Ban LoCAtek

[The Hen]

No. That was scuttlebutt that she had scuttlebutted.

(I think she forgot she had brought it up in that.)

In which case, with no lawsuit, and no reason for Maurice Blackburn to get involved, I am thinking that there is no Australian legal counsel.

[Sean]

I'm thinking the same Hen...

[loCAtek]

So, where did your letter come from: where does the stamp say?

[The Hen]

Why do you want to know?

[loCAtek]

I thought you might be interested in where your letter you're attributing to me, came from. I only have access to American Stamps...

[liberty]

I was pretty much in the same position as BigRR when I initially voted No...and I have now, ten minutes later, changed my vote to Yes. I'm very sad to have to do it, but now there is no choice.

And please, loCA, listen to oldr_n_wsr's advice and get help before you ruin any more of your life.

I have same problem as you. Gob, please cancel my membership.

[Sean]

I'm somehow doubting that this mysterious letter came from Maurice Blackburn...

They'd be more interested in chasing Gob's taxi driver mate...

[Gob]

So, where did your letter come from: where does the stamp say?

Two points

1. You are now off ignore.

2. If you think we will be doing anything, anything at all, which would in any way help you, or prejudice our position, you are even more fucking stupid than I thought you were.

[Gob]

Liberty, please could you PM me with details of your problem

[BoSoxGal]

Again, I'm not seeing the distinction.

Quaddriver says a bunch of nasty over the top things about people he doesn't like on this board, and insinuates that he might act in his professional capacity to affect the lives of a few posters (for the record, I was one of them and he actually posted very specific IRL information about me here which Daisy kindly redacted).

Joe Guy and Lord Jim make an IRL complaint about him based on his outrageous comments on an Internet board, a place most here constantly point out isn't real life and shouldn't be taken seriously.

It obviously has an effect on Quaddriver's livelihood, as acknowledged by LJ. It results in Quaddriver's permanent departure from the board but nobody really cares because nobody really liked him.


loCAtek responds to a number of over the top fairly outrageous things posted by Gob - I am guessing, based on my fairly detailed recollection of the nastiness hurled in both directions and what I've assumed is the nature of her complaint given it involves a healthcare oversight commission of sorts (?) - having to do with diagnosing loCA as suffering from this or that mental disorder and not suffering from PTSD as she claims she has been actually diagnosed.

loCA, I assume, takes a lay understanding that it's not 'lawful' for a credentialed mental health professional to be diagnosing individuals based on heated Internet arguments and/or broken friendships, rather than sound and professional mental health evaluation techniques and thus considers that she has a legitimate complaint against Gob just as Joe Guy and LJ determined about Quaddriver because he used his profession to threaten and/or belittle someone in this 'public' forum.

Is it appropriate or best practice for Gob to have made such 'diagnostic' statements as a real mental health professional? Maybe not. Is it actionable? Perhaps not. Was loCA entirely unreasonable in her reaction to Gob's statements? Probably not. Was her complaint perhaps unnecessary? Maybe so.

But again, I do not see the distinction wherein her actions demand hanging in the public square whilst those of Joe Guy and LJ went almost without comment. The only real distinction I see is that some people are popular here and can act wih something close to impunity in attacking their foes, and others are not and get no support when feeling aggrieved.

I took a huge step away from this community for the first time in 7 years of interacting with many of the same players and what I was able to see very clearly is that there is some very significant dysfunction, that a core group of folks seem to thrive on that dysfunction and that it seems a likely prediction that somehow there will always be a target for it - whether loCA is banned or not.

The majority of posters here are folks I enjoyed interacting with, whose humor and intellect I miss, and who I believe would be perfectly happy to engage absent the drama that always seems to crop up, year after year.

As for me, I've found my life to be much happier without the toxicity which is too prevalent in this community. I've joined the good company of @w, Andy H and many others who just got tired of it and quit after CSB or after a short stint here. It doesn't matter who runs things or by what rules; some folks are just nasty Nellies and want to pick fights and this medium allows them to feel free behaving in ways and saying things that good sense would prevent them from doing IRL.

I asked Daisy to reactivate me so I could vote and share that observation. I expect the usual suspects to respond in the usual ways.

Most of you I love & miss. Sometimes (very few times these very busy days - lots of new work challenges - attempted homicide first week on the job - and new colleagues and new friends and a new parrot and this week I'm getting a horse!) I visit here and search the posts of my favorite pals and ignore the nasties and fighting as much as possible.

Email me if/when you're thinking of coming to Montana: mskarlamae@yahoo.com

Cheers,
bsg

[Sean]

I disagree BSG. If Gob had threatened to use his professional position to have lo sectioned then I think that a comparison could be drawn.

BTW, you are missed here. Drop back in a few weeks when all this has died down and, who knows, you may find it to be a nicer place.

[darkblack]

It obviously has an effect on Quaddriver's livelihood, as acknowledged by LJ. It results in Quaddriver's permanent departure from the board but nobody really cares because nobody really liked him.

