I believe this is the reason for the ban.

What surprises me is that Carnevaca seems to be a smart man, RUDE but smart and he knew he had two strikes and was warn about this. Still he did it again. I guess he felt the moderator wouldn't banned him. :shrug:


I guess we can call it "The Carnevaca Rule". :eek:

Isabel

Hawkeye, I think we (the moderators) all feel that the answer to that question was obvious in the statement Marty posted for us, so I'm not sure why you feel we're not giving a clear answer.

There are rules against "harrassing, insulting, taunting, nasty remarks or name-calling." Which also includes "taunting (as) defined as 'aggravation by deriding, mocking, criticizing or carping'."

The comments directed towards Jacob, especially, were way out of line in the "taunting, deriding, insulting" vein. In fact, we received quite a number of complaints about those particular posts.

And then when it became clear that additional usernames were being used to "gang up" on him further, the situation was exacerbated.
Same with the comments towards ThinLine and others in the 'What The Hell' thread.

I don't think I can stress enough that this wasn't a decision we were HAPPY about making... not in the least.
But after reviewing all of the facts, and taking previous strikes into consideration, this was the decision we came to.





Other moderators aren't always as visible as I am on the boards, but that certainly doesn't mean they "don't do s**t."

I happen to have only a part-time job and no children or significant other, so the amount of time I have available to post here, is greater than that of others. Though I'm sure they'd all love to have far more free time than they do, so they can indulge in more recreational activities such as posting here!

At any rate, our position on this has been explained, and I think any more would just be redundant.

I (in fact, we all do) respect that not everyone will agree with our decision, but we stand by it.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


Funniest

banning

ever!

I'm sorry. And, I really meant NO offense by it. I wasn't referring to anyone in particular(seriously). If you asked my friends, they would absolutely tell you that I make goat and sheep jokes ALL the time. Yes, I'm a dorky, wanna-be comedian. And they would confirm that, too. Maybe you're a tad sensitive?

Wow! Far more offensive? That hurts. I have been making a conscience effort lately to lighten up my posts, because I feel a select few are thinking I'm an asshole. If you knew me, you would know that I am a kind person. However, I DO suffer fools lightly, especially those who blindly praise non-worthy actions/performances, and am not afraid to let them know how I feel.
A STRIKE for "Rescind the Goat"??? Geez Louise. You have got to be kidding me? Pardon me for having a sense of humor which you obviously don't appreciate. I'll try to PC/mamby pamby up my future posts for you, since you are clearly offended by RESCIND THE GOAT!
(yes, I started this post in an apologetic fashion, and the further I went, well........)
RESCIND THE GOAT!!!

I agree. So my theory is that he got what he asked for. It seemed to me that he was begging to be banned! I don't know if he regrets it now... that's something to ask the man himself!

I asked. You are not right. But you all know he IS a man of principles and refuses to sail another direction when thinks he's done nothing wrong essentially. I read more rudeness over here besides Carne's. I'm cool with that. We all have the possibility to respond or neglect.

Yesterday i tried to post Carne's reply on the verdict. I thought it was only fair. But my post got deleted and I was shortly banned to post and use PM. It would have been a lot cooler and gentleman-esque if they gave the guy the possibily to have the last word on this. I think he deserved that, and it would have been an goodbye in Carne-style.

Hah I know! I laughed out loud at that one. Sadly it sounded more like a strangled chortle which probably alarmed the lady who works in the lobby.

I was tempted to put it into my sig but, well, couldn't be bothered!

to be honest, unless the info provided by marty was faulse, or unless CV (or someone else on his behalf for that matter) can come up with some brilliant excuse for such behaviour, i changed my mind, and now i find the banning fair and legit. sorry.

Hey, hey, hey! I worked my ass off to keep SMAP in the new Survivor game as long as possible and I ended up saving it just as long as it was in the other thread! Give me props, dude. ;)

None taken. I've stepped over the line a few times and will readily admit it(especially with that horrible crack I made about Dick Cheney and beastiality, but it could have been worse and I could have included Rick Santroum), but the only times I'm ever really mean-spirited and nasty is when I'm talking about Bush and the neocons. :laugh:

Fact is, there are things that every poster ont his board says and posts that can be construed as offensive. I take offense to Le Stew calling WISYA a masterpiece, but for cripes sake, I don't flog him for it...often.

Agreed.

Wise ass. :cool: You know and I know that it's a crack at The Queen of Velvet Foutnains and Fairy Farts. And a funny one at that. :laugh:

Like that ever stopped me.

Were you told that you were being temporarily banned or did they just spring it on you? If so, that's not cool.

