Ban LoCAtek

[Daisy]

This poll stays open for three days.

Simple answer, yes or no, no revoting.

Amended to allow revoting

[Big RR]

Based on the way the question is simply worded, I must answer "no". I am opposed to banning under all but the most serious of reasons (e.g. someone posting kiddie-porn photos) and i have not hard of Lo doing anything like that. Further, while I admit that I rarely read any of the carping posts (usually hijacks) that others complain of, I cannot imagine anything Lo may have said rising to a level approaching the level of seriousness that I use as a deciding point. It takes (at least) two to hijack a post, nominal provocateur, and a nominal outraged respondent who takes the bait; either party could easily end any hijack by just stopping. That people do not do so is no reason for invoking this sanction.

[Scooter]

I guess the reason for initiating this poll should have been explained. loCAtek decided to escalate her feud with Gob and Hen by filing a complaint with Gob's employer, attempting to fuck with his livelihood.

[Lord Jim]

Ordinarily I think folks should be able to change their vote over the course of a discussion on something like this, but in this case, I see absolutely no need.

The facts here are well known, and they are not in dispute. LoCa freely admits what she did. (If anyone is unclear, they should read Strop's "internet stalking" thread BEFORE they vote)

It really just boils down to this:

Either you believe it's acceptable that a person who has made a deliberate attempt to ruin the professional life of another poster, and cause serious harm to him and his family, (with no more justification than the fact that the poster wanted nothing to do with that person) remain as a participating member of this forum, or you do not.

It's just that simple.

[Lord Jim]

Ordinarily I think folks should be able to change their vote over the course of a discussion on something like this, but in this case, I see absolutely no need.

Okay, in light of Big RR's post, I think I need to change my position on not allowing vote changes...

We may have some people, (as appears to be the case with Big RR, based on what he posted) who don't generally follow this sorry saga, and who when they see this thread assume it's just related to something LoCa has said or done on the board, and vote no without knowing what this is really about.

That being the case, I think it might be better if people were given the option to change their vote.

[Big RR]

Jim--thanks for the information--as I say, there are IMHO rare times when banning would be appropriate, and I confirm that I have not read any of the posts which describe this activity (a thread entitled "internet stalking" would be one I would ordinarily just skip but I have looked at it now), but what I think would be helpful to me (assuming there is an ability to change votes) is a direction to threads that show exactly what those supporting the banning allege Lo did (with as much specificity as possible) and what Lo admits she did. Also, if Lo wants to say anything to explain her actions, I presume this thread is open to her as well.

IMHO, what is alleged could well rise to the level of seriousness that warrants this action, but I would like to see more specificity before I could support the ultimate sanction the board impose. And I am sure there are others on this board who haven't followed "this sorry saga" as well and would benefit from this information.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Ordinarilly I don't vote in polls, preffering to voice my opinion in a post (which I guess serves the same purpose) but I am voting in this poll to ban her AND expressing my opinion(s) here.
Ordinarily I am against banning similar to BigRR however, when one member goes right past threatening another poster in RL and files some kind of suit for nothing more than letting a person register and post here, that's toooooooo far. Especially when the supposed stalker has made little to no stalking moves here other than registering and posting.

loCatek I am sure you are reading this and either enjoying the attention (all us alcoholics love attention be it posititve or negative) or throwing yourself a mighty big pity party or vowing revenge (and if you think this suit/action will give you some kind of satisfaction, you are mistaken), I advise you to seek help. If you ;won't go to a meeting, then read the AA Big book as your story is in there. You will see there is light at the end of the tunnel and it's not a train coming the other way IF you follow the path layed out for you in the big book. If not, then the light you see is a big ole freight train coming at you. You still have time to jump out of the way, but not much.

And I am not talking about the legal action you are taking against Gob and Hen, I am talking about your life, your sanity, your very life. So please, get help.

[Daisy]

I have opened this up for revoting should anyone want to.

[Reality Bytes]

BigRR the internet stalking thread - IS the thread where Loca admits it, shes made 2 posts, the first came after Gob revealed a complaint had been made against him in real life to which Loca responded

~meh, then I should refer you to the Australian legal firm, that counseled me on that.

She not only didn't deny doing it she alleged she'd sought legal advice, following on from that she made a further post as follows:

I think Mr. Gob is confusing filing a lawsuit, with filing a complaint.

However, I have not to been notified that this case is closed; and will call later to see if it is wise to comment at this time.

So she's now stated she has filed a legal complaint against Gob.

Gob himself has confirmed that his employers were contacted which takes this way beyond mere internet "threats" and posturing and regardless of whether Loca or anyone else may think she has justification for what shes done, the fact she has done it is IMO grounds for an immediate ban.

If memory serves even on the CSB this was grounds for banning - I seem to recall DrX (I think) being banned for the same thing, or threatening the same thing cant remember if he did actually do it or not but I DO remember Gar being utterly unrepentant about the ban and rightly so.

[Lord Jim]

Thanks for the summary RB, I was just about to do it, you saved me the time...

[Econoline]

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.

[Sue U]

She not only didn't deny doing it she alleged she'd sought legal advice, following on from that she made a further post as follows:

I think Mr. Gob is confusing filing a lawsuit, with filing a complaint.

However, I have not to been notified that this case is closed; and will call later to see if it is wise to comment at this time.

So she's now stated she has filed a legal complaint against Gob.

I am not at all sure that loCAtek's statement actually means she has filed a legal complaint (i.e., intiated a lawsuit). Obviously, however, she has made some kind of report to Gob's employer, which seems to have been pretty well dismissed out of hand, at least according to Gob.

