nwoods said:
The scale and scope of my moderator actions grows with each telling of the story, and it was over exaggerated even at the time! For clarification, here are the events as I recall them
As you recall them. Those are the key words. You seem to have a penchant for remembering only what you want to remember, and it's quite obvious you do it on purpose. I'll respond to what you wrote and you'll see where your recollection and my recollection differ. I regret that the alcohol threads have been deleted. They were a pretty good record of the events and their timing. I wish people could read them so that they could see for themselves if your recollection is accurate or not. Note that I'm all for resurrecting those threads. I want the record to be known. You don't. You want them buried because they're so damaging to your recollection. That single difference speaks volumes.
Here's a link to what's left of the original alcohol thread:
http://www.expeditionexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1018
You already had a hand in what thread says because edited posts to reflect what you think they should have said. However, a little record is better than nothing at all. If you and Buddy Jones are agreeable, please bring back all of the alcohol discussions so that we can set the record straight. If you think those discussions are too hot for TV on the SCLR BBS (a ridiculous position), then I ask you to post the threads here on DiscoWeb. After all, Buddy is all for open discussion of the alcohol issue. Or at least he claims he is.
nwoods said:
[1]I never deleted any posts. Some posts were archived by moving them to the private BOD forum, but that action was not taken by me.
You never deleted posts. You "achived" them? What kind of double-talk is that? This is sort of like "best interests of SCLR". It's chump talk. Archived. Those threads were the most action the SCLR bulletin board had seen in many years, and you and the rest of the Board of Directors saw fit to "archive" them? Nice. It's funny that you resort to euphemizing. Somehow, you know that what you did was wrong, so you resort to euphemizing.
I also love how your language changes as you write. Not only do you speak in euphemisms, but you switch from active to passive voice as you talk about different actions. Whenever you take what you think is an upstanding position, you speak in the active voice. Whenever you take what know is a questionable position, you change to the passive voice, to obfuscate whoever did the questionable conduct. You do this throughout your posts. It's hilarious. You didn't do it. It just happened. It's sort of like those people who have gun accidents. They tell the story and always end it with "the gun went off". They don't say they pulled the trigger. The gun just went off.
There is no deed without a doer. As basic as that sounds, I think you need to learn that. Posts just don't get edited. Someone edits them. Threads just don't get deleted. Someone deletes them.
You may not have deleted posts. I'm not sure, because the threads are "archived" now and I can't see what you did to them. But there's no question you edited posts to conform with your ideas of what is appropriate and what is not. I'm not sure editing is any better than deleting. In fact, I tend to thinking editing posts is worse than deleting. You obviously disagree.
nwoods said:
[2]I never edited any posts related to this discussion. Editing means revising and rewriting to change the original. I never did that.
Editing means revising and rewriting to change the original. You never did that. Therefore, you never edited. Q.E.D.
Lovely. You try to define your way out of culpability for what you did? That's pathetic. Why are you touching others' posts at all? You have no business touching other people's posts. I'm not talking about obsenity. I'm not talking about spaming. I'm not talking about porn. I'm talking about SCLR members' comments about club policy and examples of violations of club policy. You saw fit to edit those comments. You can argue all you like that you never edited anything. This just shows how selective your recollection is.
nwoods said:
[3]I did censor (by deletion, with an insert stating that I did so), direct references to two individuals that were considered to be personal attacks that were not pertinent to discussion of alcohol policy.
These two individuals you mention were Roger Davis and his wife.
I love how your language changes:
"I did censor" - active voice.
"were considered to be personal attacks" - passive voice. Considered by whom? By you.
Once again, we have more obfuscation by you. Who considered my post to be personal attacks? You did. Notice how you don't write "I did censor direct references to two individuals that
I considered to be personal attacks." That "I" suddenly disappears from your sentence and turns into the nebulous passive voice in a pathetic attempt to hide what you did.
And I love the part about "were not pertinent to discussion of alcohol policy". Not pertinent? These two were drinking on Cottonwood. There are even photos of it. I still have the photos if you want to see them again. Not pertinent? You're kidding, right?
