I'm going to address our three major points of disagreement. If you
have any other points, I'll respond.
1. Did you violate Posting Guideline #9a?
Here is your 15 MAR post on FREEvpFREE of a private email I sent
to you:
···
------------------
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "rgmustain" <rgmustain@att.net>
Date sent: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 03:41:11 -0000
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: barrings
I received this email today following my criticism of the
administrator. The referenced post is two weeks old and nothing had
been mentioned UNTIL I criticized our apparently vindictive
administrator. I'll let this action speak for itself.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In most respects you are a very valuable member of vpFREE. However,
you have a disruptive habit of getting too personal when making or
responding to negative posts.
A recent example is your vpFREE post # 85793 where you wrote:
"Bob, you were doing fine until this idiotic last paragraph. This
analogy is ridiculous at best. Just because .25 plays are more
prevalent does change the approach a good VP player takes. It makes
no difference what denom one is playing since the math is EXACTLY the
same. Not surprising people think you're ego is tad bit too large."
Your response violates vpFREE rules.
If you had removed the gratuitous personal comments, it would have
been fine:
"I disagree with this last paragraph. Just because .25 plays are more
prevalent does change the approach a good VP player takes. It makes
no difference what denom one is playing since the math is EXACTLY the
same."
I don't have a problem with your Bob Dancer posts, if you keep them
impersonal and objective. Disagree all you like, but in the future,
please do it within the rules:
"CONDUCT: Members are expected to observe the rules of "NETIQUETTE",
and to practice politeness and show good taste in their vpFREE posts.
Negative personal comments or personal attacks, as perceived by the
Administrator and regardless of circumstances, aren't tolerated on
vpFREE. When making or responding to a negative post, be objective,
factual, polite and impersonal. You can assert, deny, disagree,
correct or explain, but no name-calling and don't make belittling or
sarcastic remarks about the writer or their message."
vpFREE Administrator
------------------
The last paragraph in my email was Posting Guideline #9a, and its
last sentence is a clear, unambiguous, black or white guideline
that doesn't require any subjective interpretation.
In my email I told you that your post #85793 violated vpFREE
rules, and then I pointed out exactly why by reconstructing your
paragraph after removing "idiotic", "This analogy is ridiculous
at best" and "Not surprising people think you're ego is tad bit
too large".
I believe that most reasonable, literate people would agree with
my conclusions and would routinely reach similar decisions when
applying the standards of the last sentence to vpFREE posts.
The fact that you believe you've been factual and justified in what
you've posted about Bob Dancer isn't relevant. vpFREE isn't about
one-upmanship or putting someone in their place. Ridiculing or
belittling another member or their posts, regardless of the
circumstances, is a rules violation.
I've clearly explained this rule, and I believe it would be
obvious to most people that you violated the rule. If you still
don't agree with the rule and refuse to comply with it, or don't
understand the rule and refuse to comply with it, then further
discussion is pointless.
2. Did you agree to comply with the posting guidelines in the
future, as I requested?
During our discussion in March it became clear to me that you
didn't believe you had broken any vpFREE rules and / or that you
didn't understand the rules. I wasn't willing to let you continue
posting on vpFREE forums unless you understood and agreed to
observe the rules.
I wanted specific assurance from you that you would comply with
the rules in the future and you refused. Instead you told me that
you would no longer post on vpFREE unless I apologized for my
childish behavior.
3. Was my 15 MAR private email to you vindictive and retaliatory?
My private email to you wasn't vindictive or retaliatory. If I had
intended either, I would have done it publicly and there would
have been some associated penalty. There was neither. I merely
pointed out a rules violation and asked you to comply with the
rules in the future.
My email to you had nothing to do with our FREEvpFREE exchanges.
I didn't contact you sooner because I was deciding what action to
take, and I was also occupied in taking care of other matters.
The delay didn't change the nature of your violation.
