Post your devastating evidence, then.
Doesn’t mean there are no ethical considerations to the job, or that what ethical considerations there are may be taken more lightly. Here’s an intresting post The Gaspode made in another thread (responding to Polycarp):
Both what ways? I just don’t see how it’s extremely unprofessional. (FWIW, if you’d said “even slightly unprofessional,” I would’ve agreed).
That’s not how it read to me.
Sorry, but they didn’t. You have the choice to quit coming here: Lord knows you’ve more than gotten your $4.95 worth. If you don’t like it, your choices for how to respond are almost exactly what they were when the service was free. The difference is that if you decide to stay, you pay a nominal fee.
You’re not buying their servitude for that fee: you’re buying exactly the service that you were getting for free before.
If that’s not worth the cost to you, you can try to convince them to change the service; but if they don’t, they’ve not committed any wrong. You should just exercise your right not to purchase the service.
Daniel
Well, they’ve got you here to defend her, Hamlet. 
And could you point out the apology? I don’t consider “I regret…” to be much of an apology. YMMV, of course.
You’re right, it doesn’t mean that. It also doesn’t mean that she’s not allowed to eat an omelette for breakfast.
Since I don’t think she did act unethically, neither point is relevant to me.
Daniel
negative. it will NOT be posted here. I like this thread being open.
From the slings and arrows of outrageous misinformation :). Not hardly a tough job.
Daniel
Maybe you were only aiming that comment at the more strident of your debate opponents. But surely you don’t think that the only way someone could be disagreeing with you here is through being misinformed?
Well, Guin the Chicago Reader has to handle the SDMB mods/admin carefully. Not every for profit company has a volunteer staff, it’s a rare jewel to be treasured.
Like I said somewhere about this - it’s too late for now. The staff is going to have to hang tough with this decision for the time being. Maybe they’ll encourage Tuba to step down in a month or so. Try and aim it before the bulk of renewals. That way you still get all the people renewing early to support Tuba and still catch the outraged crowd.
Anyway, I’m told dozens of sex predator worries have been banned over the last year. Tuba didn’t go around outing all them, so I guess she had some kind of decision process she went through. Ah, mysteries.
Left Hand of Dorkness, by “both ways” I mean she can’t claim, “Well, it wasn’t unprofessional because I don’t get PAID to do this-it’s just an internet message board!” while at the same time using her work here on her resume as an example of her experience.
And yes, it did indeed change when things went pay. It’s no longer, “Our sandbox, our rules, too bad, so sad, put up or shut up, blah blah blah.” Since we are paying to post here, I expect some semblance of professionalism, and for accountability from the staff. We’re not seeing that.
Yes, I do indeed have a choice to come here or not, and to pay or not pay. But I paid with the expectation of professionalism on part of the staff. For them to treat us with respect, and not give us any bullshit. If this is how they treat paying customers, then that’s pretty damned shitty.
I’m always leery of people who believe that an apology isn’t sincere enough for them when they have no stake in the matter. It comes down to certain posters don’t think she was punished enough. I got that point a month ago, no real need to make it for the 4,532nd time. Especially when you know they can’t respond.
Rant, Rinse, Repeat ad nauseum.
Nah. I think they’re as pissed at me for not letting this damnable thread die down, but in my defense, I did wait 7 pages.
TD was apologizing to the board at large. As such, any member has a legitimate opinion on the apology.
It’s not about the punishment. It’s about removing her from a position of authority so the abuse of her privileges will be lessened.
If it were up to me, TD would not have been suspended, nor banned, but immediately stripped of her administrative title.
Why? Has TubaDiva demonstrated herself to be a threat to the privacy of anyone other than sex offenders trolling the Straight Dope for new victims?
Frankly, if all the pedophiles who might be patrolling the Straight Dope become so fearful for their precious “privacy” that they let their subscriptions lapse, I won’t shed one. fucking. tear. And I will thank TubaDiva for the valuable service she has performed.
ALLEGED pedophiles! Hasn’t it occurred to you that someone might be falsely accused? Just going by some of the snark journal threads, I’ve seen more than a few Dopers accused of being kiddy diddlers. She also let the guy know that his alleged victim had reported him, puting said victim in danger. Are you really that fucking stupid?
:rolleyes:
Again, I am not so much saying she’ll break the privacy policy specifically, but that she will behave unprofessionally and let her emotions cloud her judgement. This wasn’t the first time she did such a thing. (Her comments in the vanilla banning, getting a parting shot in when the banned couldn’t respond then locking the thread; her shutting down TMI threads because it looked bad on her resume; the magic tricks fiasco, and the charity threads for members even when it was explained why it was a bad idea.)
Jesus
She certainly has. She’s demonstrated herself to be a threat to the privacy of anyone being accused of doing that. A small but immensely important distinction.
Clearly she CAN claim that if she wants to. It’s your choice not to find such a claim satisfying (if she makes it); I would certainly be satisfied by such a claim, and am actually having trouble figuring out what would be wrong with it.
Your expectation of professionalism is irrelevant. Maybe I expect that once I’m paying for membership, they’ll send me chocolate on my birthday. That’d be equally irrelevant.
The only bearing your expectations have on the board is that now, you may express your dissatisfaction with the thwarting of your expectations by withholding membership fees from them. That is, I repeat, the only bearing.
A story:
Theresa is the manager of a coffeeshop and music club, where people of all ages come to drink coffee, eat muffins, talk, and listen to folk music. She enjoys her job.
One day, a guy comes in that she recognizes as a convicted sex offender. She’s not sure what to do about it: she’s considering kicking him out, but doesn’t, because he’s not done anything in there.
And then one of the kids who visits the coffeeshop regularly comes up to her and tells her that this guy had cornered her in a back room and tried to put his hand up her shirt.
Theresa loses it. She physically hauls the guy out of the coffeeshop in front of all the other patrons and yells at him that she never wants to see his face again, and that if he ever tries something like that in her town again, he’s a dead man.
Somebody asks me what I think about Theresa.
Were her actions professional? Not really. A cafe manager shouldn’t scream at a paying customer, no matter what.
Were her actions extremely unprofessional? Not really. It’s not like she just up and started screaming at some poor schmuck who asked for a third cup of coffee.
Were her actions illegal? Probably not: the only threat she made was contingent on the “victim” committing illegal actoin, and my understanding is that such a threat is not illegal. (For the purposes of this analogy, let’s presume that attorneys have backed up this understanding).
Should she be fired? Definitely not. The owners should commend her for keeping the cafe a safe place, although they may want to chastize her for making a scene.
Were her actions unethical? No. She believed, with good cause, that she was protecting someone from a vicious crime. If she acted in a rash manner, it was for understandable reasons.
For me, the two stories are relevant in all important ways, with the only important difference being the alleged crimes committed by Tuba and Theresa. I fault neither of them for their actions.
Daniel
No. She’s demonstrated herself to be a tiny threat to the privacy of anyone being credibly accused of doing that. Two more small but important distinctions.
I guarantee you that if someone accuses me of being a child molestor, things will turn out differently. And the only thing stopping me from double-dog-daring you to try is that doing so would be jerkish.
Daniel
On what basis do you base “credibly.” So far as I can tell, SM has yet to suffer any legal repercussions, which would suggest TD’s statements were premature. And the point still stands that she should not have publically disclosed that information, regardless of TD’s perceived validity of said statement.
Unless you are a Sock of TD… you have absolutely no way of knowing that the accucsation in question was in any way credible. That is of course, assuming TD didn’t email you all the pertainant information. Given her history of handing out privliged information, i’ll grant that this is a distinct possibility.