In what little is left of the original alcohol thread, there are two different versions of my original post. You edited my original post at least two different times, once on April 26th and another time on April 27th. You may have edited my post more than twice. I can't be sure because I don't have access to such records and the original thread is now "archived" anyway. But all of us know that you didn't edit any posts at all. Editing means revising and rewriting to change the original. You never did that.
nwoods said:
One of the individuals threatened legal action in writing against the club if the comments about him (allegations demonstrated to be at least partially untrue by eyewitnesses) were not removed. By direction of the Club President, we moved swiftly to comply.
"One of the individuals" was Roger Davis. You should know his name because you're the one who contacted Roger and told him he was being discussed on the SCLR bulletin board. You're the one who asked Roger if he wanted references to him on the SCLR bulletin board to be deleted.
So, Roger Davis threatened legal action against SCLR? Yeah, that's credible. I find it interesting that Roger Davis threatened legal action against SCLR and demanded the allegations against him be removed from the SCLR website when he had no problem posting his side of the story on the EE bulletin board:
http://www.expeditionexchange.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14975&postcount=8
Roger Davis is not an EE customer and our BBS is open only to EE customers, but we made and exception and let him post anyway. We actually encouraged him to post.
And Roger Davis had no problem posting his side of the story on DiscoWeb:
http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showthread.php?t=35150
Roger Davis also has no qualms about accusing Ho of drunk driving at the National Rally:
http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showthread.php?t=39625
And yet Roger Davis' account of his drinking on Cottonwood was so sensitive that you saw fit to it that it was never published on the SCLR bulletin board. Here's what you posted on the SCLR BBS:
nwoods said:
Posted by Nathan Woods (Member # 752) on April 27, 2007 02:43 PMApril 27, 2007 01:43 PM:
John, For the record, I advocated NOT removing the thread. I locked it because it had gotten off topic and the Board as a group needed to collect our thoughts, take a breathe, and then proceed.
I did not at all want the thread to stop, in fact, I encouraged you to keep it going, but I gave a warning that is still in effect and is consistent with what Buddy said earlier. Keep it on topic, or start another thread...and I'll add: keep it social.
As for Roger Davis, he did submit a formal complaint about your defamatory discussion of him that occurred on the SCLR forum. However, he did not request his letter to be reprinted to the public, and unless he does, it shall remain private.
We will comply with his requests and remove your comments about him.
So Roger had zero problem airing his side of the story on the EE BBS and on DiscoWeb, but he demanded all references to him on the SCLR BBS be "archived"? That's a joke. Why do I get the feeling that he sent the exact same wording to SCLR that he posted publicly on the EE BBS and on DiscoWeb? And yet the contents of his letter to SCLR were so sensitive that you decided not to publish them?
The truth is that you knew how patheticly weak Roger's defense was. His basic defense was that he didn't know it was wrong to drink on the trail. I encourage all to read Roger's defenses and see for themselves if I'm misconstruing Roger's defense. You knew that there were SCLR members on Cottonwood who would impeach what Roger Davis wrote. You knew posts on the SCLR BBS were inevitable. We preserved Roger's posts on the EE BBS. We didn't delete it and say we were deleting it because it so without merit that it was not even worth keeping it. That's your thing.
And you can call Roger's drinking on the trail "off topic" or "not related to the discussion" or "out of order" or whatever double-talk you like to use, but it was on topic. It was his drinking on Cottonwood that caused the discussion in the first place.
And Roger's story of his non-drinking on Cottonwood was so clearly and convincingly true that you and the remainder of the board of directors decided to "archive" all references to Roger's drinking on Cottonwood? You say these allegations were "demonstrated to be at least partially untrue by eyewitnesses". What does that mean? Do you know how many witnesses there are that saw Roger Davis and his wife drinking on Cottonwood? And there are PHOTOS of their drinking on the trail. Adam Spiker deleted those photos, but I have them saved. Do you want to see these photos again? And yet Roger's pathetic recounting is so clearly and convincingly true to that you saw fit to "archive" all references to him from the SCLR bulletin board.
And Roger Davis is Mr. Sensitive when it comes to photos of him and his wife drinking on the trails? Apparently, they have no such concerns for these pics being public on Off Roving's website:
http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/DSC_9895_6c7b2.JPG
(I think that's Roger Davis. I'm not sure though.)
