Not a valid analogy. If the guy stole your car in such a way that you can identify him, you are both victim and witness.
TD was dealing with much less information about the offense than the stolen-car victim above. She was neither victim no witness.
Fine: if I shouted it while pointing at some dude walking down the street, I still wouldn’t be acting as a vigilante. Without some sort of call to action, it’s not vigilantism. And you can use that guideline to come up with your own analogy.
Daniel
Let me see…nope you’re not an admin. So you don’t know the technicalities of this particular forum, or what TD’s work has been.
I was a volunteer sysadmin for a Unix cluster in college, and it’s definitely true that the volunteers would specialize and hand off tasks to the person who specialized in that particular niche issue. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were the same here.
But if someone crosses the line that TD crossed, you have to eject her, even if it means more work for the rest of the admins.
See, to me, this kind of statement is out-of-bounds for this discussion.
There’s a lack of focus on Tuba’s actions subsequent to receiving the e-mail accusation, and how they reflect on her general ability to (a) fairly administer the board, and (b) both enforce and follow the spirit of SDMB policy.
The appropriate analogy, since apparently you need one, would be a stranger comes up to you on the street, points at a car and says “that’s my stolen car driving away”. You take a picture of the person in the car and make posters in the city that that person is a car thief.
The person driving the car may in fact be legally driving his own car, even if he was convicted of car theft in the past, that’s poor form to accuse the person in the car of stealing a car at that point in time. Because you don’t know for sure.
On the contrary, there’s been an effort to distract from the conduct to which TubaDiva was responding. She did not act in a vacuum; she was reacting to the alleged misdeeds of the registered sex offender.
I shall not subscribe to your proposed boundary for our discussion. I believe TubaDiva’s motives are entirely relevant.
The fact she would act on such motives without consideration for legal concerns, the regulations of the board she was posting on, or of the board she was posting as an official representative of are entirely relevant to why she is not suitable to remain in her position.
Her motives are unimpeachable. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still doing the wrong thing, though.
[slight hijack]
Thanks to everyone for keeping this thread pretty much civil, despite the forum in which it resides.
[/slight hijack]
With the provisos that you put up the posters only in the neighborhood where the alleged incident took place, that you take only a couple of minutes to put up such posters, that putting up posters is the default method of communication in this neighborhood, and that the person in the car has a rap sheet of stealing cars, I’ll take your analogy, and see nothing wrong with it.
Daniel
Livejournal is not the “neighborhood” in which this alleged offense took place, nor is Livejournal the default method of official communication from the Administration of the SDMB to its members.
What legal concerns? What law has she violated? None.
TD has received punishment commensurate with her perceived transgression. (I’m still not convinced there has been an actual transgression of any sort.)
Fair enough: the posters got put up in the dude’s own neighborhood, beside and in response to his own posters that protested his expulsion from Tuba’s neighborhood. I still got no problem with it.
Daniel
Sounds good, I did forget that the driver had his driving privileges taken away without warning and was escorted out of the city.
True, since this neighborhood has vested limited law enforcement powers in Tuba–and also the driver put a license plate on his car with his first and last names on it, making the posters much easier to create.
Can we put this analogy to bed yet?
Daniel
The legalities with regard to use of the Megan’s Law information are still not entirely clear. Given that fact, the fact that after the incident, several threads were removed, and that we were asked for ‘legal reasons’ not to repeat the information in them, I’d say that there were ‘legal concerns’, wouldn’t you, regardless of whether, in the end, you consider that any laws were actually broken?
You’re a nice piece of work. Way to make your case. Asshole.
Avenger, you do understand that anyone can threaten litigation? That anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit? Regardless of whether the facts and the law support it?
The extra precuations undertaken by the administration in this matter (with the benefit of hindsight) are in no way indicative that the registered sex offender has any valid basis for complaint.
That wouldn’t work because then we’d know the car wasn’t stolen. I think your camera would have to have face recognition technology that was able to search through the DMV’s pictures and verify the identity with a 100% accuracy rate. Then it’s to bed with the analogy.
Do you understand what the phrase ‘legal concerns’ means?