Gosh, and we were such great pals back in the day. Shame to see that go all to bad seed. Darn it.

I know I don't post here very often - certainly not for any other reason than I don't have the time. In an earlier life, I had a lot of free moments. Now, I don't.

However...I had a premonition of The Sickness coming a while back...that I would actually become addicted to the cat-and-mouse of online verbal sparring, substituting it for real life and a world of sunshine and sights, tailoring my life around it...and always the escalation, the one-upmanship, the 'who's bad now, motherfucker' of it all. Hurting someone's feelings intentionally was never the goal (mostly ), but its regular presence was coming in hot on the horizon. Some of you know what I'm talking about.

Meh. Nobody's fault but mine. I chose not to inflict that upon others, directly or peripherally.

I trust there will be evidence of one kind or another that determines how events will proceed by the time I cast my vote, and I will publish my closing thoughts on the matter then.

Pax

;>)

[Econoline]

Again, I'm not seeing the distinction.

The distinction is that quaddriver posted an actual threat, and enough information about his own IRL position (some sort of computer tech for the U.S. Internal Revenue Service) to make it a credible threat. What was done in response was not to ban him from this site but to make sure his superiors at the IRS did what they could to prevent him carrying through on his threat and to prevent him from making future threats while at work.

If Gob were employed at any agency which might have any real-life authority over loCAtek's life, I could see the parallel, but he's not--he's not even in the same country, or even the same hemisphere, as her--and I can't.

ETA: while Gob may have posted outrageous insults, he at no time made any actual specific threat, let alone a credible threat.

[Joe Guy]

As I recall BSG threatened legal action against quad.

Maybe that's why she banned herself?

[Lord Jim]

As I recall BSG threatened legal action against quad.

Yes, and as I recall she also speculated that might have been the reason he stopped posting....

And after the action that was taken regarding Quad was publicly revealed, she never once expressed disapproval.

And she was also one of LoCa's most vociferous critics.

If you read through her two posts in this discussion, it's pretty obvious what her real agenda is...

It seems to me that if she wants to have a discussion about how poorly treated or "unsupported" she believes she was, it would be better if she just started her own thread about it, rather than trying to interject it into a thread where the membership is considering the most serious step it can take against a fellow member. It just seems inappropriate to me.

This thread is about whether or not what LoCa did rises to the level that she deserves to be permanently banned from the forum for doing it.

It's not about whatever other personal gripes one may have against any other member or members. There's nothing wrong with having that discussion, but in my opinion it's just an unwarranted diversion in a thread focused on so serious a decision. This is just not the proper vehicle for that.

[oldr_n_wsr]

As far as I am concerned, there is a difference between one member using his/her "connections" (aka job capabilities) threatening other members to find out facts about them and another member contacting lawyers/magistrates in order to bolster a case they mave against such parties.

QuadDriver stated he would use his employments capabilities to find out facts/information about other members here. Other members who basically only called him names or had a differing opinion than his. If one uses their "position" (especially) in a gov agency to threaten other people that are not under (or already ongoing) investigation, that is a totally different matter than what loCAtek has introduced.

It is within JoeGuy and LordJims right to contact that persons employer and tell them that whomever is using their agencies privileges of looking up peoples personal information to possibly be used against them.

LoCAtek threatened peoples livelyhood on the premise that they hosted and paid for a free and open forum on the internet. Any and all info about a stalker can be obtained from registering and then looking up the "on line/forum" activity of said person. No need to contact the owners.

Sorry BSG but this dog won't hunt. The situations are very different. One (Quad) used his privileged access to harrass and possibly silence his distactors, and when informed, those distractors let his employers know of the abuse of his position. The other (loCAtek) has used this board as further proof that someone else on the board has been stalking her and has contacted the owners of this boards employers that they (the owner) may be in violation of something, that nobody knows what that something is.

A does not equal B

[Lord Jim]

[BoSoxGal]

There may be distinctions, but to clarify I believe they are without a difference. In both situations posters took online statements made in the toxic environment that so often characterizes this board and acted to address those statements IRL/offboard.

Apparently in both cases a procedure involving appropriate channels of supervision was followed. It's hard to be certain because details in both cases are lacking - but if both Quad and Gob were posting from work, their Internet use is of relevance to their employer. That is generally the law in the US, and I assume more than likely in Oz.

I won't bother with further comment because the fix is in and loCA will be banned and the majority will convince themselves it's all fair and due process. :-/

Meanwhile I note that the topic I raised on board toxicity and the players here who relish in it and in having a target to bully goes unaddressed by any response. Telling, that.

Sean, thanks for the lovely sentiment - but again, I'm happier away from this place, like others who made a deliberate decision to leave in the face of the same toxicity.

Best to you all. Daisy, please deactivate the temporary password.

Cheers!

[alice]

As far as I am concerned, there is a difference between one member using his/her "connections" (aka job capabilities) threatening other members to find out facts about them and another member contacting lawyers/magistrates in order to bolster a case they mave against such parties.