Here, Mrs. Davis seems to love the cupholder function in the Disco:
http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/LRL_4699eunicegoggle_eeee0.jpg
And apparently, Roger Davis and his wife seem to have no problem at all with being on the trail with others who are drinking:
http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/LRL_2632_bf4e5.JPG
It looks like high noon. The perfect time for having a beer.
Is that Adam Spiker downing a Coors at lunch?:
http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/LRL_2742_673e4.JPG
Hey, we have a flat tire. Bust out the spare tire and hand me some Tecates:
http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/LRL_3112wheel_04f67.jpg
Here, someone enjoys a "coldy" at high noon:
http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/LRL_3367faces_e9e62.jpg
Is that Joe Nosal? I'm not sure.
Yeah, Roger Davis is such a sensitive fellow. The truth is that you're the one who fed him the defamation theory for getting those comments about him removed from the SCLR BBS. When Roger took your bait, you were only too happy to oblige. And you decided not to post Roger's excuse (the same ones he himself posted on the EE BBS and here on DiscoWeb) because you knew other SCLR members would post on the SCLR thread about how they witnessed Roger Davis drinking on Cottonwood.
(To all of you clicking on those pics immediately above, I highly recommend you save them to your hard drive. I doubt the pics will be up for long. Stuff disappears from the Off Roving site as frequently as stuff disappears from the SCLR site.)
nwoods said:
[4]I never deleted, excised, omitted, or edited any comments related to me or about me or my actions. I only deleted the direct personal attacks on the two persons. I never felt the comments made about me were about my character as a person, they were only about actions taken by me, and I felt they were appropriate to remain in the threads.
You felt the criticisms against you were appropriate to remain in the threads? That's an interesting way of framing it. The truth is, you didn't even dare to remove the criticisms against you. You were already on thin ice about editing and deleting the criticisms against third parties. Had you deleted or edited my comments about you personally, you would have shown what a low-life you actually are.
You did, however, do all you could to stop the criticisms against you. You locked the thread. You locked the thread on the ground that it gotten off-topic. That's hilarious. When Buddy Jones unlocked the thread you must have been squirming. When Buddy Jones shut down the entire SCLR BBS after I started naming names, you must have breathed a huge sigh of relief.
nwoods said:
[5]I'm not sure what you mean that I overstated my authority, but the actions listed above were taken by me based on my understanding of the authority of a Moderator. Those duties are pretty well written out in the Roverboard policies. I didn't just "wing it" and make it up as I went. I had guidelines to follow and a duty to perform.
"
ased on your understanding". Those are the key words. I don't deny that you acted based on your own understanding (however unreasonable that understanding was). So now you claim that you didn't exceed your capacity as an SCLR BBS moderator.
The record is quite different from your selective recall. The first time the SCLR board of directors met to discuss your actions, the board of directors took away your "moderating" powers. Do you remember that? The board of directors took away your moderating powers. You exceeded your authority as a moderator of the SCLR BBS. So the board of directors took away your powers. (More on this below.)
nwoods said:
[6]John Lee has stated that he asked Gerry Barrigan if I discussed taking moderator actions with him. I did not. Gerry has not ever responded to an email or message post that I can recall. He does not appear to follow them, or at least not in detail. There were literally hundreds of online and offline discussions about the issues, but Gerry may not read any of them. He spoke truthfully to John that he was not aware of any discussions about taking moderation actions on the thread. However, those discussions did happen with Hovik, John Gadd, and Buddy, who at that time, were the most active board members involved in the discussion. It was with their unilateral agreement that steps needed to be taken, so I did it.
I never said that I asked Gerry Barrgan if you discussed moderator actions with Gerry. Rather, I said that Gerry Barragan told me that you never had such powers. His words to me were "Nathan doesn't have such powers; nobody does".
Jim Lupinetti told me the same thing. Nobody does.
Buddy Jones told me that you don't such such powers either. Buddy told me he ordered you to step away from the keyboard, that you're personally involved in the discussions, and it looks really bad for the club when you're editing and deleting posts when you're personally involved like that.
When you wrote on the SCLR BBS that you were acting with the authority of the board of directors when you were doing what what you were doing, that's when I replied to the contrary. I started naming names. I said that Gerry, Jim, and Buddy told me that you lacked such powers. I then asked for you to name names. Who on the board of directors agreed with you that you could edit and delete members' postings like that? That's when the SCLR BBS went TILT like some pinball machine. It was hilarious.