Sorry, but Marty and the Mods. have had their say in this thread, I think it's only fair that someone be allowed to post Carne's one and only final response. I've read it and it's not offensive, so I don't know what the worry is. :shrug:

Agreed. This is truly nutty behavior, and might I add that the tone of his posts oftentimes came from an angry, manipulative place--critically attacking other ledgies with rude, hateful responses. Judging from that, I can't just say, "no harm done" with regard to his "alter-egos." That just makes his antics even more disturbing.

Have read it too, and I agree. I also feel offended by the fact they insinuated that anyone who has stepped up for him was just 'instructed' to do so by him. Hello, I have my own opinion, thank you very much.

No Marty deleted the post and i could not post in the Tuskthread anymore so I went back to this "hidden" board, and saw the post was gone. after a short time I got an email on my private addy with a very correct note from marty where he explained the action. Nothing wrong with that. He did not think it was very cool though :rolleyes: . I replied with the remark that he could have been smarter in this case and should have followed Carne's request: Post the verdict and my reply. They did not so I tried. The community could have had a goodbye in style. It would have been chique AND clever.

Sometimes I don't understand Americans. Didn't you invent the "win-win"-strategy? I thought this could have been a classic one.

I know, I couldn't believe that. It was quite the slap in the face.

I agree. I know he's not coming back to the board and I'm fine with that because it is their board, not mine. But I think it would add some class to the whole mess by at least giving him the opportunity to respond. :o

The first bullet under the section regarding 'What's Not Cool' to post on the Ledge (ie: what's considered offensive behaviour)....

That rule has been on the books for four years now.

I agree that there should be one more post from CV -- an APOLOGY ... a heartfelt, sincere acknowledgement that he crossed the line and is sorry for all the crapola HE caused.

Until then -- RESCIND THE ACCOUNT!

This is an interesting summary posted by Hippocampus of the whole mess (posted on 08/29/04), in response to NoThatFunny claiming he was not Carne. The whole episode really does make interesting reading.

If anyone has CV's email address, please PM me. Thanks.

grrrr
 

I know Mr. Stew.
BUT you can sum up every rule in the book. I'm talking about acting IN REASON, and CONSIDERING CONTEXTS. Not only by the book, thank you very much. In all honesty NOW you are p*ssing me off. In my pleed for Carne that I PM-ed to you, I asked for seeing things in perspective. And in his request at YOU, to post his verdict AND Reply, was a possibility for you to do this whole thing in style and with some control over people who support Carne. I think it is typical that you reply on my last post with a godd*mn RULE. Haven't you read the post? So now I'm telling the same friggin' story again. You have not banned a member who signed in to harrass people, and willingly offends people. You are talking about someone who made a lot of virtual friends, too, was very active, and positive in the majority of his posts. He posted around 4000 times here.

Now, I'm saying here that I respect the reasons of the banning. He broke the rules. I say a little you say severe. Accepted. I'm not saying it was a simple decision for you. I know that people (moderators and the Adelsons) have a heart. I Just say that I think we, as a community, have build up virtual relationships and I don't think it's fair nor smart to communicate this decision with The Rulebook in hands. I tried to support you by Pm-ing and endlessly wait with posting the reasons. And still I do not SEE that you have seen things in perspective nor giving the guy the possibilty of response.

That's dumb, in my book.

You could have thought about this, too: Why would a fairly sane Dutchman risk his place in his favorite forum by breaking rule 1? Why would he post a private email that was in your own hands?

Yes you did the things Just in this case. Perfectly by the rule. But without concern with the effects on the community or at least a part of it.

Dumb again.

So now I broke rule 1. (offensive behaviour)

Did I insult you with this post by using the word dumb twice?

3 strikes out?

But some don't have the sense of humor that you and I share. Dammit.
And, I really wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I made that my sig.
I was just mocking Carne's, with a twist, and looks like I accidentally struck a gold vein. :xoxo:

Quite honestly Johnny, my opinion on this is that it is a matter between the writer and the one who chooses to quote him/her publicly. I do not think the moderators should be involved in something like that, unless the quotation takes place without the permission of the writer. You've taken action when the latter has been the case, and I understand that.

Look at Greg and Kate (TheDeadliestPoison and XdreamsunwindX). I've seen them quote their chats in the survivor threads (and Kate even had one chat in her signature at one point) and those have included messages that a person other than the poster has written. Have they been given any strikes because of that? Is chatroom talk any different from those things that the FAQ mentions? Clearly Greg and Kate are friends and have each other's permission to quote each other how they like (or as Chrissie Hynde would have put it: "sample my very ass"). And clearly Gerald had Carne's permission to post that final goodbye. Yet that was taken away. And yes, I agree with Gerald, it was not a very compassionate thing to do.

Gerald... CV told us that we could/should post his response to the letter informing him of his banning. But as you said yourself in the post of yours that was deleted, he did not tell YOU that you could.
You said clearly that you were acting on your own.

