Geoff,

I strongly believe that our Other friend, damn_skippy was suspended for instigating a conversation with Kenwood.

If you read <a href=http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=100572>this</a> thread, you'll clearly see that damn_skippy was <b>not</b> trying to make a "personal attack", but rather have a humorous attitude. If you read damn_skippy's other posts, you'll see what I mean.

In any event, I think you need to reconsider the suspension of damn_skippy, and make some guidelines as to when other moderators can suspend members of forums they are not moderators of.

I'd agree and disagree on that; personally, I think Damn_Skippy may have taken it a bit too far, although it certainly did seem provoked. But that wasn't a one-sided fight, and it's unfortunate that the other party was a mod. I'm a newbie here, not a mod, and even I know that sort of behavior's out of line.

Although I would have to be on skippy's side on this one, I think the post that got him suspended was probably the one with the pic of his shirt. With no smiley face or anything, that one could be taken seriously (I doubt it was serious though).

After reading that thread another time, I am even more confused at how Kenwood would have taken that as a "personal attack".

Kenwood started the humorous exchange with the term damn_slave, and I HARDLY feel that the word dumbass would have offended anyone, especially considering the amount of time that these two posters have been around.

Unsuspend damn_skippy.

I would like to add that Bushdog was present in the Other Forum at the time.

Thank you. I totally forgot about damn_slave.

How is damn_slave NOT a personal attack and dumbass a personal attack?

Come ON KENWOOD. We're splitting hairs here. damn_skippy has been around for a LONG time.

I call Bushdog a dumbass all the time. He always knows I'm playing and he throws cracks back at me. No big deal.

I *thought* skippy and kenwood had this type of "forum-relationship". I guess I thought wrong.

Randy and myself can Moderate ANY forum on DVDTalk. If a Moderator needs to suspend/ban a member: only Geoff, RandyC, ChitownDVD, and myself can do this.

[Edited by Kenwood on 04-15-01 at 08:48 AM]

I too am gonna have to say that damn_skippy wasn't crossing the line. I think the boys were trying to one up each other on that whole vest thing and it got out of control. Both of them said some nasty things.

damn_skippy was trying to point out to Kenwood that he didn't know what he was talking about or damn_skippy thought he didn't know. I think that was the reason for the suspension.....not the "attack". Rather than be wrong or made a fool the other party was given a time out. and I I have NOOOOO clue what you guys were discussing so I don't know who was right or wrong.








[Edited by MasterofDVD on 04-15-01 at 12:03 AM]

The whole difference is the ;) or not. Kenwood used a ;) after Damn_slave to show he was joking. I think it started getting out of hand when Damn_skippy made the white trash comment and did not include a wink. Maybe kenwood took the comment as not a joke.

then later he makes the dumb ass comment and again does not use a wink. is he serious. I guess kenwood thought he was. when kenwood calls it a personal attack. Kenwood says he is getting a warning(notice he did not say suspension yet)

Damn_skippy does not even say- you misunderstood me or I did not mean that. he says
that is not a personal attack I am simply stating a fact.

I can give you a personal attack if you want one..

Kenwood again gives him a warning
Do you want to take a One Week Break from DVDTalk?. And calling someone a dumbass IS A PERSONAL ATTACK, even worse when it's to a Moderator.

Damn_skippy still does not pull back from the edge- He pushes the edge by saying:

kenwood dont hide behind the little mod thing you hold above everyone. Stating a fact is not an attack. And i'll be damned if you think thats going to scare me. So chill out pull your undies out of yer butt because they are riding high up there right now. Go back to your forum where the mod thing might actually scare someone.

Sorry the incident could have been avoided by Damn_skippy. All he had to do was pull back and indicate he thought this was all in fun and he was not serious. It sure seemed he was serious and that he was not going to back down at all from his statement about Kenwood.





[Edited by gcribbs on 04-15-01 at 12:05 AM]

Guys, this situation makes everyone :(, including Kenwood. We hate to see people we like go over the edge. And you guys missed the worst of it. After the suspension, damn_skippy, likely in a fit of passion, emailed Kenwood with a really offensive personal attack. He followed it up with a calmer, yet still over the line email. Things like this put us in a very tough spot.:(

On a lighter note, did anyone catch my suh-weet "In Before The Lock" on that thread?