Now we know that John Gadd agreed with you about editing and deleting members' postings. That says a lot.
You mention Hovik and say that he agreed with you. I highly doubt that. I doubt Hovik would agree with you on anything. I don't want to speak for Hovik, but I think it's a safe bet that Hovik hates your guts. Who do you think engineered your getting booted from the SCLR board of directors in the first place? Who in the club has that kind of pull with the other members of the board of directors? Think about that.
nwoods said:
[7]The Club President physically shut down the Roverboard, not I. He wrote in a thread soon after it reopened that he took that unilateral action to implement a "cooling off period" so that everyone could take a step back and calm down and resume rational discussion instead of name calling and potentially further ensnaring SCLR into the threatened defamation(sp?) litigation. While I agreed with his action, I was not consulted nor part of the action to shut down the Roverboard.
Further ensnaring SCLR into the threatened defamation litigation? What defamation action? The one you dreamed up? Again, Roger had zero problem posting his side of the story on DiscoWeb and the EE BBS. And you claim that he was Mr. Sensitive with regard to the SCLR BBS? He story was so sensitive that he asked to have his letter kept private? And his story was so clear and convincing that you deemed that all references to Roger Davis' drinking on Cottonwood should be "archived".
The truth is that you're the one who fed Roger the idea that he could sue the club for defamation. Remember, you're the one who erroneously believes that defamation is any statement that is negative, regardless of whether or not it's true.
nwoods said:
[9]As a result of these discussions, the Roverboard issues, research into SCLR's insurance policy statements, and the receipt of the legal findings of fact from the attorney retained by the club president, the Board held a Special Meeting to discuss these factors and Vote on a policy. Those meeting minutes are posted in the Clubhouse for all members to read. They were promptly made available after the meeting, and their existence was made known and posted on the Roverboard.
Don't try to take the High Road here and contend that the board of directors has been forthcoming. Far from it. Getting information from the board of directors has been like pulling teeth.
The minutes from the board of directors' meeting are posted? That's one way of framing it. Why are they posted now? Only because I requested them. I requested them in public, on the SCLR BBS after the board of directors announced its decision. The board could hardly say no after I made a stink about it. The truth is that the board of directors never intended to publish those minutes. Those minutes never even existed until I requested them.
What really happened was that the board of directors made its decision, in a closed meeting. SCLR members were not permitted to attend this meeting. Then, the board of directors announced its decision to condone drinking of alcohol on the trails by club members on club functions.
It was only after I asked that the minutes from the meeting be published that someone on the board of directors put together some minutes and published them. When I saw these minutes, I was floored. They weren't even minutes. They were more like milliseconds. They were so cursory. I'd link to the minutes but I no longer have access to them. These minutes were a joke. They should have been written in crayon. They didn't list which board member voted which way. They just stated that the board of directors voted and the result. A total joke.
Then, I posted on the SCLR BBS again, asking for a breakdown of the votes. I'd link to that thread too but surprise surprise that thread is now gone. It's been "archived". I asked for a breakdown of the voting. Which board members voted which way? Uh oh. The board of directors went back into closed-door mode to discuss it. Should the board of directors even disclose which members voted which way? I can't believe this was even a question.
I distinctly remember Bill Ruttan posting something to the effect of "I have no opposition to revealing how I voted". That's very telling. Why would he? He's a member of the board of directors. He's elected by the club members. How he votes isn't some secret. It should be known to all of the members how he votes on club matters. The same is true for all of the members of the board of directors. And not only the votes. The discussions the board of directors has on club matters should be made public. That's how it works. These discussions should be seen and hard by the members.
When the SCLR board of directors did announce how the board of directors voted, it was an exercise in equivocation. The votes were not broken down into yes or no. Rather, the votes were all listed as something like "Member X - favors dry trail runs but supports the policy adopted". What the hell does that mean? One either favors dry trail runs or not. He cannot favor dry trail runs and simultaneously favor a policy that condones drinking on the trails. Which is it?
nwoods said:
[10]Prior to this meeting, Kevin decided to resign his position on the Board. He stipulated at the time that it was for Personal reasons, and indicated that his work schedule was picking up and he didn't' have as much time available for the club. More recently, he has stated differently, and said it was due to the SCLR policy on Alcohol. This policy did not exist when he resigned. Kevin did not attend the meeting that set the Alcohol policy, and regrettably, never voted on the issue.