You expressed the fact that you felt it was unfair your post was then deleted, so I pointed out the rule regarding the posting of emails authored by someone else.
CV's request to us is one thing... you taking it upon yourself to post two private emails, was something different.

All of this, is the whole reason we have rules around here. I don't think they're terribly unfair rules, and I don't think we're terribly unfair in enforcing them. In fact, we're probably more lenient than other message boards would be, because we DO take into consideration that this is a community of like-minded fans and friends.

You asked us to see things in perspective. We said we would, and we did.
As it has been said, this wasn't a decision we made happily. But, in the end, if we had allowed this behaviour to continue without a strike, then we might as well allow anyone else who's ever received a strike or been banned for this EXACT reason, to come right back.

CV is not being made an example of. He's not the first person who has received a strike and/or been banned for this behaviour.
Should we have gone back on our own rules, to make a special exception in his case? Some of the other people had friends and allies too... does that mean they, too, should have been allowed to harass, insult and humiliate other users without reproach, or with just a tiny slap on the wrist?

I understand you're upset, and I understand he's your friend (guess what... despite, or perhaps because of, the constant debating between he and I, I quite liked him too. So I understand your disappointment)... and I assure you, we took all of the good things he has contributed to this board into account. But, in the end, we made the decision that we felt was the most fair for EVERYONE.

Okay, so since Carnevaca did in fact tell me it was okay to post his mail, I have a go ahead then?

Jesus Johnny, this is the most miereneukerigste thing I've heard from you in a long time.


Edit: ah, there is an english translation that will appear without ***'s. Hair Splitting.

No, Gaius... in his now-deleted post, Gerald stated that CV had no idea he was posting those emails.

Yes Johnny, obviously I must have missed that one.

I do feel that this one thing in FAQ could be expanded upon a bit though, unless we believe that everyone will interpret it like we interpret it.

Mari, bring it on.

Since the email was meant for Marty's eyes, shouldn't his approval also be required?

To expand upon Gaius' comparisons of Greg and Kate posting each other's PM messages in their signatures. The difference is that Greg and Kate are the only two parties involved, and obviously have each other's approval to share those PM messages.

So it's one thing if CV wishes to share the email with others, such as yourself, privately, but (and this is just my opinion), it oversteps boundaries for a separate third party to make public a private letter between two other parties.

I'm not going to continue debating this.

Allright then.
I, Mari, having asked both Carnevace, the writer of this e-mail, and Johnny Stew, one moderator of this board, for permission to post.. blahblah legal stuff. But it's the truth and by your rules.

Here goes.
I've a feeling this might cost me a third strike, so just in case, goodbye everyone, see you somewhere else in cyberspace. A blacker ledge, perhaps.

Marty:

Thanks for letting me know after the two-week wait the reasons for banning me from the Ledge.

Over the years, the Ledge has provided me with a fair amount of amusement, and its entertainment value has been most welcome for the most part. It is fitting that your sendoff is equally amusing. Your implicit threat of embarrassing me publicly should "my supporters" make it appear as if I was treated unfairly was indeed amusing. I can't think of how else to characterize the comically warped sense of justice that would motivate you to punish me for the acts of others. For, you must know that I cannot control what people say in your board, especially after I've been banned and cannot even speak for myself. Hell, I didn't even see the two threads about me for several days since I haven't even been on the web most of the past week while dealing with a family emergency. I logged back on today to see these threads that had taken a life of their own unbeknownst to me.

I think it's cute that you believe you can embarrass me by publicizing that I was using other accounts. I am so concerned about the prospect of embarrassement that I will issue a challenge here and now: Take the e-mail you sent me about the decision to ban me and post it unedited. And take my response here and post it unedited. I would love to see the reactions when people learn that you are banning me for using accounts that you yourself approved. Perhaps you are ultimately punishing me because you are angry at yourself for letting me dupe you. That's a very human reaction.

I would also love to see the reactions to the other justifications you are using for banning me. You told me publicly and by e-mail that you would not ban me for the "What the hell thread!?" thread, but there it is as a reason for the banishment. And your Johnny Stew also said publicly that you do not ban people for criticizing how the Ledge is run. I would love to see the reaction to this hypocrisy unmasked.

I could argue until I'm blue in the face about how I didn't really break your sacrosanct FAQ. You even admit that using different accounts is not a violation of the FAQ, yet you are using that as a reason for banning me. Your other justifications about insults are as thin as mountain air. I skated very close to the edge, but I never violated the FAQ. How could I when people are constantly posting expletives remarks with sexual content, such as references to blowjobs, which are a clear violation, but they are somehow still allowed to post? But it doesn't matter. The motivation for banning me ultimately is petty and mean-spirited. So, by all means, publicize the e-mail you sent me and publicize this one. I will continue to be amused.

