This is the forum that spawned a rumor that web diva was actually a Three Springs Employee and I was still living in Alabama. Apparently I was running the forum on the behest of my "boss" web diva.
Here I thought that was just pillow talk.
I think that is a good idea.. Ha, Ha, Ha.. we must remember to ensure that standards apply equally for everyone. Otherwise it isn't "Fair", and if we are going to shut down this abusive industry together we need to agree on the ground rules.
Someone is posting that the who's (allegedly) a convicted sex offender, apparently guilty of abusing a child. If that's the case, he has no right to be here, he's a threat to teens posting.
This is the first I've heard of that. But honestly, criminal history, even serious child abuse, cannot be a bar from posting to a forum about the troubled parent industry. Shit, we'd have no input from former staff or even most program graduates or any parents if I set that standard.
And no, as far as I know, Who hasn't donated any money though I don't know for sure the identity of all donors. In any event, that wouldn't influence my decision. It's just as Psy says. At the time I banned him I was limited in my ability to research the question. Once Psy and Kelly got the database back in order we were better able to assess it. It was not an easy call at all. But we had to conclude, based on the facts, that his activity
approached flooding and often goes way over the line of trolling and annoyance but didn't come close to what most people call flooding. And, as you say, we really do have to be as fair and consistent as humanly possible. As much as it pissed some people off, I think we made the right call this time.
A prime tenet of my thinking when I first opened these forums was tosee if we win the argument simply by showing that we're just plain right, not by shutting down dissent. If the programs worked this way--by actually exploring ideas and using sense and reason instead of censorship and control--then I wouldn't even have a problem with them.
