the Board at all. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/95 "2003-07-07T15:03:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **To clean up posts, for one thing 😉 Also, I hear some of them are here because they like being SDMB posters. Perhaps you recognize that characteristic?** They’re not moderators or admins so they can edit posts. In fact, they usually only do so if it’s really necessary. And they’re not mods or admins because they like to post. Thousands upon thousands of us are members who like to post, and yet we’re not admins or moderators. They’re here to keep the peace, **el**. > [@](#): > > Neither is the expression of personal opinion obviously a function of moderating. I don’t disagree with you. There is a distinction that should be made when a Power is posting as himself or herself and when he or she posts as a Power. There are two main ways to do this: Either disallow “emotional” postings by a Power or make sure said Power indicates quite clearly that they are posting as their own representative (or that they are posting as a Power, either/or). In fact, it might even be helpful if in the FAQ it was explained that when a Power posts as himself or herself that any response to that person by a Normal Member will invite no official retribution - except, of course, when said Member actually does something wrong. That might not have been clear - my fault. What I mean is that sometimes a person, especially a relatively new person might get the impression that responding to a moderator in this forum or even in GD might carry some kind of retribution. Now, I know this isn’t so - people do go out of their way to be evenhanded. I’m just saying that to the uninitiated, it might appear that such a debate is a stacked deck, and a clarification in the FAQ might help. > [@](#): > > Really? Like interpreting whether or not **CKDH was acting in his capacity as an administrator or as a posting member of the SDMB?** Or is that too hard to discern? Not sure. The OP was by Ed, not Dex. Anything Ed said in that regard would have been his interpretation. It wasn’t clear, either way. In fact, he mentioned the confusion himself. > [@](#): > > Well, again, I don’t know, I don’t think the boundries between all the forums are so clear all the time. > Well, whatever. When **Gaudere** would debate religious views I didn’t suppose she was enumerating the official board stance on the topic. But I guess she was wrong for that, too, without first prefacing each post with “I am not acting in my capacity as…” no, wait. You just want her opinions to be kept to herself, isn’t that right? Tell me, at what point do you suppose a mod or admin would even bother to volunteer for this position if we removed what brought them to the SDMB in the first place? If I said that no mod or admin should ever have an opinion, then I misstated my opinion on the issue. My feeling is that for the hottest issues - ones that can and do get very emotional on either side - and for actual fights in this forum, mods and admins should most certainly show restraint. I don’t think they signed up for the purpose of getting into pissing matches. It’s certainly not why I’m here. Are you suggesting, though, that the main reason they signed up as mods or admins was so they can get into fights and emotional battles? No, I know you’re not; you’re saying we shouldn’t restrict their ability to opine. I think we have to, but I’m certainly not advocating a complete gag order. I’m saying that the more combustible issues should be avoided from their standpoint to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. > [@](#): > > I don’t see Dex having broken any board rules. In fact, I think there’s a lot of people here who agree that what he didn’t wasn’t wrong in an SDMB sense. So that’s a matter of interpretation, too. Maybe, but Ed’s is the only interpretation that matters. He mentioned in the OP that > [@](#): > > I have admonished Dex for this and the mods and I have agreed on new rules meant to prevent a recurrence. You don’t admonish them if you feel they’ve broken no rules. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/96 "2003-07-07T15:03:47Z")
To restate the obvious: I think it could have been handled better. Dex had every right to react with surprise and dismay as he did. I thought he went out of his way to frame a supposed friend in the worst possible light, however. He stated Persephone was “partying with her friends in NY” which I think is a pretty flippant characterization of her trip. He some pretty speculative statements about her house, without ever having been in it. In short, he took his well-justified concern and slathered a lot of melodramatic language on it. It’s a recipe for a meltdown in a thread, and I have always hoped that old-timers and mods would avoid that sort of thing. I have a small stake in this, in that I was one of the people who aided Persephone. Some of you seem to believe that those of us who helped were reckless and unheeding of her kids’ well-being. Wrong. We were as concerned as Dex was. We elected to do what we could to help Persephone’s family meet CPS’s standards. We were working in her kids’ best interest. I do _not_ believe that we would have been more helpful if we had instead chosen to insult Persephone in a pit thread or turned our back on her family’s needs in disgust–yet some of you seem to think the less of us for it. I don’t get that. To characterize our assistance as a “group hug” that ignored the seriousness of the situation is unfair. It was _precisely_ the seriousness of this situation that motivated some of us to lend assistance of the monetary, emotional, or elbow-grease variety. I’ve met Cristi’s kids; I’ve been in her house; I know her family situation [in terms of who works to support the family and who is supposedly in charge of the kids and house during the day]; I rolled up my sleeves and helped her clean when that was needed. I think my judgment in this matter was sound. I don’t understand why it bothers some of you so much that Dopers acted charitably when it was needed. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/97 "2003-07-07T15:05:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by StarvingButStrong \* > How about turning administrivia bright green or something? Purple? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/98 "2003-07-07T15:10:00Z")
I don’t mean to be controversial, but did anyone think that Dex was acting as an “Administrator” in the pit thread? It seemed to me that he was expressing his own opinion. It sort of seems that this whole thing didn’t come up because he pitted someone, but because of who he pitted. If Persephone were a poster who not many people knew personally, and who didn’t go to dopefests, nobody would much care, it seems like. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/99 "2003-07-07T15:15:39Z")
**mhendo** , I can’t disagree with anything you say. Well, in this thread, anyway. 🙂 Yeah, the direction of the thread often veers from that which the OP intended. Sad but true. I’m just saying that the wishes and intent of the OP should be respected. And yeah, people react emotionally to those topics that affect them the most - that’s a human quality. I would suspect she made her situation public - on here, instead of in email - because she wanted to draw attention to those who had helped her. Unfortunately, she instead drew attention to her situation. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688/100 "2003-07-07T15:16:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Purple? \*\* No, that’s taken. Raisinbread or Raisinbran or whoever the heck it is posts in purple all the time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-persephone-and-dex/186688.md?page=6)