Damnit, that just made me spit lettuce on my monitor. You owe me a new monitor and a new salad.
:thumbs up:
If you don’t want people to comment on your dirty laundry, keep it in the fucking house.
First of all, I’d like to welcome myself back.
Welcome.
Second, I have to agree with the above quote.
Just because Dex has that Admin tag shouldn’t mean that he can’t feel a sense of outrage and pit someone over it. Persephone went so far as to say that he had a perfect right to do so. Should he have emailed Euty beforehand? I don’t see why. So he knew the both of them IRL. Big deal. He posted based on what was presented in the MSIMS thread and if there were not enough details to prevent that then it isn’t HIS fault.
A lot of you people have this huge chip on your shoulder because of what happened. Let me repeat (sort of) what I said in the thread prior to the one that got me banned…
You don’t KNOW all the details even at this date. You have NO idea of what shape the house was in. You have NO right to demand that an admin be brought to task for doing what happens here all the time.
There. I feel better now.
I kind of agree with Ed’s decision to not let Mod’s/Admin’s pit people. It would preclude this sort of crap from happening.
I still think that if Dex hadn’t started the pit thread, someone else would have.
X
-
welcome back, **Xploder[/x]
-
I agree with 95% of what you just said. The only point where we diverge is about the rule not allowing Mod’s/Admin’s to pit people. It doesn’t seem to me that it takes a lot of brains to know that when a person is posting as Dex did initially, it isn’t the official voice of the SDMB.
blanx
The moderator function is here to keep the peace. The moderators are here for more than just that purpose. They are first here as members of the SDMB community who later came to their position.
I won’t argue with this sentiment. I have seen this, at least, on other boards, where acting members who happen to be moderators give people the impression (unintentionally) that they are acting in that capacity.
No, you did not, but what I said was that it should be quite clear in almost all cases when a mod was being modly and when a mod was simply posting. I didn’t intend to frame you, but I think I may have. Sorry.
No, most dopers don’t. I doubt even the various Pitizens did. But that comes with being a member of the SDMB.
Yes, but the only thing that made this issue so combustible was the status of the parties involvedwhich, if you agree they shouldn’t matter, then you should agree shouldn’t be an issue at all.
Perhaps. But as Dex noted himself, he should have exercized a little more judgment in the matter. Perhaps this was the admonishment. Not interesting to me. Whether Dex made a factually correct judgment or not, I think he was in the right to do what he did, and I don’t think it should have impacted the boards the way it did. It didn’t get to where we are now becase Dex made a bad judgment call. If we accept the idea that this situation is screwed up, then the chain of culpability is larger than one man expressing his opinions.
Furthermore, I don’t think Dex was exactly alone in that opinion.
But, I no more suspect that Dex was acting in his administrative capacity than Euty was acting as a moderator in his response to the actual Pit thread.
I think we probably agree more than we disagree here, but the issue itself is polarizing us. Ah, well.
I think you are awesome for helping out. I am not at all bothered that you and others helped out. I think helping someone that needs help is admirable. In rare circumstances, I think that the way a person chooses to help can show poor judgement. Still, if intentions are good, I admire the willingness to do something to help someone in need.
I think that it is odd to not expect some disapproval of the situation described in her thank you post. Questions and images came to my mind that did not pertain to her thanks. Instead, I imagined a scenario that resembled what Dex described.
As a new poster here, there’s a couple of things I see in this thread that rub me the wrong way.
But Persephone is a popular poster! - So what! It’s possible to be a popular poster and still be a bad parent. Sorry, but I agree with C. K. D. H. When you leave for the week-end to go meet some online friends it’s a good idea to clean up your house enough that social services don’t have to come and remove your children while you’re gone. I guess Persephone is the wife or partner (or whatever) of another moderator here (Eutychus?) so it’s probably a stupid idea to flame the wife of a colleague, and why does the mother get all the blame when the husband gets off scot-free?
Secondly, does this mean that it’s OK to flame a poster without the background check as long as the poster isn’t popular? I guess I’ll have to get a higher post count to get fair treatment here?
C. K. D. H. should have e-mail first. Since when have people taken the trouble to send an e-mail to a poster before flaming him in the Pit? If that’s standard practice around here I sure haven’t noticed it. I agree with what other posters have said - if you post something on the board expect people to make a judgment on what you’ve posted on the board.
