mitchymo ...again???

[rbkwp]

Well i liked Mitch and his healthy contributions
despite our minor altercation, we worked things out
without no major interferences.

Have a Great relaxing lifestyle UK Mitch,
without obligations of feeling lpsg is a neccesary part of your life ha
Gonna miss your thoughtful, varying thread topics.
enz

 

[chicagosam]

So here is my proposed solution. I am proposing a virtual bail bond where I will stand bail for Mitchymo, the bond being my lpsg membership. I suggest he is un-banned conditional on good behaviour (exactly as before). If these terms are breached both he and I are to be banned. In my case this would be without discussion or argument or reapplication.

Jason, your heart is in the right place, but this is something that is better left alone for now. I made the same offer in the past. In retrospect, I would not do it again. I feel that the Moderator team has gone to great lengths over the past two years to dot every "i" and cross every"t" in regards to the Terms of Service. The expectations are very clear. I like Mitchymo. I had some nice interactions with him over the weekend. Oddly enough, I had asked him how long it had been since he was reinstated, and he replied "seven months." Two days later he was banned for violating an agreement he had made with the moderator team. He brought this on himself. I wish he had not done this, but he did.

One of the privileges at this site is the ability to be considered for reinstatement. If you are fortunate enough to be granted reinstatement, you have an obligation to live up to the expectations of the Moderator Team. The longevity and success of the reinstated member is in their hands, not another member as bail bondsman; and, historically, Jason, most have failed. However, I don't think that Mitchymo would fail you. It's an unnecessary gesture when what he needs to do—if and when he wants to do so—is already in place.

From my experience, the less drama concerning a banning works better in the banned member's behalf. Mitchymo knows what he needs to do. Let this remain between him and the Moderator team for now.

You're a kind man, Jason, and your proposal speaks volumes about you.

Take care and have a good Christmas and New Year, Mitch, and I hope you do the reapplication thing when you can.

Ditto.

Reinstating Banned Members

 

[Jason]

Jason, your offer is really very nice and I'm sure we will discuss the issue in the moderator forum. However the flaw in your "Get Out Of Jail Free Card" is that if we do it for one person we will have to do it for everyone. And I don't think I could support it based on that.
No matter how unfair the membership here think we are... we apply the rules equally to everyone. No one gets preferential treatment here.

Thanks for considering this in the moderator forum.

This is an unusual circumstance - where the banned is a former moderator - and an unusual offer. It is also a special time of year with Christmas almost here, a time which we should all make the season of goodwill. The key person is presumably the member whom Mitchymo has upset. Can this member accept this solution?

 

[Incocknito]

If it's a season of goodwill then maybe mitchymo should have been nicer to the member he offended and not tried to be underhanded and get said member in trouble.

So if mitchymo has demonstrated himself to have no goodwill why should any of the moderators offer him any?

Answer: they shouldn't

And even if they did, it would create all sorts of problems if bannings were based on what holiday it is instead of what actions a person committed.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Thanks for considering this in the moderator forum.

This is an unusual circumstance - where the banned is a former moderator - and an unusual offer. It is also a special time of year with Christmas almost here, a time which we should all make the season of goodwill. The key person is presumably the member whom Mitchymo has upset. Can this member accept this solution?

If it's a season of goodwill then maybe mitchymo should have been nicer to the member he offended and not tried to be underhanded and get said member in trouble.

So if mitchymo has demonstrated himself to have no goodwill why should any of the moderators offer him any?

Answer: they shouldn't

And even if they did, it would create all sorts of problems if bannings were based on what holiday it is instead of what actions a person committed.

Just to be clear Mitchymo wasn't banned for offending anyone. He was banned because he violated the conditions of his continued membership of the site. These conditions were absolutely clear and agreed to by him, and he knew the consequences of violation.

