Calandale's turn in the spotlight

[Calandale]

Did you recently rape a penguin?  Are you trying to win an award for who can rape the most different species of animals on the planet?

No. And no.

[Callaway]

My memory is completely off base on this one then.
I don't remember arguing that the WC should have dealt
with it, BUT I am certain that I've put a number of complaints
up about it being private - I presumed that they were in that
thread. Certainly, once the WC was dissolved, there was no
need to deal with the mere membership - as things were
fully in the hands of Dunc and his Jolly crew.

I was also wrong about none of us pulling a prank on someone
who would mind.  But, I didn't think that my prank was
at all abusive. I really thought everyone would take it in very
good humor.

As to a 'slant' I don't see it. IF discussion is going to be squelched
through ridicule, it seems just as fair to use hyperbole. My arguments
were ridiculed before I was upset enough at what I saw - indeed, that
was a good part of what has caused my stance. Arguing points calmly
didn't work, and wasn't much fun, when all I'd get was a big yawn. At
least this isn't so one sided.

I don't know what you are talking about, Calandale.  Your arguments in the admin forum about this issue were never ridiculed or yawned at.  

Nobody else agreed with your opinion that admins who pranked people on this list should be de-adminned, but everyone who posted agreed that the list needed to be made public.

I disagree with your idea about moving the whole thread here, since I think that even with names redacted, it will violate the privacy of some of our members.

[Calandale]

My memory is completely off base on this one then.
I don't remember arguing that the WC should have dealt
with it, BUT I am certain that I've put a number of complaints
up about it being private - I presumed that they were in that
thread. Certainly, once the WC was dissolved, there was no
need to deal with the mere membership - as things were
fully in the hands of Dunc and his Jolly crew.

I was also wrong about none of us pulling a prank on someone
who would mind.  But, I didn't think that my prank was
at all abusive. I really thought everyone would take it in very
good humor.

As to a 'slant' I don't see it. IF discussion is going to be squelched
through ridicule, it seems just as fair to use hyperbole. My arguments
were ridiculed before I was upset enough at what I saw - indeed, that
was a good part of what has caused my stance. Arguing points calmly
didn't work, and wasn't much fun, when all I'd get was a big yawn. At
least this isn't so one sided.

I don't know what you are talking about, Calandale.  Your arguments in the admin forum about this issue were never ridiculed or yawned at. 

I'm talking about in the WC, and now again in
public. In some cases BY staff members.

I disagree with your idea about moving the whole thread here, since I think that even with names redacted, it will violate the privacy of some of our members.

Only those who posted there. Who could give agreement.
I think that is current staff, and one previous member.

[Christopher McCandless]

My memory is completely off base on this one then.
I don't remember arguing that the WC should have dealt
with it, BUT I am certain that I've put a number of complaints
up about it being private - I presumed that they were in that
thread. Certainly, once the WC was dissolved, there was no
need to deal with the mere membership - as things were
fully in the hands of Dunc and his Jolly crew.

I was also wrong about none of us pulling a prank on someone
who would mind.  But, I didn't think that my prank was
at all abusive. I really thought everyone would take it in very
good humor.

As to a 'slant' I don't see it. IF discussion is going to be squelched
through ridicule, it seems just as fair to use hyperbole. My arguments
were ridiculed before I was upset enough at what I saw - indeed, that
was a good part of what has caused my stance. Arguing points calmly
didn't work, and wasn't much fun, when all I'd get was a big yawn. At
least this isn't so one sided.

I don't know what you are talking about, Calandale.  Your arguments in the admin forum about this issue were never ridiculed or yawned at. 

Nobody else agreed with your opinion that admins who pranked people on this list should be de-adminned, but everyone who posted agreed that the list needed to be made public.

I disagree with your idea about moving the whole thread here, since I think that even with names redacted, it will violate the privacy of some of our members.

Oh of course some members would not want people here knowing that THEY STILL WET THEIR NAPPIES. Whoops, its out there.

[purposefulinsanity]

Callaway- you still haven't answered the questions I've been asking all along- why was it not announced as soon as it was decided to create the secret list (or after Cal pointed out that it should be)?  And why wasn't it put to a vote before it was created since some members had raised objections to its existence - why did the staff decide to go ahead with it anyway without allowing members to vote on it? That's what I've been objecting to.