If you choose to believe that my email was vindictive and
retaliatory, that's immaterial to me. In any event, my intent has
no substantive relevance to whether or not you violated vpFREE
rules.
vpFREE Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "rgmustain" <rgmustain@att.net>
Date sent: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:09:55 -0000
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: mroejacks
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@...>
wrote:
On 11 Sep 2008 at 21:08, rgmustain wrote:
> I see the admin caved in by allowing this information on
freevpfree.
> Kind of tough for him to defend himself after he chose to ban me
from
> the so-called free speech forum. I assume he thinks this
recitfies
> that action. Hardly. However, it does demonstrate he knew he was
> wrong. Now if only he takes a little time to look in a mirror, we
> won't have to go any further.This only demonstrates that I will rebut any inaccurate
allegations by you, and that Winpoker isn't the appropriate
place to do it.
But now freevpfree is? Why wasn't it appropriate a few months ago?
Your logic is strange to say the least.
> One piece of advice, Tom. All you have to do is make one RULE ...
> (The administrator decides what is appropriate behavior). Then,
if
> you don't like a note then publicly respond to that note
immediately
> and state it violates this one rule. That will take care of 99.9%
of
> the problems. No secrecy ... no personal emails ... no problem.
The
> problem with the current rules is interpretation. I followed a
strict
> interpretation of rules and you didn't. But even if you think you
did
> you can't deny that people may interpret them differently. This
opens
> up a can of worms and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has
disagreed
> with you. That should tell you something.
I'll address your "Tom" usage later in this response.
I suspect you mean you will deny it again.
Your suggested rule has always been a part of the posting
guidelines, but it is accompanied by general and specific
parameters which clearly define what is acceptable and what
isn't.> Second piece of advice. Get some modern software. You can create
> multiple topics. This allows any topics that might get edgy to be
> isolated from the rest of the forums. It also allows you to kill
the
> threads or lock them. This level of support almost eliminates the
> need to ban anyone. Makes the job much easier. Here's one free
> product.> http://www.simplemachines.org/
> You can thank me later.
Can this software be used with Yahoo Groups? If so, I'll
certainly look into it.
Any software can work with Yahoo Groups through the internet.
However, you'll have to get to specifics to determine if it provides
what you want. That said, I have no idea what part of yahoo groups
you require. It's weak, archaic and should be discarded.
> > vpFREE Administrator wrote on Winpoker:
> > 1. Polite, objective, impersonal disagreement with other members
> > or their posts is fine on vpFREE.> No problem. I always followed these rules.
You are incorrect, as you have confirmed in your response to
several of my points..
No, I always followed the rules as I read and understood them when I
became a member. Have you've changed them to some kind of nonsense?
> > 2. Ridiculing or belittling other members or their posts isn't
> > allowed.> The vpfree policy as stated was to respond to the message and not
> attack the poster.
There is absolutely no way to state a post is wrong without someone
interpreting that as belittling. That's called ambiguity. As adults
we deal with the English language and use the proper terms to
communicate. If you eliminate every descriptive term then you cut off
communication. That is silly.
It appears that you have a misconception about the vpFREE posting
guidelines, which don't allow ridiculing or belittling the
messenger
OR THE MESSAGE. You have violated this rule many times.
Like I said, that is nonsense. If someone says the earth is flat and
you respond they are wrong then are you belittling the message? They
may have been serious and you stated they were wrong. Can't you see
how silly this is? Don't you see that this becomes pure
interpretation?
BTW, the only rule that makes sense is to respond to the message.
Period. Any time you attempt to define what is belittling and what is
appropriate you open a can of worms. It's called interpretation. You
would be much better off to follow my advice and get rid of rules
that are completely ambiguious.
> I always directed my criticism to the message. If
> a message was ridiculous then I indicated as such.You have just confirmed your rules violations. Disagree with or
correct a message all you like, but ridiculing or belittling
another member or their post (no matter how much they deserve it)
is a rules violation, as spelled out in the posting guidelines.