That was my first "true" IBTL.

and also, the nasty e-mail probably wasn't a good idea.

That's for the info. It helps to know as much as possible about the situation. Hopefully the week will be a calm a peaceful one for him.

I only hope that all those who are angry with this post here, calmy I might add, instead of preaching and throwing fits in the Other forum. Even without the suspension that was a pretty ugly thread. We certainly don't need more to pop up and cause even more suspensions or worse.


I do feel that the mods go a damn_good job here and I don't want you all to think otherwise. I was sorry to see this all happen but hopefully I was able to express myself in a calm enough manner....unlike some.

Why do I think that a member with a lower post count would have been banned?

Because in times of crisis, we can combine our tiny post counts into one massive (though sub-Jackskeleton level) post count (kinda like the Constructicons). :D

This is the part that I don't understand...
How is it any worse of an offense if the "attack" is aimed at a mod, rather than just a dvdtalk member?

Because it is bad enough to get in a fight with someone. many attacks or personal attacks are never seen by a Mod since unless anyone tells them they might never go into that thread. If you get into a fight with a Mod they are going to see it.

I try to do all my trash talking about Mods where they can not see it. At home with the computer off ;)

Right, and you are the 'Master of your Domain'. ;)

Bushdog, using facts from after someone has been suspended does not prove a point. Damn_skippy was probably upset for being suspended for a questionable exchange..and was probably just venting some anger.

As for the exchange in the thread, it seemed a little harsh to suspend for that kind of exchange...

I guess when mods are supposed to take the higher route and not get into a debate. After all, the mere appearance of this debate shows that there is some question to the tone of both Kenwood and damn_skippy were taking.

I wasn't speaking to the suspension. Reread my post, I was commenting on the situation and how it took a turn for the worse.

I'm aware of what proves a point or not.

Higher route? No way. We're just members charged with upholding the rules of the forum. We're allowed to be members too.

Usually people put baiter after master but I am sure they mean it as a compliment ;)

You must not be a Seinfeld fan ;)

gcribbs put it nicely in his <a href="#post994627">first post</a> in this thread.

No matter how tight Jack and Jules may be, if Jules posts something that's especially close to Jack's heart and hurts Jack, Jack can ask Jules to take that back or to stop posting that, and Jules must comply. It would help Jack's cause if he e-mailed Jules and the mods to show that he was serious. Just because one gives permission in advance to be "attacked" by Others, that permission can always be taken back if Others abuse the permission.

In Skippy v. Kenwood, Kenwood posted that Skippy should not continue his line of posting as Kenwood took them as personal attacks. Skippy continued. Skippy relied on previous exchanges between him and Kenwood, and he continued with these "attacks" and Kenwood "attacked" back. This really should have been settled over e-mail if either party was serious that they didn't want to be attacked.

:( at the tense air around here.

Yes, it is wrong to send personal attacks. And yes, if Kenwood feels that he was attacked, he has the right to lodge a complaint.

All I am saying is that the public threats by Kenwood probably didn't help to calm the situation, and if there is ever another situation like this, ANOTHER moderator should suspend the aggressor and/or lock the thread..neither of which was done until the situation got out of hand.

Having the victim as the judge and executioner doesn't look right to me, if we are to believe there is a fundamental fairness in how all DVDTalk members are treated.

Thanks for the opportunity to post this message.

Advice please....
 

There have been a few threads where you can see arguments along the lines of "I know better than you; you simply don't know what you are talking about."

Of course this that can be pretty annoying and may even come across as arrogant. Naturally some folk are going to find such an approach to discussionto be highly inflammatory. Responses will vary.

Now, a few Moderators have contributed to this thread and I am asking for advice here, perhaps even from Geoff if he is reading: what exactly should an ordinary poster do in such circumstances if (s)he feels "put down" and doesn't want to be intimidated? And does this advice differ if the one who claimed to "know better" was a Mod?