Enough is enough, should loCAtek be banned permanently?

[BoSoxGal]

Guin, I find it interesting that you are so quick to chastise the posting of vile names, etc. directed at loCA, but had nothing to say when it was your pal Andrew D directing same at me, LJ, @w (before she departed), etc.

A moral high horse which is selective in such a manner holds little authority.

[Scooter]

As I see it, the character of the board is in the hands of those who post here -- to misquote Gandhi: "Be the change you want to see in the board." I think you are capable of being that change, I think we're all capable of being that change. Isn't that what got us here in the first place?

And I think her suspension more than proved what the board could be like without her. I am not claiming that it was all sweetness and light, because I would be among the last to claim righteousness on that score, but disputes did not get dragged from thread to thread to thread, contaminating the entire board with the same shit. And then, not even 24 hours after her return... As I said, I am not prepared to let things escalate for another year, as they did prior to her suspension, before something is done to lance the boil once and for all.

[MajGenl.Meade]

First I want to say that this two way street business is an annoying strawman, implying as it does some sort of moral equivalence between the attacker and the one responding in defense....I've never bought that, and never will

Sorry to be annoying but yours is rather the strawman there. The moral equivalence has nothing to do with attack and defense. It has to do with reacting to rather mild provocation with abuse, foul language and petulant righteousness (I am an expert on the latter). I am at perfect liberty (sic) to object to both and suggest that I find the second to be no better, and perhaps worse. I expect those who are as thick as two short planks to act that way and intelligent people to act better. (Have I said enough times that I am part of the problem too?)

No-one that I am aware of has said that an attack should not be defended against. But the defence should be left to whoever feels attacked, not to a general dog-pile of posters who want to call names and fling poo. OTOH, if a poster feels that the attackee should be defended, then by all means do so, without the words "bitch" "c**t" and so on figuring in it.

I am glad you don't feel particularly fond of the "yes" vote. But (Devil's advocate) if a person is on probation for shop-lifting then it appears weak to argue that stealing a car is a different crime and therefore not a violation of the order. I get what you mean though.

I think that all these threads now about "Rules" and what have you play directly into (what others perceive to be) a plan. I note that (thus far) Loca has stopped posting about edits and rules. You and I and a cast of thousands are continuing to do so.

Meade

[Scooter]

I hope that the poll, on a matter of this gravity, will allow for folks to change their vote based on the discussion

I set it up so that could be done, precisely for the reason you stated.

[Scooter]

I would probably at this point, support an additional one month suspension, (or perhaps even two, as a sort of progressive discipline) but I'm not ready to jump all the way to a permanent banning at this point.

I would be willing to amend the poll to add an option for an additional suspension (and might even be convinced to vote for it myself) if you can explain what you think it might accomplish. A suspension implies hope that you believe someone is willing to change, and I have seen NO evidence of that, nor do I foresee any circumstance under which that might happen. And as you say, the behaviour is different, but in the end it serves the same purpose i.e. to disrupt the operation of the board as much as possible. And I don't see that purpose ever being abandoned, given that it has been her mission for well over a year.

[Lord Jim]

Good Scooter.

I have now gone ahead and voted "no"...

I think I've made pretty clear by my posts this morning in some of the other numerous threads now devoted to this topic, exactly how I feel about LoCa's behavior. However, for me, it just doesn't reach the threshold at this point for a permanent ban. (As I've said, I have a very high threshold for that...I guess I could be persuaded, but just based on the existing record I think it unlikely)

I am somewhat concerned that if this fails that LoCa will attempt to try and interpret that as some sort of vote of support for her behavior, (she's certainly shown a growing proclivity for shamelessly dishonest interpretations) but I have to go with what I feel I can support and what is justified, and not worry about that aspect.

If it does fail, (and her behavior persists) I will probably put forward an alternative proposal for a one or two month suspension.

[Lord Jim]

We cross posted.

Maybe we should just go ahead and have an up or down vote on this, and then have another vote on a suspension. (otherwise it's possible that no action, not banning, not suspension, not do nothing, would garner a majority vote...and if action is taken, it really should be, like the last time, by a clear majority)

[Crackpot]

In the end I don't want to give her anything to feed the delusion that this was something done to her rather than something she did to herself.