Wrong. I used a perfectly valid English word that completely
described the content of the message. I didn't swear, I didn't attack
the poster, I didn't belittle anyone. The fact that you don't
understand English or attempt to redefine the language for your own
purposes is your problem, not mine. I can't even believe I need to
spell out something so completely obvious. Don't you understand the
ambiguity of this rule?
> Interestingly,
> others have also responded in an identical manner. This will
always
> be the case in forums with adult participation.
When others did it, they were also violating the rules, and I
agree that it's going to happen from time to time.
Whenever a rule is steeped in ambiguity and open to wide
interpretation it is a useless rule. That's why I stated you should
eliminate the many of the rules.
> > 3. I decided to revoke the posting privileges of a few habitual
> > ridiculers and belittlers, rather than continually correcting
> > their disruptive behavior.> This is where I disagreed with the administrator. He kept this
action
> secretive. He clearly did not want his actions held up to close
> scrutiny. I think that speaks volumes. Keep in mind, I never did
this
> on vpfree as I thought that would be disruptive.
I don't have a problem with publicly explaining my actions, but
I normally keep disciplinary actions confidential unless a
disciplined member requests otherwise.
That is a problem. You are not my teacher/master/superior (TMS). We
are peers. When you moderate in this manner you are belittling each
and every one of us. You should be open with your actions. You
wouldn't have needed to hide behind a psuedo administator if you had
done this to begin with.
> > 4. "mroejacks" had a long history of ridiculing and belittling
> > Bob Dancer and his posts.> That is a lie.
You are incorrect, as you have confirmed in your response to
several of my points.
No I didn't. What I comfirmed is you have a poor understanding of the
English language and CHOOSE to interpret posts by your own personal
standards. You clearly enjoy being in the teacher/master/superior
(TMS) position and built a whole set of rules to support you. When I
worked in a large corporation I ran into your type many times.
You need to learn how to deal with people as adults.
> I called out Bob Dancer on many of his "ridiculing and
> belittling" posts and several members agreed with my comments.
> However, it is interesting that after Bob made "ridiculing and
> belittling" posts about me, nothing was said or done.Any / all rules violations by Bob Dancer were handled publicly or
privately in accordance with the rules at the time.
More TMS rules. You really don't get it do you? These rules and your
enforcement through arbitrary interpretation belittles you as well.
You really need to take a hard look in the mirror. You are hiding
behind a mask of your making.
> A double
> standard no doubt, but one that showed without a doubt that the
> Vpfree Adminstrator has some kind of personal vendetta against
me. I
> think his actions here also make that pretty obvious.
I try to maintain a non-disruptive environment on vpFREE and
attempt to enforce all rules equally and fairly. I always
considered you a very valuable member of vpFREE in most respects,
and have made that very clear publicly and privately. However,
anyone who refuses to observe the posting guidelines can't be a
member in good standing.
No. It should be easy to maintain a non-disprutive environment on
vpfree. All you have to do is be open. Hiding behind vague, ambiguous
rules will always lead to conflicts. You are your own worst enemy.
Private TMS messages to other adults is about as silly as it gets. If
you treat people like adults you won't have a problem with
moderation. If you treat them like children and insult them with
private messages essentially telling them they are stupid and you are
smart, you will create even more conflict.
> > 5. After "mroejacks" made a ridiculing and belittling post about
> > Bob Dancer (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/85793),
> > I sent him a private email to put him on notice that those type
of
> > posts wouldn't be tolerated in the future.
> I followed VPfree rules exactly and criticized the MESSAGE. That
is
> perfectly clear. I even tried to educate him a little as other
> members had mentioned the ego problem and notes like the one I
> responded to were the reason.You violated the rules by belittling and ridiculing him and his
posts - as you have just confirmed.