Moderators are supposed to be peacemakers. What about all the other people that showed up in C. K. D. H.'s Pit thread to insult him? Maybe they should have e-mailed him privately to explain the situation so he could retract Or maybe it’s more fun to stir up some shit in the Pit? That’s the pot calling the kettle black. Heck, even another moderator showed up in the pit thread to say “fuck you.” Understandable if that’s his wife, but by that reasoning the other moderator also showed poor judgment. He should catch some flak too.
Finally - techchick68, your shtick of “I’m going to be banned for speaking up my mind!” is getting pretty old. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but you already started a thread on it when you’d been told not to and you haven’t been banned for that. If anything you’re getting favoritism.
But if you’re going to keep on saying in every post “I am the defender of truth and justice, and I speak up even though I’ll be banned!” I would suggest the following - put it in your signature to save your delicate fingers.
And when you’re done flinging shit around trying to revive the fight, and you still haven’t been banned, maybe you can start your apology thread saying “I was paranoid for no reason?” :rolleyes:
cranky, while I think that it was wonderful that a group of dopers rallied around **Persephone **, I must confess that my initial reaction was very similar to Dex’s.
Although I’m loath to point fingers, it did strike me as,shall we say, more than a little disconcerting that her children were removed because her house was deemed too hazardous for them to occupy in it’s current condition.
Now, I’m never going to win the GoodHouskeeping Award of the week and I realize that there may be exigent circumstances but it still boggles my mind that an outside authority had to remove the children for their safety.
I’ve traveled extensively throughout the third world.
I’ve been in tiny Mayan houses that had dirt floors and no running water but the houses were clean and well maintained.
As my MIL says: “Just 'cause you’re poor, doesn’t mean you have to live in squalor.”
And with all due respect to Persephone, she did make the situation public
I agree with mhendo… I think that he/she hit the nail on the head… I think it is sad all the way around and I think if Dex was truly the good friend that the parties claim then he would have been aware of the situation before it was posted to the boards in the first place.
The one jarring note to me from the whole mess is that Dex seemed to want to browbeat his friends in public.
I don’t know any of the folks involved, but apparently Eutychus and Persephone are friends/in a relationship. And they apparently considered C K Dexter Haven a friend, as well. Dunno if that’s completely accurate, but that’s the impression I get.
I would like to think that if any of my friends had a problem with me or the way I lived my life, they’d talk to me individually instead of lambasting me in public. Were I to get drunk at a party, for example, and make a complete and utter fool of myself (not terribly difficult), I would hope that a friend would try to pull me aside and talk to me, rather than standing in the middle of the crowd and proclaiming loudly that I was a drunken fool and therefore worthy of scorn and disapprobation.
I’ve pitted strangers and their actions before. I’ve pitted my lovely and understanding wife. Hell, I’ve even pitted my own nose. But I’ve never, to my knowledge, pitted anyone or anything without first trying to get their side of the story, if it was possible. (My nose was singularly uncommunicative at the time.)
It’s the flying-off-the-handle-without-getting-info aspect of this whole sorry mess that bothers me. The fact that someone in a position of authority would do this is particularly troubling. (Insert your own George Bush joke here.)
Additional information is not always available when something provokes one’s ire. But in situations where information is available, or at least can be found with a minimum of effort, it’s usually best to get it before venting one’s spleen.
Right you are, but it’s not the reason they’re moderators, as opposed to we lowly serfs. The job position requires them to keep the peace. Their own interests including posting their little hearts out, not unlike the rest of us.
Oh, I don’t think so. The issue of child neglect is a very combustible issue, always has been. The fact that it’s someone who’s “known” here is supplementary, not primary.
My first reaction to reading about CPS was complete and utter shock-BUT, and I think Weirddave said the same thing-I decided to finish reading the whole thing to get the context.
I think the reason people were upset wasn’t about the Pitting, but about Pitting on a misunderstanding-the accusations spread-that she was declared unfit and her kids taken away-didn’t happen.
I keep thinking about the time I posted a near meltdown, right back in December. I then left and took some time off. Yet, even after I left, and said, “you guys are right,” there were STILL some people who felt the need to continue yelling at me.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we, as human beings, like drama. We know that we need to be more rational, but sometimes, people can’t resist a good juicy public tantrum, or fight, or whatever. Even after those involved say that it’s okay, and done with, people still feel the need to keep the flames fanned. And then, what happens is that the original appologies are dropped and we’re right back where we started.