I am far past caring whether she believes she is being treated fairly.* She will spin it in her own mind in whatever way she chooses regardless, as she has clearly demonstrated over and over again.

I'm more concerned as to what is appears to the casual viewer.

[Scooter]

what she is doing now is really "different" from what she did that brought on the original suspension, (in that case it was obsessive targeting and harassment of individuals...in this case it's more a broader disruption kind of assault, but not in a personalized way...except for a couple of posts)

Actually I do feel the need to disagree with this. All of the carping about "what are the rules" is really nothing but a barrage of accusations that the admins are acting in an arbitrary and capricious way, without any agreement from the membership, in administering the board. IOW, it is nothing but a continuation of her personal vendetta against Gob, Hen, Daisy, etc., which she has punctuated with accusations directed at specific persons along the way.

[dales]

Sorry, Lo even though I have met you IRL I believe the detrius you have left here is enough to make a skunk vomit.

I voted for a permanent ban.

[Lord Jim]

It has to do with reacting to rather mild provocation with abuse, foul language and petulant righteousness

Well you see Gen'l, we're on completely different planets there...

I don't see insults and provocations that are smarmy, left handed, passive aggressive, or thinly veiled allegories, as "mild"...

In fact I see them as far worse than a "you're a rotten prick" type insult, because the person employing them seeks not only to be insulting and provocative, but also to be so in a dishonest way....

A way in which they can try to maintain "plausible deniability"...a way by which to get in their digs, and then be able to feign innocence while well meaning schmucks folks like yourself dismiss their attacks as "mild", while tut tutting[edited to change "tutting" to "tut tutting"] about their targets responding with, "abuse, foul language and petulant righteousness".

Gwenvita was a 12th degree blackbelt at this technique. She really set the standard... She became one of the most insulting posters at the CSB, but to the best of my knowledge she never posted a single four letter word.

But in terms of judging which is more offensive....a dishonest little scut who tries to be insulting in ways they don't think they can be held responsible for, or a good old fashioned, up front, in-your-face @W style, "Fuck You!" ....

I find the former far more offensive than the latter....

[Lord Jim]

A suspension implies hope that you believe someone is willing to change, and I have seen NO evidence of that, nor do I foresee any circumstance under which that might happen.

I guess I'm just not prepared to completely give up on LoCa at this point....(Though as anyone can see from what I've had to say about it, I'm extremely exasperated, disappointed and disgusted with her behavior.) probably because she has been around for so long, and for the bulk of that time she wasn't acting like this....

I also doubt that she was thinking when she started this "rules" trolling (to the extent that "thought" has entered into her process on this at all) that permanent banning was a real possibility....

(In reviewing her posts from last night I highly suspect she was intoxicated; but I would readily concede that it's highly unlikely that she's been intoxicated the whole time she's been doing this...)

However now, given this conversation about banning her permanently, (and the number of folks who have expressed a willingness to embrace that step) going forward she would have to know that permanent banning is a real possibility.

I would endorse the route of another suspension, which along with the willingness folks have shown to support banning her permanently ought to (if anything is capable of doing it, or if at this point she even cares) make clear to her that permanent banning is what she would almost certainly face if she came back here and chose to go down this road a third time....

Hey, even the law in California gives you three strikes....

[Gob]

A suspension implies hope that you believe someone is willing to change, and I have seen NO evidence of that, nor do I foresee any circumstance under which that might happen.

I guess I'm just not prepared to completely give up on LoCa at this point....(Though as anyone can see from what I've had to say about it, I'm extremely exasperated, disappointed and disgusted with her behavior.) probably because she has been around for so long, and for the bulk of that time she wasn't acting like this....

Well lets see how she goes over the next few days.

I noted in the time leading up to her suspension she would binge post all sorts of stupidity/hate, then have a couple of days respite, then start again. My prediction is that these will continue.

Hey, even the law in California gives you three strikes....

Yeah, but they are fucking bonkers there.

