IS it wrong to ask what happened to CSB?

[Guinevere]

Yeah, I was just about to post something. I don't think its kool-aid and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's probably genuinely incredibly frustrated about the 'tude many people are taking over there, and has no idea how to respond to anyone. He sent me an equally nasty PM, suggesting I use "honey" rather than "vinegar," and just being a condescending ass. I suppose he overlooked where I said "please" and "thank you" in my request (request, not demand). Clearly he's never dealt with lawyers much 'cause if I wanted to strong arm him that wouldn't have been the post I would have written.

Oy.

[@meric@nwom@n]

So what is the point of LLC?

[Guinevere]

I don't know @W -- seeing the paperwork might help answer that question.

[tyro]

Lord Jim wrote

But given everything Gar has written, (and what Tyro has conveyed about his communications with him) it's pretty clear that that just ain't on the cards...

Lord Jim, could you please point out what it was that I said that supports that conclusion?

I know I said that we can’t expect the time to edit posts to be left wide open again, but what else are you picking up from my writings?

[loCAtek]

No really, he is doing his best to restrain his emotional reactions. He wanted to clean up the board at a reasonable pace to his schedule; then suddenly many people are demanding his personal attention to their individual issues.

Guin was not the first, nor will she be the last. But that request, following demands for 'shut the board down!'* and 'kill Gar' have him feeling sensitive to anything perceived as a threat.
Again, I counsel patience.



*If he had gone with how he felt, there currently there wouldn't be any CSB.

[Lord Jim]

I know I said that we can’t expect the time to edit posts to be left wide open again

I'm sorry Tyro bu it seems to me that every time you address that issue you state it in a way that seems designed to trivialize and minimize what actually happened, and what the central issue there is ...

I find this puzzling because the central issue has been laid out here by myself and others, in great detail repeatedly....

One more time:

IT ISN'T ABOUT THE MERITS OF UNLIMITED EDITING.

It's about the fact that a fundamental change was made in the board's functionality that had been in place for years. A lengthy discussion on the subject took place, and a vote was held. The position of the Admin was overwhelmingly rejected by the membership. The Admin decided to impose her position anyway.

You made clear in your post, that based on your discussion with Gar, he's good with that. The fact that he apparently has no problem with that, shows to me that the whole "this is your board" concept was nothing but a bunch of empty hooey, and proves that he "doesn't get it" in terms of understanding what has become the fundamental problem at the CSB,and what led to a lot of people walking out. Namely, the problem of an arbitrary and capricious Admin, who doesn't give one small damn what anybody there thinks except for her two buddies. Her over ruling of the majority on the editing issue is but the purest and most glaring example of this fundamental problem.

As I said before, if Gar wanted to do something that at a single stroke would demonstrate that he "gets it' and understands what the fundamental problem is, a good way to do that would be to reverse this decision. Even if he personally thinks 30 minutes is just dandy...that's NOT the real issue here...he wouldn't have to make it unlimited...he could set it somewhere between 24 hours and unlimited, because that's where the vast majority of the membership said they wanted it...If he actually cared about the "your board" concept, this is what he would do, regardless of his personal opinion on the subject.

But as I said, I do not expect him to do anything like this, because Gar clearly does not "get it". Every day he posts new things demonstrating just how much he doesn't "get it"... indeed, with each passing day, he seems to move further and further away from "getting it". (If he even remotely "got it" any comments about "honey" and "vinegar" would be directed to GWEN..... who apparently he seems to think is just peachy, for example.)

At this point, he is so far away from "gets it" he's not even within yodeling distance of "gets it" from where he's standing....

The course he has adopted, blame and lectures for the members; praise, and gratitude for Gwen....is just about as wrong headed a course as one can possibly imagine....

Gar may think that the position he's taking will some how revitalize the CSB, but the sad fact is that given what he's said since he's returned, all he's been doing in reality is drive more nails into the coffin....

The fact is, in a way, the situation was more hopeful before he returned...

At least then the possibility always existed that when and if he came back, he'd see what the fundamental problem was and move to correct it...

But since his return he has demonstrated repeatedly that he for whatever reason he is either unable or unwilling to take the bull by the horns and address the main thing that is destroying his forum....

So now even the hope that he might actually do something positive, no longer even exists.

[Guinevere]

Jim (or anyone), where does the "your board" (meaning the members' board) concept come from? I'm not trying to create a problem, but honestly, I've never considered the CSB anything but Gar's board, and we were posting there by his grace. Even during his hiatus, I've always thought it was *his* board.

Is there something specific that made it *the members board,* or it is more a sense that developed over time? I'm not asking to start a debate as to whether it is or is not, just curious as to how the concept came about.

[Lord Jim]

Again, I counsel patience.

Well LoCa, that's all well and good, and if he was just taking his time to examine the situation before saying anything, that would be one thing...

But the problem is, he has been saying things....

And the things he has been saying have indicated that he has gone charging off in the complete wrong direction...