QuadDriver stated he would use his employments capabilities to find out facts/information about other members here. Other members who basically only called him names or had a differing opinion than his. If one uses their "position" (especially) in a gov agency to threaten other people that are not under (or already ongoing) investigation, that is a totally different matter than what loCAtek has introduced.

It is within JoeGuy and LordJims right to contact that persons employer and tell them that whomever is using their agencies privileges of looking up peoples personal information to possibly be used against them.

LoCAtek threatened peoples livelyhood on the premise that they hosted and paid for a free and open forum on the internet. Any and all info about a stalker can be obtained from registering and then looking up the "on line/forum" activity of said person. No need to contact the owners.

Sorry BSG but this dog won't hunt. The situations are very different. One (Quad) used his privileged access to harrass and possibly silence his distactors, and when informed, those distractors let his employers know of the abuse of his position. The other (loCAtek) has used this board as further proof that someone else on the board has been stalking her and has contacted the owners of this boards employers that they (the owner) may be in violation of something, that nobody knows what that something is.

A does not equal B

I work in the government sector, and we have to abide by certain things, such as a Privacy and Secrecy Act, and also a very clearly specified Code of Conduct. Certain behaviours warrant instant dismissal - one of them would be misuse of our ability to access private information about people: both the action of using our position to get the information for personal - not work - matters, and then the action of misusing information we have access to (so that we might obtain the information legitimately for work purposes, but then used it afterward for personal purposes). Another would be misusing our position as a means of threat or for leverage or gain for any personal reason. Depending on how we misused our position or the information we have acces to, we could, in addition to dismissal, also be charged.
i would imagine they would have similar legislation / provisions in a US Treasury Department?
If we were misusing our positions or the information we had access to, anyone would be well within their right to bring that to the attention of our employer and it would be investigated. And it is right that people do this, to protect the sensitive information we have access to, to protect the people whose information it is that we can access, and to protect the integrity of the government agency and the position we hold.

I don't know all the background or behind the scenes happenings of the Quad situation any more than I know all the background and the behind the scenes happenings of the locatek situation - but I believe, on what's been publicly available on this forum to read, that the situations are very different. I think Econoline also summarised it well:

Again, I'm not seeing the distinction.

The distinction is that quaddriver posted an actual threat, and enough information about his own IRL position (some sort of computer tech for the U.S. Internal Revenue Service) to make it a credible threat. What was done in response was not to ban him from this site but to make sure his superiors at the IRS did what they could to prevent him carrying through on his threat and to prevent him from making future threats while at work.

If Gob were employed at any agency which might have any real-life authority over loCAtek's life, I could see the parallel, but he's not--he's not even in the same country, or even the same hemisphere, as her--and I can't.

ETA: while Gob may have posted outrageous insults, he at no time made any actual specific threat, let alone a credible threat.

It's after 2:20am and I have to be up at 6 - I looked in quickly for a nice little wind down before bed and have been forcing my eyes to stay open while i was catching up on all these developments. I can't believe that such a line has been crossed - I'm actually quite shocked and a little creeped out over the thought that it's been pursued to this degree.

Coming to a place like this should be like going to the local pub for a quiet drink at the end of the day. Sometimes there's a yobbo or two being a bit annoying, sometimes there's a loudmouth or a dickhead intent on an argument, and maybe every now and then there'll be a stoush that may spill out into the carpark. But overall it's a familiar environment to relax, whether you want to sit quietly by yourself in a corner, or join in with the debates and carry-ons. And when you've finished your quiet drink or two, you should be able to put on your hat and coat and leave the pub, and go home. You might chat about home to people at the pub, but apart from the chit chat, home and the pub are two separate environments and you don't mix them.
This is like finding out that a couple of the regulars from the pub were followed home by someone from the pub and then had their home broken into. Even if you weren't the one followed home, you feel like there's been a huge violation of the trust, and a puncturing of the pub atmosphere.
Should the follower/home invader be banned from the pub? And if they weren't banned, why would anyone in their right mind want to associate with them - why would you share any news with them or trust their integrity and honesty?

I'm too tired to compose anything more, and too speechless. (I think I'm waffling but am too tired to proofread - apologies for any errors but I have to get to bed)

[Big RR]

I tend to agree with Alice--if someone on the board were a police officer and threatened anyone with arrest (in a way which seemed legitimate and probable), then contacting his or her employer would seem approriate. If he called you names or even said you were guilty of a crime, but did not threaten to use his position to cause you harm, then it would not be. While I don't recall the QD situation, it seems to fall within the first category based upon what Jim wrote.

In the instant situation, what I see here is that Lo and Gob (and Hen?) have engaged in a number of arguments on the board, and gob, perphaps accused lo of being mentally ill, maybe citing his expertise as a mental health worker. It is akin to the cop saying you are guilty of a crime, no real threat is present. Thus, contacting the mental health oversight commission or his employer does not appear to be warranted. I invite lo to post why she felt this contact was appropriate or desirable, as it may have a bearing on the propriety of what occurred, but absent any additional information I just cannot see that it was justified.