I have not yet decided how I'm going to vote, but the fact that I'm even considering the banning option is of serious concern to me. (It's no secret why I have always voted no in other similar polls.) But this case goes beyond previous examples, and at least in part I would like to know if loCAtek can offer any defense for her actions -- although I'm not sure what any rational reason could be. In any event, though, I would not want to vote for the ultimate sanction without an opportunity to hear from the accused.

[Reality Bytes]

I can't see it being read any other way Sue, since Gob described what Loca did as a "complaint" and it was Loca herself who then said he was confusing "complaint" with "lawsuit" - at no time did Gob even suggest it was a law suit the only person to have said that is Loca herself and it was Loca who posted she'd sought legal advice from an Australian legal firm. If she hasn't sought to "initiate a law suit" then why would she even describe it that way?

[oldr_n_wsr]

I wonder what a long distance phone call costs from Ca to Australia? or am I showing my ignorance in this day and age of "unlimited" calling plans?

And how does one work out the time zone/day zone changes?

[BoSoxGal]

Joe Guy and Lord Jim admitted openly to filing a complaint with QuadDriver's employer, thus seeking to 'mess with his livelihood' for stupid statements made on this board.

Will they also be banned under this newly stated criteria?

I'm just weighing in to point out that there is clearly a different standard of behavior required of folks here, depending on who they are and how well liked they are.

That much is obvious to me (it is why I departed), and is probably also obvious to any purely objective viewer of events that transpire here.

I voted NO.

eta: I believe my record - available in posts on this board - is very clear as to my disappointment with loCA's handling of her breakup with the Oz couple, and her attitude here on and off for months. I don't like her much anymore, so my vote is not in support of her. It's in support of due process and equal protection.

[Sue U]

I can't see it being read any other way Sue, since Gob described what Loca did as a "complaint" and it was Loca herself who then said he was confusing "complaint" with "lawsuit" - at no time did Gob even suggest it was a law suit the only person to have said that is Loca herself and it was Loca who posted she'd sought legal advice from an Australian legal firm. If she hasn't sought to "initiate a law suit" then why would she even describe it that way?

One, because I think her statement is unclear and ambiguous at best, and B, because I cannot fathom any basis for an actual claim in an actual lawsuit. (I have a little bit of expertise in the area, and I can't imagine where to even start drafting a pleading based on anything related to this BBS.)

[The Hen]

Will they also be banned under this newly stated criteria?

I see no newly stated criteria.

I see the Board as operating as normal, with questions being put to the membership for a vote.

Thanks for voting.

[Scooter]

Joe Guy and Lord Jim admitted openly to filing a complaint with QuadDriver's employer, thus seeking to 'mess with his livelihood' for stupid statements made on this board.

Will they also be banned under this newly stated criteria?

I'm just weighing in to point out that there is clearly a different standard of behavior required of folks here, depending on who they are and how well liked they are.

That much is obvious to me (it is why I departed), and is probably also obvious to any purely objective viewer of events that transpire here.

I voted NO.

Wait one fucking minute.

It was Quad who was the one openly boasting about using his employment with the federal government as a means of obtaining information to use against Joe Guy in order to fuck with him in real life. If Joe Guy chose not to wait around and see whether Quad really could make good on his threats, by pre-emptively going to Quad's employer to tell them what Quad said he intended to do, then Joe was COMPLETELY within his rights to do so. There is absolutely no comparison with the present situation.

If Gob had been stupid enough to post that he had access to information through his employment that he had planned to use in inappropriate ways, then I would have been one of the first to say that he deserved whatever happened had someone who knew where he was employed had chosen to report that to his boss. But that isn't what happened here, is it? Whatever has transpired here bore absolutely no relationship to Gob's employment, and so it was COMPLETELY beyond the pale for loCA to have taken her dispute with Gob to that level.

I find it absolutely inconceivable that you are unable to see the difference between the two cases.

[Lord Jim]

You know, I've been expecting that someone might try to make this ridiculous BS comparison...

I already addressed it in another thread, but I'm happy to do so again.

In Quad's case, we had a poster, who:

1.In an effort to intimidate anyone who disagreed with him, repeatedly boasted that he could use the access he had as a treasury department employee to find out anything he wanted to about any poster here. (In violation of both government policies and federal law.)

2.Claimed that he had used that access to obtain information that backed up his claim that Joe was a child molester, and that Joe should be expecting a visit from an investigator.

I'm sure that to anyone not blinded by personal animosity, the difference between that and this situation, (Where Strop never misused or claimed to misuse anything related to his employment to smear anyone; in fact the only thing he or Hen ever did regarding LoCa was to end an off board friendship, which they of course had a perfect right to do.) is as clear as the difference between night and day.

Since everyone who was here knows very well what was going on in that case, and everyone who is here now knows what's going on in this case, and the fact that they are in no way comparable, I really don't see any point in commenting on it further.

(I imagine that everyone here also knows that the poster who brought this up has a personal gripe against me, and also probably a gripe with Hen and Strop for not "denouncing" me when she demanded that everyone do so, or she would leave. Which she then did. There's not a doubt in my mind that these are the factors that motivated her comments.)

[Lord Jim]

It was Quad who was the one openly boasting about using his employment with the federal government as a means of obtaining information to use against Joe Guy in order to fuck with him in real life. If Joe Guy chose not to wait around and see whether Quad really could make good on his threats, by pre-emptively going to Quad's employer to tell them what Quad said he intended to do, then Joe was COMPLETELY within his rights to do so. There is absolutely no comparison with the present situation.

If Gob had been stupid enough to post that he had access to information through his employment that he had planned to use in inappropriate ways, then I would have been one of the first to say that he deserved whatever happened had someone who knew where he was employed had chosen to report that to his boss. But that isn't what happened here, is it? Whatever has transpired here bore absolutely no relationship to Gob's employment, and so it was COMPLETELY beyond the pale for loCA to have taken her dispute with Gob to that level.

Exactly.