In every confrontation you either started with attacking her or carrying it on beyond necessity.

She is a very staunch and defensive person who isn't afraid to make a point and stand for it with all assertiveness. While eachother broadsided eachother you were 9 times out of 10 on the offensive trying to humiliate and incerate her with every post.

 

Hi againn. I get your point, I think, but I don't have time to google this word and I'm not familiar with it. Is it similar to incite? Honestly not sure if it's a misspelling or a word that's new to me.

 

so you took the time to type a reply asking of the word was real.. but you couldnt find dictionary.com to see if it was and then come up with an articulately woven rebuttal which would have taken just as much time??

has the internet made us THAT lazy??

 

no.. its meant to be "incinerate"

I left out a few letters, I rarely look at the keyboard when I type. Either because I'm on the phone, dealing with friends, playing eve while windowed, and or to high to care about spelling.

 

Thanks. It happens, and just as often I end up adding new words to my vocabulary. I personally think DD dealt as well as she got, and that (in this case) Shakes posts were as far from incendiary as I've seen from him (in regards to D) in a long time.

 

Well.... she was asked for proof by an admin.....she needed proof. End of.

If your boss said "Give me the receipt for your gas so I can re-reimburse you the money..... would you just turn around to him and say "I dont need proof, I put the gas in the car and thats what happened!" *stomp foot*

..... you'd show the bloody proof and get it sorted.

Gas money, false accusations..... at the end of the day, proof is proof.

 

You are wrong - this was not ShakeZula's fault. Please read the first post again:

Dear deidre79 step inside please
You are making accusations against the mods and admins, saying that they are favoring others.

Please state what wrong they did to you exactly. All the threads that were deleted are actually still visible for us.

If you are right, I will ban them, if you have nothing to back up your claims, I will ban you.
__________________

This was not initiated by Shake. He, in fact, previously asked that the banning be reconsidered, so please be careful where you place the blame.

 

well, what i want here is to make the point is noone deserves to be banned, no matter what the claims...

As much as I do have primal aggressive notions torwards some people on here, never would I wish for them to be banned. Not even stumbles, he can be brought to the light.

 

Oh deary me.

 

Sirs and madam,

Deidre79 is a well known and often admired poster who is a fixture in this community. She keeps things lively and interesting though sometimes she gets a little too feisty, however, not any more so then some other posters I cold name.

It seems to me that any claim she's made about the Moderators playing favorites is just her personal opinion. Personal opinions are often based on impressions or feeling more than actual known facts. For example, I've seen some people post that deidre79 is a "dirty whore" or words to that affect. I believe the poster was expressing a personal opinion since I'm sure he has no knowledge of her life outside of this forum. Should that poster be banned for expressing such an outrageous opinion?

Personal opinion is the stock and trade of this forum. It's all just sticks and stones and if people are going to be banned based on their posting personal opinions, then you're not going to have anyone left of the forum. At least none of the interesting people will be here.

And if the moderators are going to tolerate the posting of personal opinions about everyone but themselves, then you have made yourselves an untouchable elite. That would mean that if I got the feeling that the moderators were being unfair, I couldn't post that opinion for fear of being banned. I think that would seem strange and dictatorial to most of the people here. The people on this forum are not afraid to post negative opinions about anyone. I've seen some pretty obnoxious stuff posted about President Obama, the Pope and even God Himself. That's because we live in a democracy and people are allowed to express their opinions without having to fear reprisals. That's what draws people to this site and it's an important feature that should be preserved.

Now, I understand that you guys have to keep order on the forum and I think anyone that gets out of line should be warned. But judging from what I've seen posted, someone would have to go pretty far before deserving a warning. If a warning were needed I imagine that warning should be very specific and the consequences should be spelled out. If the offending poster ignored the warning then the ban would be considered justifiable and there would be no question about fairness or any allegation about abuse of power by the moderators. Such feelings would lead to festering resentments and that's not what this site is about..

I'm fairly new here and I'll admit that I don't know what's been going on in deider's case. All I'm trying to say is that I'm her friend and as such I'm looking out for her interest. I want to know if she's been treated fairly and if this proposed ban is justified or just an example of what she was complaining about?

Thank you for giving my opinion your consideration.

HD

 

why dont u guys just give her another shot 2 stay and be here. how the hell the forum will be here when she goes?
i guess the topics almost fully dead.
bring dedire back.

 

I do applaud your depth into the matter but he is doing this because he is making a point.