That is one interpretation ... which happens to be different than
what I intended by the post. So, you are completely wrong. I know
exactly what I intended by the post. You are stating I intended
something else. That is why ambiguous rules never work. You are
trying to "read my mind" and determine my motives. You got it wrong
here and I suspect you've got it wrong many other times.
> Note that the admin did not send me
> the "private email" until weeks after this note and ONLY after I
> commented on his handling of banning other members. As I said
before,
> this makes it clear he did not find the post "ridiculing and
> belittling" until later on. It's really kind of hilarious to see
the
> admin attempting to defend this behavior when it was clear as a
bell
> exactly what he was doing.
As I have told you previously, you went on my email notification
list as soon as I read your post, and my private email to you had
nothing to do with our FREEvpFREE exchanges. I didn't contact you
sooner because I was deciding what action to take with you, and
others, and I was also occupied in taking care of other matters.The delay didn't change the nature of your violation.
That is a problem in and of itself. As far as I'm concerned this is a
complete lie. That is my interpretation. I received your belittling
email immediately after our exchange. Are you starting to get the
picture yet?
> > 6. Subsequent posts by "mroejacks" on FREEvpFREE indicated that
> > he didn't intend to observe the rules, so I told him that his
> > posting privileges on all vpFREE forums would be revoked if he
> > didn't agree to comply with the rules.> No reference to such a post??? That's because there was none.
This
> is another lie.
See FREEvpFREE message #5243 on 15 MAR and FREEvpFREE
message #5278 on 18 MAR, and you never agreed to observe the rules
in any of your posts.
I agreed to follow the rules by posting on vpfree. That is a
requirement stated in YOUR OWN RULES. Your belittling posts asking me
to duplicate that action is more of your nonsense. Let's see the
quote where I stated I "didn't intend to observe the rules" as you
stated above. Come on show me. You can't because I NEVER said I would
not follow the rules. I've always followed the rules AS I INTERPRETED
THEM (using the English language definitions) when I joined. The fact
that we are having this discussion is proof that the rules are
ambiguous.
So, like I said, your statement is a lie. I "agreed" many times.
BTW, asking people to duplicate something they already have done many
times is belittling. It is part of your TMS problem. It appears you
have no problem violating your own rules.
> I stated many times that I followed the rules as
> written and would continue to do so. I also pointed out several
times
> on freevpfree the admins attempts to twist the rules in whatever
> manner he chose. It was amazing. I had clearly criticized a
paragraph
> in a note and even used the words "paragraph" and "analogy" to
make
> it clear I was responding only to the message. The admin claimed
this
> was a personal attack (weeks later). Like I said, amazing.
You did not follow the rules when you were ridiculing and
belittling another member and his posts.
You can't read my mind and therefore you have no idea whether your
statment is true. Attemtping to put words in my mouth is belittling.
> > 7. He wouldn't agree to comply with the rules and instead
responded
> > that effective immediately he would no longer post on vpFREE
> > until I apologized to him for my "childish behavior".> I agreed to comply to the rules by making a post the next day (as
> stated in the vpfree rules and as I previously mentioned).You never agreed to comply with the posting rules, either privately
or publicly.
As I stated above I did "publicly" make a post on VPfree. According
to your own rules I was agreeing to follow the rules. It looks like
you don't even understand your own rules.
In addition, I shouldn't have to put up with your belittling emails
unless you think every member of VPfree should be treated as a child.
This TMS attitude of yours is clearly a problem. I followed the
VPfree rules, you didn't. Isn't that interesting.
> Now, I will not post on vpfree until I receive an apology.
However,
> note that the admin banned me from the so-called free speech
forum,
> freeVPfree. The reason was obvious. He did not want his lies and
> actions documented for others to see. This followed the pattern he
> established earlier with his secretive bannings.Your posting privileges were revoked after you had already posted
your views on FREEvpFREE. I have always responded to requests for
information on my actions, unless it was about a confidential
matter.