[Lord Jim]

Well lets see how she goes over the next few days.

I would certainly hope that when LoCa sees the comments in this thread, (and the accompanying vote tally) it would serve as a wake up call for her to realize that she has pushed things to the point that a substantial number of members here, (a lot more than any "clique") are perfectly prepared to see the back of her...

Permanently.

Whether that step is taken at this juncture or not.

[Scooter]

Hey, even the law in California gives you three strikes....

In the sense that she was already given a do over after her first meltdown within hours of coming back from her suspension, she has already used them up.

And this was supposed to be probation. And I am not moved at all by her claims that she was not aware she would be on probation upon return from her suspension. In fact, her insistence that probation was something arbitrarily imposed after the fact, rather than part and parcel of the vote to suspend her, is simply more unfounded accusations of arbitrary behaviour being thrown at the admins.

To say nothing of her disingenuous request to find out how and where the decision to suspend her was taken.

[Sue U]

I agree with Meade's and Guin's observations that intelligent people of good will can rise to a better standard of behavior than we have seen. I also agree with Jim's observations that Loca's carping about "the rules" etc. is disingenuous and appears to have no purpose other than to make her (again) the center of dramatic attention; she should knock it the hell off.

As I have said before, and as I reiterate here, I am opposed to suspensions and bannings as a matter of principle; the mark of any community is how it treats its weakest and most unloved members.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I agree with Sue U.

[Crackpot]

weakest and unloved? WTF are you talking about? this isn't a case of someone not being "loved" this is a case of the majority saying they are not going to sit around and let themselves be abused. A banning in this forum (no pun intended) is more equivalent to a retraining order than the rather insulting comparison to the plight of the homeless.

Edited for clarity

[BoSoxGal]

I agree with crackpot; enduring ongoing abuse and destructive behavior directed at the board in general should not be required to 'prove' that we care for the least among us.

Today I pleaded with a hardass judge to give a defendant yet one more chance to comply with the judgment imposed - involving, as it happens, treatment for alcohol abuse. The judge was ready to send the defendant to jail a good length of time at my request, but acquiesced instead to my optimism.

I am enormously compassionate and willing to give folks second, third and fourth chances.

But I'll walk away from ongoing abuse.

I won't vote to ban, but would support a longer suspension to give loCA more time to consider whether she values this place enough to participate in good faith.

Or, let's start a 'by invitation only' Plan C, and NOT invite her to join. Something tells me in that scenario this place will not survive for long, and none can be labeled hypocrites.

[Lord Jim]

There's one other point I'd like to address about this...(And since we have more than enough threads devoted to this topic, rather than start a new one, I'm going to make it here)

I know that there are some folks here who believe, (it has been hinted at, so we might as well address it up front) including some folks for whom I have a great deal of personal respect and affection, (no, not that kind of affection... ) and count as friends...

That LoCa's behavior can be somehow explained as her serving as a "tip of the spear" for some sort of vengeance conspiracy orchestrated by a person or persons off stage with a grudge against this board....

Namely editec....

Personally, I don't buy that for a moment...

Might she be in communication with Editec, or Quad, or Steve, or Gwenvita (or any combination of them), and getting reinforcement from them in terms of validating her behavior?

Quite possibly...(I have no way of knowing the answer to that one way or the other...there is no doubt that many of the techniques she has employed recently seem to come from the same bag of tricks...)

But I do not at all believe the theory that Editec is somehow orchestrating LoCa's behavior from off stage...

I believe that is an interpretation so paranoid that it is worthy of ...

Well...Steve...

For starters, I communicated with Editec both through PMs and over the phone going back to when his son was three or four years old and Tati hadn't been born....(and also well after that...up till maybe four or five years ago)

And while he seemed maybe a bit neurotic and somewhat excitable, I never got the impression that he would be focused and disciplined enough to carry on the kind of long term "Captain Ahab" grudge that is currently being attributed to him by some....

Nor did I get the impression that he had the sort of charismatic "svengali" qualities that would enable him to manipulate others with the ease that some here wish to attribute to him...

I knew the guy a long time, and I simply never got the impression he possessed those qualities...