My search is based on last-post times, so earlier threads (based on OP time) may well exist. Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.203.62 ( talk) 21:53, 5 July 2005 (UTC) Reply Ī casual search on the earliest threads in CoSR turned up this thread, dated Ī similar search in IMHO turned up this post by manhattan, dated, where he mentions IMHO as a new forum. Your contribution IS all about you, in spite of protestations otherwise. If you're really interested in chronicling the history of the SDMB (or just of the bannings), why not write something up other than your own story? Or, if "the incident" is worthy of preservation here, it should come from an unbiased party - which, by definition, you're not. Your contention that "for a brief time, the future of the boards was in question" is true only insofar as that board members have aired doubts about it if the board goes under, it will be because of a combination of factors, and your single incident is nowhere as important as you think. How many squares of toilet paper President Bush uses every time he takes a dump is a matter of fact as well, but does an encyclopedia entry on him need to include it? There have been many incidents through the SDMB's history that have caused board-wide rifts, and the board's viability is an ever-going concern. To follow up on the previous person (evidently, this is a near simulpost): Just because it's a fact doesn't mean it belongs here.All of those had real consequences on the board and were much more like watershed moments than your blown-out-of-proportion little blip on the radar. You think that this is a BIG DEAL solely because it happened to YOU there's no mention of Melingate, the Fathom board wars, or WallyM7's death. That FACT is suspiciously absent from your biased version of events. In addition, you FAIL to mention your repeated harrassment of the SDMB community by posting idle threats of legal action and threatening to have the board shut down in your LiveJournal, in the anonymous communities, and in the SDMB LiveJournal community. You failed to mention that was precipitated the whole incident was that an underaged member of the boards reported that you were making sexual advances to him. No, the FACT of the matter is that YOU cannot present an unbiased report of what happened.I was, and still am, simply reporting facts that are relevant. I never once mentioned myself as the user in question, nor did I mention by name or username the admin responsible. It's about the boards and the history thereof. These facts are irrefutable their place in a history of the board should likewise be obvious. The FACT is that, for a brief time, the future of the boards was in question. The FACT is that at least one administrator of the boards admitted that the future of the boards was uncertain. The FACT is that there was discussion on the boards as to whether the boards would be continuing or not. I fail to see how factual information has no place in a factual, encyclopedic article.This article is not intended to chronicle every slight on every person. This stuff has no business in a factual article describing the board. And I say this as someone who thought the Admin in question should have been demoted to Member because of this. Your banning is no more important than a good dozen or more other incidents on that board that aren't included here because this is supposed to be a bloody encyclopedia entry, not a place to air your spite. How about not "presenting" it at all? Believe it or not, neither the board nor Widipedia revolve around you and your issues. It's a valid part of the history of the Boards. Is there another way that anyone would like to see this material presented? I'm not stuck on how, exactly, it's written just that it be in there.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |