I did not speak of ethical matters so much as a pattern of behavior I find unacceptable from someone selling me a product. And it is not true that I find someone sycophantic merely because they hold a different opinion than mine. Your casual dismissal of administrative concerns expressed in this thread regardless of the ethical matter bothers me. Post 325: “I accept that what she did was a serious violation of policy, because the folks that make the policy say that. I accept that it wasn’t a serious enough violation of policy to justify removing her as an admin, because the folks that make the policy say that.” We can all read what they said.
The question, of course, is whether you can read the very next paragraph:
“I just don’t think it’s an ethical breach.”
So apparently I’m a sycophant because I consider something a matter of ethics whereas you’re considering it as a matter of policy?
I have never dismissed something “regardless of the ethical matter.” I have ceded administrative judgments to the administration, and made my own ethical judgment. Are you really that hung up on words?
Once more: if you think the administration made a poor policy decision, that’s fine. The only point I was making was that I don’t give a shit about the policy end of things: it’s the ethics end of things that concerns me.
(What sort of Discordian are you, by the way, that you’re so obsessed with policy?)
Tom, I was under the impression that flippant accusations of pedophilia had been declared a bridge too far for these boards awhile ago; thus my surprise when blue’s flippant accusations of pedophilia went unchallenged. Were I admin of the board, that kind of accusation would be strictly verboten–which I’m sure is just flabbergasting.
Nonsense. There’s plenty of behavior that you can’t engage in on-the-job that you can engage in off-the-job. THat’s not a technicality; that’s the nature of modern work. (Which is why it was unwise to attach the sigline to her post).
Err…what? Their policy against being a jerk doesn’t mention particular forums either, but I hardly think you’ll get banned if you flip off a slow driver on your way home from work. Their privacy policy, by virtue of being on the boards, may be assumed to apply to the boards, just like all their other policies.
If you stipulate for a moment that Tuba was NOT deliberately breaking the rules–that she believed she was acting outside of her work environment and therefore not bound by those work rules*–how would that change your attitude?
Daniel
- I know that she was bound by LJ’s rules, and probably violated them, but I don’t think anyone’s claiming THAT rulebreaking was deliberate.
And as has been said before, that pretty much defeats the purpose of a privacy policy. Sure, she might have believed it, but that would have me questioning her mental capacity more than anything. A privacy policy so toothless as to prevent moderators and admins to post private information discovered during the course of their duties elsewhere on the internet effectively amounts to not having a privacy policy at all.
The perfect resolution would be for Tuba to resign as moderator. That would put an end to the controversy. Lynn might want to resign as well. Her decisions are also often arbitrary and irrational. It would be a much better board without these two individuals having administrative powers.
I think tomndebb would be an excellent replacement for Tuba. I’m not sure who should replace Lynn. Maybe some of you have some ideas of who would be better suited for her current duties.
It would be excellent if the paying Straight Dope members could vote on the appointments. I believe that democracy is the best form of government, even when applied to message boards.
Actually, I could. I don’t really recall going to great lengths to discuss the ethical matter in the post that started this whole thing off. My concern was with the overall behavior of the Reader, et al, over time. I feel this is one event in a longer line of events of dubious merit.
No. I am not especially concerned with the ethical matter except as it pertains to ‘policy’, which in the context of my earlier post would indicate “a history of executive decisions” rather than “one post by Ed about Tubadiva.” You don’t think Tuba did anything wrong. I got it. Not sure why you think that way, not sure what you think specifically should limit someone with access to information purely because of her position with respect to public disclosure, and it would take a different forum and a different thread for me to probe into the topic. Which may be cathartic for you since you seem eager to get it off your chest.
What bothers is me about your position is that whatever the board decided was A-OK. I don’t believe it would surprise you to know that a person with over 11,000 posts, half of them in GD, can tolerate a little disagreement over ethical interpretations. I should hardly think less of you for disagreeing; in fact, I quite prefer those that disagree with me over those that don’t: ignorance is a condition of learning, and one cannot learn from those one agrees with, one way or another. But administrative decisions affect the very context in which we have our discussions about ethics, or the administration itself, and so on.
I can’t believe you’re asking me that with all the emphasis you’ve placed on the expression of your position.
And yet you suggest that my earlier paraphrase of your position was inaccurate. How many times do you have to tell me how little regard you have for policy before I am allowed to say it?
I didn’t suggest the Reader should stop doing what it is doing; I opted out. So I guess: the only kind there is.
I said what I had to say, and I had hoped to be done with this. But it has been bothering me, so here I am again.
The thing is, the only way that this could be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction is for TubaDiva to lay out exactly what happened, from start to finish. And normally, that might be possible and a good way for everyone to have all the facts that could allow them to make a decision about what they think about what happened. Perhaps it wouldn’t change some of your minds, but I DO think it WOULD change most of your minds.
BUT…and this is a big BUT…it is not possible because it wouldn’t be the right thing to do for the child who was involved in this.
I was involved in a peripheral way in this situation, and all I can do is to say that I have more of the actual facts than you have, and although I agree that TubaDiva shouldn’t have posted what she did on Live Journal, I DO understand the reasons she snapped and did it. I have said that if I had followed the same path she did I might have snapped and done the same thing, and that is true. IF I had tried to deal with law enforcement for as long as she did and been told repeatedly that due to issues that had nothing to do with the validity of the actual infraction (and that are part of what she, nor I, can explain publicly due to the privacy of the child involved) I might have lost my temper completely from total frustration and posted what she did in LJ. Probably not, perhaps because she and I react differently to things…perhaps because I am more of coward than she is. I don’t honestly know. I understand why she lost her temper and posted that link. I honestly think most of you would understand too, if you had information neither she nor I would be ethical in posting.
When catsix posted the following, she had a valid point.
There is really no reason for anyone to take my word, or Jenny’s, for anything. I guess that the only thing you have to go by is Jenny’s posting and participation on this board, and mine. I understand that you all have your own opinion on both, and accept that both of us have to stand or fall, in your estimation, on our history here.
Whether you choose to believe me or not, there are a whole lot of things that it would be unethical for me to reveal that would make you a whole lot more forgiving of Jenny’s action. I’m not saying she should have posted what she did on LJ. I’m just saying it should be forgiven. It is extremely frustrating to not be able to offer proof, but since proving it would be more wrong than Jenny’s action on LJ, that is all I have to offer.
I know that what I have said here is going to tick some of you off. But do you really think that the whole story should be laid out here, to the detriment of the privacy of the child involved, just so the members of the SDMB can be satisfied that everything was done/decisions were made correctly/ FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE SDMB? I, personally, don’t.
Thanks for at least listening.
Nothing personal, but … Bawahahahaha The inmates are gonna vote for who will be a guard… he he he
And for those that are going to vote with thier feet… Why such a flurry of posting before you go?
Scotticher,
You’ve basically just said that TubaDiva went vigilante after she failed to achieve a satisfying result through the proper channels.
Is it possible for you to list some of the reasons the police gave for refusing to get involved?
Well, I think there are a lot of members who would be more suitable administrators than Tuba or Lynn. And yeah, I think after the umpteenth bone headed, arbitrary decision with an absolute refusal to back down, the members should have a voice in having administrators removed.
A privacy policy means that they do not release data. Not that they don’t release it here but release it other places. Specifically, it says
I see no loophole.
They say they won’t reveal personal info without consent.
Doesn’t say they’ll reveal personal information to anybody they choose in any manner they choose, as long as it’s not on the SDMB, in which case they have to ask permission.
Simply says they won’t do it without consent. The medium of communication is irrelevant.
It would shift it slightly, but I would still view it as a significant error in judgement which would require correction in order to maintain any administrative status.
If her opinion of the privacy policy was such that she could break it as long as she didn’t do so here, she should not have been allowed access to any personal data. Heck, just in the short bit of temping I’ve done in various offices I understand the importance of confidentiality and privacy regarding personal information.
The interpretations seem to me to be either a significant error in judgement or a deliberate effort to break the rules couples with massivly poor judgement. The former could be dealt with, the latter should result in the removal of administrative powers. IMHO, of course.
coupled
Damnit.
The tale of Terry Schiavo and the fucking tuba needs a rest. pun intended.
:rolleyes: Still seems to me that the wrong done privacy of the minor, and the sufficient recognition of her own mistake could both be quite satisfied by Tuba’s resignation of her admin/mod position.