Guin:

he's said it repeatedly, most recently in the opening to his first thread on this:

I have always said that this is "your" board, I am merely the benign caretaker.

http://www.cybersoapbox.com/SMF/index.php?topic=20592.0

[BoSoxGal]

I was really put off by that, too.

Admittedly I did not post actively at CSB for very long before Gar went AWOL - but I can't say I'm terribly impressed with his recent postings.

Just very glad this place exists now, as I don't see myself visiting there too much longer the way things are going.

[Sue U]

As a late-comer to the CSB, I don't know whether there was any charter that established it as the members' board (even if only in philosophy), but certainly the spirit always seemed to be that no one could claim any kind of proprietary interest and no one could restrict or censor anyone's posts (with the exception of spambots, but even then there was serious discussion about the propriety of whacking them).

I agree with Jim that Gar does not appear to be "getting it." He seems to be sliding toward some form of moderation and rules about what you can and can't say and how it must be said. These are all very bad for the concept of free speech. But if we truly want to be a board of equals there has to be some effective mechanism by which the community can say how it wants the board to run while protecting the "rights" of those who disagree. A dictatorship, no matter how benevolent, is still a dictatorship. But there are a range of options between dictatorship and anarchy.

[Guinevere]

There is no such thing as unlimited, unrestricted free speech, or speech without consequence. To pretend that there is, I think, even in a teeny little corner of cyberspace, is not a useful tool. In the real world, we live and die by the consequences of our actions, including our words. That imposes inherent community standards on all of us. Why should the CSB, or Plan B, or anywhere else be different? We're creating the ultimate fiction and it just doesn't work. (And as I've posted before, that's one reason why I have no issue with the editing limits -- because in the real world you can't take back what you say, you ahve to either (1) think first, or (2) deal with the consequences of what you've said.)

Exhibit A being the, well, you know . . .

[Scooter]

Gar's latest proposal for a "rule" about being "respectful" when making requests of admins clearly shows that he has been completely sucked in by Gwen . People were nothing but respectful of Gwen in her admin role until such time as she so blatantly showed her contempt for everyone else. If Gar believes otherwise, he is either completely delusional or has turned into as much of a complete bitch as Gwen.

Either way, reinforces my decision to dismember by 1000%.

[Crackpot]

The problem is Gar been operating under the illusion that everyone is at fault and everyone needs to check them selves and therefore there is no point in naming names. Problem is we are well past that point. It's been done many times and those with honor have copped to their portions of the problem many times and tried to mend their ways. Unfortunately, those without honor haven't and didn't leading leading to even more ill will. What made the situation worse is is the de facto administration had called out some members while leaving her friends carte blanche to operate at will at best and under a delusional seal of approval at worst.

At this point the only real solution is to name names. Address all grievances and pass Judgement even if that only amounts to a written admonishment. This has gone too far for far too long for anything else to have any effect.

What's more Is I'm sure most would welcome taking their licks if that would mean that those who've escaped judgement would finally be called to task.

[@meric@nwom@n]

What's more Is I'm sure most would welcome taking their licks if that would mean that those who've escaped judgement would finally be called to task.

Yep. I accept full responsibility for anything I have written about anyone. My choice, my keyboard.

Gar clearly has only the interest of Gwen and her pack in mind. Mentions my calling her a cunt but fails to note the point where I started a nice Christmas thread years back and was referred to as a whore 2nd post out by Editec. (Just one of many examples.)

I believe I am done with the CSB and when it dies I will not be sending flowers.

[Crackpot]

From his moderators thread I get the impression that he's getting fed up with the "not my fault brigade" which I'm sure contains at least a couple of the usual suspects. Like I said without finally naming names suspicion will just run rampant.

[Lord Jim]

Gar's latest proposal for a "rule" about being "respectful" when making requests of admins clearly shows that he has been completely sucked in by Gwen .

I think that's exactly right. It's as though he sat down with Gwen, wrote down a list of everything she would like, and is now planning to formally codify it into the CSB's procedures.

People were nothing but respectful of Gwen in her admin role until such time as she so blatantly showed her contempt for everyone else.

That's also spot on. Good lord, I used nothing but "honey" for a very long time and you see what I got for my trouble.

[BoSoxGal]

I just logged out over there and don't see myself logging in again anytime soon.

I'm not quite ready to officially de-register, but then I tend to rubberneck at accident scenes. Assuming things keep going the way they sound from Gar's posts, it's not a place I'll want to be.

Thank goodness for Plan B!

[The Hen]

Oh ... My ... God.

Count me as one that is happy that this Board was started.

The man that posts under the name of G-Man is not a man I know in any way shape of form.

I wish him well with his new endeavour to make the CSB a company.

Two is company, three is Gwen, Steve and ed, and any more than that is not welcome over there unless they are a sock of Steve.

[Crackpot]

Well he at least seem to be welcoming of my suggestions. I copied my penultimate post over there.

[Rick]

I've posted there after stating that I probably wouldn't.

Guess I lied...