[Lucifer]

Callaway- you still haven't answered the questions I've been asking all along- why was it not announced as soon as it was decided to create the secret list (or after Cal pointed out that it should be)?  And why wasn't it put to a vote before it was created since some members had raised objections to its existence - why did the staff decide to go ahead with it anyway without allowing members to vote on it? That's what I've been objecting to.

tried to keep out of this, but i can't any more, because it's turned into yet another drama.

PI, the circumstances at the time were all over the place, to say the least.  people were freaking out about their profiles being tampered with; admins were trying to deal with the fact that the whole board had been compromised, so that people couldn't access it; the issue of whether or not the do not prank list would've equated to a big "kick me" label was being discussed; and all sorts of other things were happening at once.       

because of all this, it was difficult, if not impossible, to take a good, clear and cool look at potential ramifications of setting up the do not prank list.  there was a lot of what could be called crisis management going on at the time, rather than a nice linear flow of events with breathing space in between.

the matter of approaching members privately rather than on the board was more to do with the "kick me" label than anything else.  when some more vocal members were saying they didn't like the pranks, and other were saying they did, the usual to-ing and fro-ing was going on and, as usual, there was no clear-cut decision made, or much chance of coming to a compromise, let alone an agreement.

so, no conspiracy, just the usual I2 messiness, debates rambling all over the place and knee-jerk reactions (a.k.a. trying to think on the hoof, if i'm being charitable).  and yes, i include myself in all that, too.

[Calandale]

PI, the circumstances at the time were all over the place, to say the least.  people were freaking out about their profiles being tampered with;

People who had NO problem when others had it happen
to them.

admins were trying to deal with the fact that the whole board had been compromised,

WTF is THIS referring to?
   

the matter of approaching members privately rather than on the board was more to do with the "kick me" label than anything else. 

I agree. Still doesn't explain why a sticky wasn't made, at the time.
Nor why, even after things settled down, repeated calls for such
were ignored.

so, no conspiracy, just the usual I2 messiness, debates rambling all over the place and knee-jerk reactions (a.k.a. trying to think on the hoof, if i'm being charitable).  and yes, i include myself in all that, too.

I agree. If anyone is paranoid, it's me,
and I really don't believe that there was
any attempt to stop such a sticky. Just that
there was the normal disinterest in the hands
of most of the staff to do a damned thing.

But, then again, the fact that I DIDN'T makes
me wonder what my views were, at the time.
Normally, I have no difficulty in just taking something
like that upon myself. Still, the rebuke which I had received
from both dunc and odeon, as well as the fact that neither
spoke out that it was an acceptable thing to do, may just
have had me cowed from taking that action.

[purposefulinsanity]

I know that at the time staff members were PMing Dunc practically baying for the blood of the new staff members, some gently suggesting that just removing them from their staff role wasn't enough and removal from the WC would be justified in their opinion .  I  I know that people were threatening to leave if they didn't get their own way and I know that set some into a panic. So in some ways I understand why someone on staff decided to just go ahead and make a secret no prank list, but lets not pretend that people setting that list up didn't know people might object if they knew cos that's just naive.     
   AND- what was the point of making such a list if no-one got to know about it?  Except a select handful did get to know about it- those that someone on staff thought might like adding to the list and contacted to ask them- if the list was really to protect members why was the protection offered to only a special few?   

I'd be more likely to believe the no conspiracy line if people hadn't had to be badgered for an answer, and if people were willing to post their reply to Cal's asking about letting the members know about the list.  Cos we've seen proof that he did ask more than once, but the replies he got haven't be shown to the general membership.

[Lucifer]

i just don't see how this whole conspiracy thing even gets off the ground.  who exactly are the conspirators supposed to be?  are they the same as this mythical "clique"?

i have to say that i see a very small percentage of the membership getting exercised about all this conspiracy/clique stuff.  perhaps that says more about those of us who do get so, rather than the issues themselves.   

[purposefulinsanity]

Because unless the staff did so because they wanted to avoid more complaints about the no prank list there was no reason for it not to have been clearly announced as soon as it was started.