 

[Incocknito]

He mentioned the unmentionable person in two posts. Then after Mr Unmentionable told mitchymo that he (mitchymo) was violating the terms of their truce, mitchymo then reported Mr Unmentionable. Which is bitchy and a bit underhand.

This is what I was referring to. Indirectly that is offensive (in my opinion) and I don't know what the contents of the two posts were where mitchymo referred to this other person. Maybe they were malicious posts, maybe not.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

He mentioned the unmentionable person in two posts. Then after Mr Unmentionable told mitchymo that he (mitchymo) was violating the terms of their truce, mitchymo then reported Mr Unmentionable. Which is bitchy and a bit underhand.

This is what I was referring to. Indirectly that is offensive (in my opinion) and I don't know what the contents of the two posts were where mitchymo referred to this other person. Maybe they were malicious posts, maybe not.

Oh I see what you mean. Yeah well the highlighted portion is a good recapitulation of the story.

 

[Countryguy63]

Just to be clear Mitchymo wasn't banned for offending anyone. He was banned because he violated the conditions of his continued membership of the site. These conditions were absolutely clear and agreed to by him, and he knew the consequences of violation.

Are you sure? Or is there more and/or missing parts to it?

 

[Daisy]

See, when someone gets banned and the mods are vague about it, it doesnt provide a "teaching moment" for the other members. Why can't they just say what the specific violation was? Maybe it was clear to them but it's not clear to us. I mean if it's something like the member turned out to be a child molester perhaps that might be kept confidential but whatever Mitchy did doesn't seem all that scandalous? What terms did he violate?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Previously Mitchymo and another member got into an altercation which got out of hand. After due consideration both were told to ignore each other and make no reference to each other in any way on the boards.

In a recent thread Mitchymo made two posts regarding this other member. The other member replied basically saying not to mention his name as per the instruction previous issued by the Mod team. Mitchymo then reported that post stating the other member had broken the agreement.

The team after lengthy discussion decided that Mitchymo had gone against the agreement and the that response from the other member was not unreasonable. Both members had agreed to adhere to this instructions and knew what the consequences would be for breaking it.

The Mod thread will be updated in due course however I felt it prudent to post this factual explanation to avoid speculation.

See, when someone gets banned and the mods are vague about it, it doesnt provide a "teaching moment" for the other members. Why can't they just say what the specific violation was? Maybe it was clear to them but it's not clear to us. I mean if it's something like the member turned out to be a child molester perhaps that might be kept confidential but whatever Mitchy did doesn't seem all that scandalous? What terms did he violate?

What's unclear about what Cunning posted?

 

[Jason]

This board isn't about making some sort of moral judgment about people or punishing transgressors - rather it is a social forum with a support element. I have offered a solution which I believe would be very effective indeed in making sure there is no repeat problem. It therefore enables this board to support a member rather than to punish him, and gets the mods out of the hole of "rules is rules". Isn't loving our fellow man what we're all supposed to do in this world, and something which is particularly in our thoughts at Christmas? Maybe the person Mitchymo offended can be big enough to turn the other cheek. Maybe the moderators can prompt this best action from the offended party. We need a bit of love both for the offended party (whom I expect is hurting) and for Mitchymo, and a bit of self-knowledge in that every one of us is capable of saying something or sending an email we subsequently wish we hadn't.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

This board isn't about making some sort of moral judgment about people or punishing transgressors - rather it is a social forum with a support element. I have offered a solution which I believe would be very effective indeed in making sure there is no repeat problem. It therefore enables this board to support a member rather than to punish him, and gets the mods out of the hole of "rules is rules". Isn't loving our fellow man what we're all supposed to do in this world, and something which is particularly in our thoughts at Christmas? Maybe the person Mitchymo offended can be big enough to turn the other cheek. Maybe the moderators can prompt this best action from the offended party. We need a bit of love both for the offended party (whom I expect is hurting) and for Mitchymo, and a bit of self-knowledge in that every one of us is capable of saying something or sending an email we subsequently wish we hadn't.