You’re saying that we should accept your claim of ‘the end justifies the means’ when you also say that you can’t justify that claim?
Honestly, given even that all you say is true, it’s a large enough breach of privacy IN RESPECT TO THE MINOR (not the sex offender) that she should no longer be allowed to remain in an administrator position.
It is clear that Tubadiva has been extremely upset and is very sorry over this whole issue.
The reason I think she should resign at least temporarily is not for our sake - or any self-righteous outpourings of indignancy over her admitted mistake - but for her sake. Anyone that can become so deeply involved in a community like this (online or otherwise) to make such a mistake in the first place and act so irrationally has got serious emotional problems.
The fact she cannot even bring herself to take at least a self-imposed sabbatical increases the sense of obsessive behaviour and emotional fragility.
I feel really, really sorry for Tubadiva. I think right now she feels that she desperately needs this board - it is some sort of crutch to her - when taking a voluntary break from an administrative capacitity, and possibly a participartory one too, strikes me as being a far healthier choice.
I also think it is irresponsible of SDMB mangagement not to make that decision for her, both as friends, colleagues and bosses. I recognise that any mod or admin makes an enormous voluntary contribution to these boards, and that is can often be very difficult to keep your emotions detached in any paid or voluntary job. But when the emotions run this high, it is time to at least take a step back, and possibly seek professional help.
My apologies for not posting something sooner. Just a few comments.
First, to repeat what I said a month ago, TubaDiva’s posting of an SDMB user’s personal information in another venue was a serious breach of our privacy policy, in no way justified by whatever heinous offenses may or may not have been committed by the target of her wrath. I am sure she would be the first to admit this.
Second, while administration of the SDMB is generally collegial, the personnel decisions are mine alone. I am the one who decided to suspend TubaDiva for 30 days. If you are unhappy with that decision, you should not be upset with the volunteer SDMB staff or Reader management, but with me.
Third, the minimal response offered by SDMB staff in this thread should not be interpreted to mean we aren’t listening, don’t care, etc. It’s just that I’ve told the staff that when major controversies like this arise, the official response is to come from me. Unfortunately, due to the press of business I was not in a position to postpone, I’ve been essentially incommunicado since Wednesday. I did spend a couple hours reading the thread early Friday morning, but did not have time to compose a response. Be assured, however, that the matter has been much on my mind.
Now to the issue at hand. Why didn’t I fire TubaDiva? As longtime posters know, I removed two previous moderators, seemingly for lesser offenses. In the first case two mods got into a public argument on the board. When I told them to stop, one said OK; the other continued the argument in a long letter to me. I fired the one who kept arguing. The second case was more complicated, but at a certain level it boiled down to the same situation - two mods arguing in public. (There was more to it, but I ask everyone to refrain from rehashing the details.) I told them to stop; one did, the other took up the argument with me. Once again I fired the one who kept arguing - who was, I might say, a good guy whom I continue to hold in high regard. He had his reasons for doing what he did, but the long and short of it was, he wouldn’t take direction.
Anybody who has been in a similar position will know what I mean when I say that. When someone working for you will no longer do what you tell them, you don’t have much choice but to let them go. Sometimes people on staff do, how shall I say, inadvisable things. If they stop doing them when you ask them to, there’s still hope. If they won’t, there’s been an irreparable breach.
On the Monday morning a month ago when Jenny told me what had happened, I freaked. We had a lengthy online conversation in which I told her that what she had done had been a really bad idea. In general she didn’t argue, but took issue with certain details. My reply contained many capital letters and explanation points. Her response, if I may summarize it, was: Oh man, I’m sorry, I lost my temper, I screwed up bad, I promise I’ll never do it again. She seemed genuinely contrite. Had she been defiant I would have fired her. As it was, well, I gave the situation a lot of thought.
You may say: So what she was sorry? Anybody who did something like that in real life would get fired. Maybe. However, there were other considerations. The first, and I may as well be frank about this, is that Tuba is pivotal to the operation of the SDMB and the SD website generally. I pay her a modest stipend; in return she takes care of a long list of tasks that would eat up all my time if I tried to do them myself. (I know this because I used to do them myself, and they ate up all my time.) Many of them involve what amounts to SDMB customer service. They are not the sort of thing you can delegate to a volunteer; hiring someone off the street to do them would be prohibitively expensive.