Like I said before, I guess free speech means something different to
you. But then, it appears the entire English language has meanings
most of us never knew.
> > 8. Members who intentionally disregard the rules aren't allowed
> > to post on any vpFREE forum.> Yes they are. Last time I checked Bob Dancer is still posting.
Any / all rules violations by Bob Dancer were handled publicly or
privately in accordance with the rules at the time.
And that is a yet another problem with being secretive. When someone
is personally attacked they need to know that the rules are being
enforced. Sending off private TMS emails that the attacked person
does not see only makes BOTH parties upset. You have no idea, do you?
> And, I was banned even though I never disregarded the rules.
Your posting privileges were revoked because you wouldn't agree
to comply with the vpFREE posting guidelines in the future.
As I've shown above this is a lie. I agreed every time I posted on
VPfree. I realize your TMS attitude leads to sending these belittling
emails. You REALLY need to understand that they ARE belittling. Your
process is more than belittling, it is demeaning.
There's a better way. Be open and honest on the forum. Be friendly
and ASK an individual who may cross the line, to PLEASE try and keep
their posts on topic. Let them know it is your interpretation and you
may be wrong, but it's your responsibility. Adults are much more
willing to accept an open response than a private, belittling email
stating ambiguous rules.
> Note this careful use of "any vpfree forums" so the admin can keep
> people from airing their side of the story on the so-called free
> speech forum. This is no accident. There never has been nor ever
will
> be a free speech forum associated with vpfree. Yup, another lie.
FREEvpFREE is vpFREE's free speech forum. It is available to
all vpFREE members in good standing and is unrestricted except
that vulgarity and raunchiness aren't allowed.
You are being disingenuous by using the term free speech. That has
meaning beyond your little world. But then, I guess this goes along
with your already ridiculous interpretations of the English language.
> > 9. I revoked the posting privileges for "mroejacks" on all
vpFREE
> > forums.
> And the reason is BEYOND obvious.
The reason is very simple. Your posting privileges were revoked
on all vpFREE forums because you refused to agree to comply with
the vpFREE posting guidelines in the future.
Still a lie. Doesn't matter how often you say it.
> > 10. I'm sorry to air this dirty laundry on the Winpoker forum,
but I
> > felt it was necessary to post a reply to the "insult" comment.
I don't
> > intend to respond any further on Winpoker.
> No, you're not sorry. You jumped right in to add more lies to your
> ever growing list.You are incorrect. I was sorry and I didn't lie.
I suspect you don't really know you are lying. You are kidding
yourself. Try a little logic.
DOES THE VPFREE RULES STATE A MEMBER AGREES TO THE RULES WHEN THEY
POST?
Wrap your mind around that.
NOW TRY TO TRUTHFULLY SAY I DID NOT AGREE TO THE RULES.
You can't, because if you did you KNOW you would be lying. Once you
accept this fact your entire line of reasoning falls apart.
> You also lie every time you post as vpfae and have
> been lying ever since you claimed to bring in a new administrator.
> Just another notch in that secretive belt.vpFae is not the current vpFREE administrator, and my name isn't
Tom.
And the Earth is flat ...
> I really had no intent on bringing this up on this forum. All I
> intended to do is provide the reason I wasn't posting this
> information on vpfree. That reason still holds. However, I am not
> going to let Tom jump in and continue to spread these lies. That's
> not in my nature.You haven't come up with any lies yet.
Too many to count, but lies they are and lies they have always been.
Just because they aren't intentional lies doesn't change anything. I
figure you created this false view in your mind and now you will hold
onto it with all your might. You are just kidding yourself and this
will lead you into more conflicts in the future.
Redefining the English language at your own whim is silly, trying to
read people's intents in their posts is silly, belittling people by
sending them disciplinary emails is silly.
I know you will not admit your errors in this situation. It's too bad
because you could make your life a lot easier.
Dick