Jason, I understand what you're saying but, let me be clear once again. Mitchymo was not banned because he offended another member.

This has nothing to do with the other member in question turning cheeks, and the other member has not communicated any upset to us, we'd appreciate it if you didn't turn this into a kind of guilt-trip/witch hunt of another member who has nothing to do with Mitchymo having violated the terms of an agreement he made regarding his own conduct.

 

[ManofThunder]

I'm sure there wasn't any other choice but it is of course disappointing.

 

[B_bi_mmf]

Jason, I understand what you're saying but, let me be clear once again. Mitchymo was not banned because he offended another member.

This has nothing to do with the other member in question turning cheeks, and the other member has not communicated any upset to us, we'd appreciate it if you didn't turn this into a kind of guilt-trip/witch hunt of another member who has nothing to do with Mitchymo having violated the terms of an agreement he made regarding his conduct.

Amen!

 

[Bbucko]

See, when someone gets banned and the mods are vague about it, it doesnt provide a "teaching moment" for the other members. Why can't they just say what the specific violation was? Maybe it was clear to them but it's not clear to us. I mean if it's something like the member turned out to be a child molester perhaps that might be kept confidential but whatever Mitchy did doesn't seem all that scandalous? What terms did he violate?

The teaching moment here is that when the mods ask you to put someone on ignore (or otherwise cease interacting with and referring to another individual) and you agree with this, then it's best to keep your promises to the mods.

Without any prompting on the mod's part, I've currently got about 12 people on my ignore list. It actually makes being here much more pleasant for me. Of all the people I've put into that list, there's only one about whom my mind's been changed and I took him off the list, though I still don't interact with him nor respond to his posts.

Mitch and I were never close, and since I don't indulge in grave pissing/dancing I won't here.

 

[Jason]

Jason, I understand what you're saying but, let me be clear once again. Mitchymo was not banned because he offended another member.

This has nothing to do with the other member in question turning cheeks, and the other member has not communicated any upset to us, we'd appreciate it if you didn't turn this into a kind of guilt-trip/witch hunt of another member who has nothing to do with Mitchymo having violated the terms of an agreement he made regarding his own conduct.

That changes matters a lot.

If there isn't an upset, offended or hurt member out there somewhere then we have a victimless crime. In most legal codes there are difficulties with the idea of prosecuting crimes which don't have a victim. Indeed this is the line of thought that was followed in English law to decriminalise sodomy - no victim, so no crime.

Is LPSG banning Mitchymo for a crime without a victim? We're into the realms of a technical offence. Yes he's breached a rule, but no-one is upset, so what is it all about?

My "bail" offer seems all the more appropriate as a solution.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

That changes matters a lot.

If there isn't an upset, offended or hurt member out there somewhere then we have a victimless crime. In most legal codes there are difficulties with the idea of prosecuting crimes which don't have a victim. Indeed this is the line of thought that was followed in English law to decriminalise sodomy - no victim, so no crime.

Is LPSG banning Mitchymo for a crime without a victim? We're into the realms of a technical offence. Yes he's breached a rule, but no-one is upset, so what is it all about?

My "bail" offer seems all the more appropriate as a solution.

This isn't a court of law Jason. No one has committed a crime of any sort.

 

[maxcok]

This isn't a court of law Jason. No one has committed a crime of any sort.

I was just about to say, this isn't "Judge Judy". :smile:

Seriously Jason, let it go. It's not happening.

 

[ManofThunder]

I was just about to say, this isn't "Judge Judy". :smile:

Seriously Jason, let it go. It's not happening.

Gotta love 'Judge Judy'!

 

[Jason]

This isn't a court of law Jason. No one has committed a crime of any sort.

So no one is upset or hurt by Mitchymo. No one has done anything (seriously) wrong. We're left with a technical infringement of a rule. And a member banned. That's heavy.