Either way, my reaction now is one of real sadness. I just hope everything gets worked out now.
I think that, in this thread at least, you’re taking umbrage at something that isn’t even there.
No-one in this thread has criticized those who helped Persephone. In fact, in case your wounded self-righteousness needs further reassurance, let me say that i admire anyone who helps out someone in this situation. Of course it would have been silly of you to criticize her instead of helping; you did the right thing, and you should be proud of yourself.
But this thread has been largely about whether CKDH’s criticism was reasonable and within the guidelines of the SDMB. Unlike you, he had no opportunity to help out. His criticism came after the fact, in direct response not to the situation itself, but to a description on a message board. Just because he was critical does not mean that he would not have offered assistance had he been present at the time.
And i don’t agree that he “went out of his way to frame a supposed friend in the worst possible light.” He based his reaction on the story that Persephone posted, and if that didn’t contain all the information, that’s not his fault. As i suggested before, if you don’t want people complaining about your dirty laundry, don’t air it on a public message board.
And your “supposed friend” reference shows that you have simply chosen to ignore one of the key issues here–the problem of whether we should treat Dopers we know differently from Dopers we don’t while on these message boards. Should CKDH refrain from criticizing anyone that he’s met at a Dopefest and had a few beers with? Or does it preserve the interests of open discourse better if he calls it as he sees it, no matter who the person happens to be?
glad to see you back xpoder. Cranky - people are giving you shit for helping??? geeze.
I have met: xploder, Cranky, Persephone, have had no contact w/Euty or Dex.
Succinctly:
a. I think Cranky acted admirably. I’ve met the children involved, and believe that Cranky et al’s actions to render the home suitable per CPS was the best thing to do for them.
b. I’m glad that xploder has been allowed back.
c. I understand **Euty’s/Persphone’s ** position of ‘gee we’d have thought you’d give us the benefit of doubt and asked first’, but xploder’s correct in that some one would have started the thread, and I think the results would have been pretty much the same. I understand (I think) **Persphone’s ** motivation in starting the original thread, but hindsite being 20/20, it would have been better to either post all pertinent details (which I frankly wouldn’t have recommended) or none and merely left it with “I had a personal crisis and several folks went out of their way to help out”.
d. I’m glad that things are getting in hand for Persephone, I’m sure this has been an ordeal of mammouth proportions for all concerned.
e. Always the eternal optomist, I hope people can learn from their (and others) errors and go forth and be happy creatures from here out.
You are wiser than I could pretend to be, wring.
There are two answers to that, and it all depends on who is answering.
- If the poster being attacked is popular.
or
- If the poster being attacked is a friend.
Who you ask, is how they will answer the question.
As far a policy goes, I’m sorry to see that the Mods and Admins have lost a chunk of their ability to say what they feel. They may have signed up for the position, but I’m concerned that they no longer have the ability to Pit somebody. Tis’ a shame, because some of the best, most caustic, and downright funniest posts are from the mods. It’s a loss.
In parlimentary situations, if the Speaker or some other officer of the parliment wishes to express their opinion or position on a debate, he or she can step down into the well and be recognized not as “Ms. Speaker” but as “Senator X” and express their opinion without the weight of their titles. While I do believe Ed Zotti handled this situation well, and I willingly defer to his and the other administrators and moderators judgement, as a member of this community I believe that a system similar to the one I described above should be adopted to allow admins and mods to express their opinions without the weight of the their “offices” behind them. Perhaps even prefacing the posts with a simple “Moderator hat off” would be enough.
Other than that, I have no dog in this fight and do not have an opinion as to who was in the right and who was in the wrong.
I’m posting this at the request of Eutychus. One of the points I raised with the mods in our recent discussion of this controversy was that I wanted intermod disputes on administrative matters to remain private. Obviously this was a special case, but the parties have now had their say, and the no-airing-dirty-laundry-by-mods rule is now in effect. Euty has accepted this but asked me to state the policy publicly lest his silence be misinterpreted. This I have now done.
It’s a joke, Ethilrist.
Aw man! That was the only aspect of this entire fiasco I was interested in watching develop.
Such is life. 
Happy