Yes, Kevin resigned before the board of directors voted on the issue. At least Kevin resigned before the board of directors officially voted on the issue. However, the real vote had already taken place behind the scenes. Buddy even told Kevin that the board of directors would vote the way it would. That's why Kevin resigned. I wish Buddy had told me the same thing before he invited me to be a member of the board of directors. Had he me told me, I would not have accepted the invitation to be on the board of directors.
nwoods said:
[11]Prior to this meeting, in discussions with John Lee, Buddy suggested that John take the vacant spot. A the meeting, Buddy indicated to the Board that John was willing to accept the position. The Board discussed it, decided that there was no conflict with a vendor on the board (as several have served successfully in the past), and agreed to nominate him to the position. I think after the meeting there was some discussion about whether there should be an election instead of direct appointment, but John abdicated the position before we got that far and then we had a special election where Javier was voted into Office.
Of course you guys see no conflict of interest with a vendor being on the SCLR board of directors. You guys just don't get it. You don't see how personal gain affects one's decision-making process. Everyone is susceptible to it. Everyone.
For example, you, Nathan, seem to have no problem being on the club's board of directors and also being associated with Off Roving. You have no problem pimping the Rover Specialties rock sliders to new and inexperienced club members and being on the club's board of directors and deciding club policy. You don't seem to have a problem that you, as a member of the board of directors, speak on behalf of SCLR and yet you're recommending products with which you're associated to new members. If the question should ever come up that perhaps SCLR should abandon the entire policy of having club sponsors because money shouldn't have a part in deciding club issues, you are more likely to vote with a no than with a yes.
nwoods said:
[12]At that same meeting, the Roverboard moderation was discussed in detail. Some members of the Board challenged whether or not I was a moderator. I pointed out that I was given the Roverboard administrative duties by Randy Banis, prior to my being on the Board. The previous Club President was a participant to that action by Randy and backed it up. However, it was discussed that Administrative duties are not necessary moderator duties, and it was decided at the meeting to clearly define, and separate the tasks. To help calm the waters, non-board members are now the moderators, and I simply retained administrative duties, such as setting up accounts and keeping the site running. I have not performed any moderator actions since that meeting.
It was discussed. It was decided. Lovely.
You have not performed any moderator actions since that meeting. That much is true.
Do you know why you have not performed any moderator actions since that meeting? Because the board of directors took away those powers from you. The board of directors more than discussed the issue. The board of directors more than decided to separate administrative duties from moderator duties. That's your selective recall again. The board of directors stripped you of your moderator duties. Why? Because you exceeded all reasonable bounds of what a moderator does or may do. You couldn't control yourself, even after Buddy Jones asked you step back from the keyboard because you were personally involved. So the board of directors took away your moderator powers. It really is that simple.
Perhaps you don't remember this. Perhaps the truth is too brutal for you to recall. Do you remember what went down at the meeting? Do you remember the board of directors admonishing you for your abuses of power? Do you remember what you said in response when the board of directors took away your powers? Do you remember squealing like a stuck pig and giving your ultimatum that you would quit the club if the board of directors did not "back you up" on your editing and deleting of club members' posts? Do you remember when you got up and huffed out of the building and nobody said anything in your defense? You're very lucky Gerry Barragan felt sorry for you and went outside and brought you back into the meeting. I only wish Gerry didn't feel sorry for you and let you walk out of the club on that day. That would have been hilarious.
You claim that people who left the club because of the club's condoning the drinking of alcohol on the trails during club rubs are whiners. And yet you're the one who walked out of the club because the board of directors wouldn't "back you up" and stripped you of your moderator powers. Which is worse? Who is the bigger whiner?
Yes, the board the directors did damage control for you and claims that the moderator duties were simply moved to other persons. You can claim that's what really happened. Sure, go ahead, for that's in line with how SCLR does things. But you know and I know and several other people know that you were stripped of your moderator powers because you clearly abused them and you threatened to leave the club because of it. You may claim that your editing of others' posts was with the authority of the SCLR board of directors, but history shows otherwise.