Thanks for the laughs. Oh, and by the way, are you sure you've nailed all the accounts I've used? ;)

Pedro

I did not give permission for the letter to be posted.
Nowhere, in anything I said, did I give permission.

The letter was meant for Marty, and HIS permission is what you'd need to post it.

you ignored my question, but in first instance, you did indeed give permission by the rule you stated.

Now for the third time, Johnny, I UNDERSTAND that you gave him the strike and played it by the Rules. I disagree, but hey that's clear and NOT my point. I am not asking to put him back, I asked for seeing things perspective. You say you did that and I believe you. Now I'm not a religious man. Still believe you. In the way you are communicating about this issue I don't see ANY consideration.
He did the request to post his reply in a private email to the Penguin. True. You did nothing with it. Now I read his request directed at you in a private email sent to me. It's not that I stole the information for B*ckingh*m sake!

You still don't say that you agree with me that YOU should have gone by his request, so i would not have been placed in the position to be drawn to be the naughty boy. (bad sentence, but english is friggin' hard when you're
p%ssed off). This can be repaired: you Still can post his reply. That's all I'm fighting for and you KNEW it. You knew I was informed from almost the beginning. Give the man credit for 3500 posts without things on the edge.
That would be hats off to Carne and a clever thing to do.

Please don't force me to repeat myself again and answer the CORE of the posts.

Here I am debating this, when I saw I wouldn't.
How on Earth did I give you permission?? I don't see those words anywhere... "I give you permission to post the letter."

In explaining why Gerald's email was deleted, I pointed out that Gerald was not the author and didn't have permission to post it. That did NOT mean I was giving anyone else permission to post it.

It's not my place to give you, or anyone else, permission, because the letter was not sent to me. Which I made perfectly clear.

In our statement that Marty posted, we also clearly stated that anyone responding to this thread should be mindful of the rules, and that they don't act out of line.
That was your warning.

Not unless Marty wrote it.

Johnny, you were right that I did Not have the approval of the authors to post. But Carnevaca sent them to me. I know I was at least out of line with marty's email.

PLEASE answer: WHY DO YOU NOT POST HIS REPLY?
Please ADMIT: It would have been a lot more clever and considerate if you had posted his reply, and gerald would have never been in the position to feel the attraction for being naughty.
(holy cow what a h*rny sentence. Nothing personal, Stew :p )
Please thank me publicly: for biting my tongue off for two weeks.

Then I would fully admit I was out of line too.

gerald

What I would like to see posted is the email sent to Carne letting him know that he was banned. That sucker was brutal. :nod:

I'm not sure why I become the de facto whipping boy for the venting of all frustrations and complaints.
I try to be nice and respond to people's questions and concerns, but then when I do, all I get is a battle over semantics every time.

I have to wonder if you guys have any sense of propriety whatsoever?

Marty runs this board, Marty PAYS for this board (with a valued assist from those who are supporting members... a list of whom, I've never noticed including anyone making the loudest outcries here), and I think it's HIS place to decide if an email that was sent to him gets posted or not.

Like it or not, CarneVaca has been banned. We all know the reasons why, so they don't need to be reiterated.
But the fact of the matter is, he doesn't have a say here now. He had... after his first two strikes... two years to speak his mind and plead his case.
That window of opportunity is closed now. Brought about by his own actions.

If it was Marty's decision not to post the PRIVATE email sent to him, I don't understand why that can't be respected.
Again, I see no sense of propriety or respect. I see a lot of vehement calls for US to show respect or a sense of perspective, but I see very little-to-none of the same consideration.

Yes, it was appreciated, Gerald, that you didn't speak out during the time we were deliberating the situation, and waiting for the other moderators to have the opportunity to weigh in. But we made our decision, and we can't help it that it's not the decision you had hoped for.

Yes, because our opinions will count more if we send our money. :rolleyes:

I tried not to be offensive in this thread, I bit my tongue, I did not set out to be rude, but that comment I quoted above was simply classless.

My names not johnny stew, but - if he was positive in the majority of his posts, why did he have 2 other strikes? And if he was super smart, and really wanted to stay on Ledge, wouldn't he have modified his behavior after the first or second strike? I mean, they gave him at least 2.5 other chances, but he didn't care...if he didn't care about the mods rules/respect/etc. or other people's feelings (or whatever) how far should they go to care about him? Just asking.

[QUOTE=shackin'up giving the guy the possibilty of response.[/QUOTE]

I too, would like to hear his response, but they're not gonna let him post it, so, since everyone and their mother except me has seen it, why doesn't someone mass PM it? Or, at least, PM it to me... :laugh: :nod: :wavey:
AMber

I must agree, that was quite a low blow. :(