Thier case is that Deidre has been calling out the mods on favoritism in matters, and how she calls them out. This isn't because the admin has a hate or bias aggainst her but because he barely ever posts here compared to the rest of y'all guys. He put forth the "Its either bring proof that the mods are favoriting others and giving you the shitty end, or stand guilty and be banned for lying and bringing my ass into this"

If he did have a hate for her he wouldn't of given her a 48 hour hospice period in the forum...

I'll fight for her as long as shes still here and willing to assert her individuality and spirit, there is an eye of the tiger in her unparralell to anyone else here. Even myself.... Judging from her personality and my aptitude to spot it she is a natural born leader. Just look at how many admirers and haters she has.

 

As I stated in the post you quoted "I have no way to actually prove that you are acting unfairly, intentionally or unintentionally. Everything that I claim is based on my observations, obviously not everyone will see it as I do."

That means exactly what it says.

To sit there and piously claim that you were without culpability is unbelievable.

You are now a mod, you spent a good amount of time trumpeting your new position of "power", there are people who emulate you. Your open hostility toward deidre was long standing and without a doubt intentional. To now claim that you would not influence the actions in a negative thread about her is incredulous.

She may have well deserved the treatment from those she antagonized, she may well deserved the banishment that nophest handed down, but what she also deserved was to have the right her opinions honored by those who hold the keys to the forum.

In my opinion, the public debacle that followed should give every member pause to question the openness of the forum.

 

Stumbler, stick it up your ass.

You throw shit like it's confetti, get a life.

 

You make some sense in your post but fail here.

XNXX is not a democracy. it is an internet forum that is owned, a sandbox if you like, in which we are allowed to play, but if the owner gets pissed off then we are gone.

The mistake that many people here make is that they do not understand how internet forums work, you simply have more freedom on some than others, due to the rules and moderation.

One more thing, in a Democracy you are allowed to express your opinions BUT if you go too far in this expression you WILL be subject to reprisals.

 

ShakeZulu...
Could those "purely selfish reasons" have been an attempt to distance
yourself from any alleged involvement in a deliberate instigation towards Deidre79? I am asking in the spirit of full disclosure, of course!

Nophest...
I am of the thought that you really had no choice but to make a decision;
have I failed to consider the alternatives? From a business perspective, please educate me!

You banned a member for professing loudly and insistently, her belief! It was your sole decision to request her to a public inquisition demanding proof, and the consequence for not complying was being banned. It is
obvious Deidre79 CHOSE not to comply, not that she was UNABLE, as was announced!

In spite of not being high on the contribution list, I have been here for some time now and the majority of my time on this forum has been regarding Deidre79. Having read most of the threads after the fact
sets me aside from the heat of the moment opinions and that allows me a perspective that differs from many, and more like your own; with the exception of mods reporting their own version of incidents. I wonder if you had the time to scrutinize their "involvement"!

After reading the book, so to speak, I honestly believe that you made a mistake, as well as having deliberated your decision in a most shameful manner. In my opinion you succumbed to the few, whom I believe were referenced within one of ancient_red's post to Deidre79, which stated in part, "as for being ganged up on, I strongly doubt that anyone that matters sees you as a victim." Hmmm.

I would like to believe that you made your decision with integrity, I'm
sorry but I can't...

 

MS, you are correct that the forum is not a democracy. But, this forum is unique in that the mods are charged with enforcing the rules and not with squelching the posters opinions.

This is how the forum has been run since I came into it, it is the primary reason that I stay connected to it as much as I do. In my opinion and in the opinions of many others, this has now changed. You can criticize anyone you want, with proof or not, but don't criticize the mods.

 

A number of us hated ShakeZula before he became a moderator.

 

No-one is saying that.
What they are saying is that ranting, raving and moaning for two years about "abuse", then not being bothered to find/display said abuse makes those higher up the food chain very pissed off and in no mood to put up with phantom accusations.

She was allowed free rein for two years. But at the end of the day, enough has to be enough. She wouldnt drop it on her own accord - so it was dropped for her.

 

I understand what you're saying but the action seems too drastic.

If the point is to show that criticising the moderators can get you banned from the forum with no warning or opportunity to recant the offence, then the point has been made.

but judging from the out pouring of commentary in opposition to this action, the administrator should take into consideration that he is also making another point... that xnxx does not care what the members think.

I for one am very disappointed with this action.

HD