The preceding may make it sound like my decision was strictly a matter of dollars and cents. That’s not the case. Tuba has been involved with the SDMB since the beginning - close to ten years. In that time she has shown herself to be reliable, loyal, and resourceful. The board is far more than a job to her. She has gone above and beyond the call countless times. I owe her a great debt; I can’t imagine how I would keep the place going without her.
A less important but still pertinent consideration was that Tuba’s offense, looked at purely from a practical standpoint, didn’t amount to much. The guy had made no secret of who he was. He posted on the board that he was a registered sex offender; his name was contained in his e-mail address, which he had posted publicly; his address, photo, etc., were all publicly available online. It’s true Tuba knew about a matter involving an underage user, which she unwisely alluded to when outing the fellow in LiveJournal; but the chances of repercussions were close to nil. All the relevant parties had been apprised of the situation. The underage user hadn’t revealed identifying info.
Looking forward, I thought the likelihood of another violation of the privacy policy was low. I felt Tuba had learned her lesson. This was a highly unusual case; as I’ve said before, we know little about most SDMB users beyond what they post online. Credit card info is maintained in a separate location by a separate staff; neither I, Tuba, nor any other SDMB members have access to it. Don’t misunderstand; none of this justified what Tuba had done, but I felt it was a mitigating factor in terms of punishment.
So I decided to suspend Tuba instead of firing her. Some may think this was a slap on the wrist; on the contrary, I venture to say it has been one of the more excruciating experiences of her life. At the same time, I set about formalizing the relationship between the Reader and the SDMB staff. I’m still tweaking the agreement, but basically it’s a long list of dos and don’ts. I made it clear to TubaDiva that any further violation would be the end. I also revised our privacy policy to add a few nuances and will post it in a day or two. I ran all this past Reader management and they concurred with what I had done.
I’m sure some will continue to feel Tuba’s punishment was unsufficient and that I was acting out of expediency. No doubt some will choose not to renew their SDMB subscriptions. I regret that, but nonetheless feel the decision I made was reasonable under the circumstances.
Thank you for your response, Ed. I know all you Powers-That-Be have a pretty tough job, Cecil’s comments notwithstanding.
It’s good to know you guys are approaching this seriously, and IMO it sounds like you did the right thing, and gave it a good deal of thought in the process.
On re-read, the Cecil’s comments comment was meant to refer to his habit of disparaging ‘Little Ed’ in general, and have no bearing on the situation at hand.
My apologies for being unclear…
I think this is quite clear to many of us. The endless braying for more “punishment” is both hostile and unhelpful.
But it is because of this:
and this:
that I think a voluntary sabbatical would have been better for her mental and emotional health.
However after your post I can see that from a practical point of view you are obviously in need of her continued services - in many “off-board” capacities we probably aren’t aware of - which to some extent explains why you perhaps haven’t encouraged her to take a somewhat longer board holiday.
Thank you.
Ed, it looks as though even if TubaDiva handles most of the ‘annoying’ things for you (explains people’s comments about “her resume” that I never got), you all still managed a full month without her.
The other day I was in a conversation about network security with some companions and a bit of a largish loophole in our puportedly ‘secure’ layout that would allow rogue Administrators (of business networks, not fer-pay message boards) to basically do what they want, when they want, how they want, by means of a crude work around and counting on user ignorance.
One of the ideas to minimize the exposure was to limit certain functions to two administrators - if only two could do it, only two could be suspect (in theory, barring exploitation of one of their credential sets). However, one or the other could also use their ‘power’ to hold the entire network hostage.
I don’t see the difference - sounds like she ownz this place if you can’t run it without her. I know good help is hard to find - though it sounds as though her … responsibilites might be better served by a team or rotation by the other Admins (are there others?) so such a … crisis of personality doesn’t arise with anyone.
Your management style scares me a bit, though, aside from the actions of the last few months - I’ve not met many sucessful managers who have handled their team the way you laid out in your last post. If you’re the first, I’ll be surprised, frankly.
Good luck with what’s left of the SDMB community. You all need a hell of a lot of it.