What will it mean when that small percent who object or just disappear all together gets bigger? I think the results of the get rid of the admins vote show there's more discontent than there are people posting about it.

[Calandale]

I know that at the time staff members were PMing Dunc practically baying for the blood of the new staff members, some gently suggesting that just removing them from their staff role wasn't enough and removal from the WC would be justified in their opinion .

THIS, I did not know.
I've been troubled enough by the
decision that certain of us were ineligible to
EVER serve again, even when one such was
allowed to remain an admin, AFTER all the
supposed crimes occurred. I mean, IF hadron
was going to be a true danger, why wasn't he
simply removed? Something I asked at the time,
and got no answer which would indicate the later
decision to NOT allow him to even run.

I  I know that people were threatening to leave if they didn't get their own way and I know that set some into a panic.

Yeah. Such a pity that some couldn't take having their
profiles touched. People who laugh, when it happens to
others. I've had mine fucked with, many a time, and never
ONCE did the crew of whiners say a damned thing about it
being wrong. Only callaway, of the bunch, ever made
any effort, when by PM she asked if I wanted it changed
back (this whilst I was 'personally attacking' her, by her definition,
but BEFORE I pranked everyone, which seems to have turned
her against me).

   

   AND- what was the point of making such a list if no-one got to know about it?  Except a select handful did get to know about it- those that someone on staff thought might like adding to the list and contacted to ask them- if the list was really to protect members why was the protection offered to only a special few?   

Been my question all along, and why I set up the poll to
see how many were indeed aware.

I'd be more likely to believe the no conspiracy line if people hadn't had to be badgered for an answer, and if people were willing to post their reply to Cal's asking about letting the members know about the list.  Cos we've seen proof that he did ask more than once, but the replies he got haven't be shown to the general membership.

1. I don't believe that there was a conscious 'conspiracy', but I may
be naive. I think it was the situation as normal - looking out for your own -
which permeates a certain group here. The same kind of complaints which
brought down a couple of WP moderator teams, and will likely bring the current
one down. Too much power, and it gets abused - it really is that simple.

2. As to replies, it is my belief that there were NONE. Certainly none from any
of the long-established powers. It is possible that ren or milla made some small
comment regarding them. My memory is not photographic, and I do not archive
site discussions for later use.

[Calandale]

i just don't see how this whole conspiracy thing even gets off the ground.  who exactly are the conspirators supposed to be?  are they the same as this mythical "clique"?

Yes.

i have to say that i see a very small percentage of the membership getting exercised about all this conspiracy/clique stuff.  perhaps that says more about those of us who do get so, rather than the issues themselves.   

Indeed. People get so tied up in their
own play, that they don't notice the
discrimination applied to others.

Has happened many times, on the web,
and throughout history.

[Lucifer]

Because unless the staff did so because they wanted to avoid more complaints about the no prank list there was no reason for it not to have been clearly announced as soon as it was started.

i just don't see how this whole conspiracy thing even gets off the ground.  who exactly are the conspirators supposed to be?  are they the same as this mythical "clique"?

Yes.

okay, so name names.  PI says "staff", so that means dunc, odeon and callaway, yes?  could i please know the names comprising the "clique" too?

[Calandale]

What will it mean when that small percent who object or just disappear all together gets bigger? I think the results of the get rid of the admins vote show there's more discontent than there are people posting about it.

Which shocks me. How many here are actually in fear,
of some sort? I've seen behavior from some, which strikes
me as purely sycophantic. Much as I saw in response to my
banning at WP. Because, if people ARE in fear, doesn't that
totally undermine what this site is about?

Thing is, sometimes I wonder if the fear is more of being attacked,
than of any kind of actual abuse. I mean, if ANYONE were going to
be horribly targeted, it should be me - and the worst that I've seen
is certain little annoying inconveniences. Certainly nothing that should
scare anyone. But, if people are scared to speak their minds, because they
might be attacked - well, what the fuck are they even doing here?

[purposefulinsanity]

To be honest when I first saw that poll I thought the results would be clear cut- I'm actually shocked that they're not.  What comes of it will also be very telling I feel.