Should the Dehlin/Rosebud drama be deleted?

[jpatterson]

Shades will do what Shades wants to do. It’s his sandpit.

This we can agree on.

[I Have Questions]

Nobody should be using this board to accuse another board member of ‘in real life’ criminality. That’s really not too difficult a concept to comprehend. If a board member was accusing Peterson of ‘in real life’ criminality, I’d expect Shades to remove their post and warn them about their future conduct.

That’s sensible housekeeping to protect the board.

I would add without substantial evidence. If someone was charged of criminal activity then people might want to discuss that.

I agree. Should a public member of this board be charged with criminality then there’s no reason not to discuss it. In whichever forum it’s relevant to do so.

[jpatterson]

Right. And Rosebud never exactly said that Dehlin is in cahoots with child molesters, but in both cases, that's what's clearly implied. In fact, it's not even just implied about banning Rosebud. Some are calling for her thread to be removed...

Just so I understand, you think this thread is clearly implying that Rosebud should be banned? Could you explain how you have come to that?

All of Rosebud's posts have been amassed in a MegaThread.

Shades is proposing "hiding" that MegaThread.

That is tantamount to completely censoring almost all of Rosebud's content.

That's not acceptable.

[I Have Questions]

Pointing out that DCP has said multiple unpleasant things about Paul Osborne, and giving examples of those unpleasant comments, is not the same as a campaign of unsubstantiated accusations of “in real life” criminality.

I understand you want to draw distinctions in order to protect your desire to heavily censor another poster.

The rules simply don't support your argument.

I don’t want Shades to heavily censor another poster. My advice is for Shades to censor unsubstantiated accusations of “in real life” criminality against another board member, or anyone else for that matter. And the rules of the board specifically support that position.

[I Have Questions]

Just so I understand, you think this thread is clearly implying that Rosebud should be banned? Could you explain how you have come to that?

All of Rosebud's posts have been amassed in a MegaThread.

Shades is proposing "hiding" that MegaThread.

That is tantamount to completely censoring almost all of Rosebud's content.

That's not acceptable.

It only needs to be acceptable to Shades.

[jpatterson]

All of Rosebud's posts have been amassed in a MegaThread.

Shades is proposing "hiding" that MegaThread.

That is tantamount to completely censoring almost all of Rosebud's content.

That's not acceptable.

It only needs to be acceptable to Shades.

Sure. I get to express my opinion on the matter.

Also, if you're going to accuse someone of violating board rules, you could at least specifically outline how and where they have violated them.

I just see you posting vague accusations. Everyone here always accuses Rosebud of not backing up her accusations. I'd appreciate you making an effort to present a coherent, detailed argument about why you feel Rosebud has violated board rules.

[I Have Questions]

It only needs to be acceptable to Shades.

Sure. I get to express my opinion on the matter.

Also, if your'e going to accuse someone of violating board rules, you could at least specifically outline how and where they have violated them.

I just see you posting vague accusations. Everyone here always accuses Rosebud of not backing up her accusations. I'd appreciate you making an effort to present a coherent, detailed argument about why you feel Rosebud has violated board rules.

Just go read the very first post on the Rosebud megathread where she posts a letter threatening legal action.

[drumdude]

Yesterday, I literally watched John explain allegations that Ballard groomed adult women in his organization before he allegedly sexually harassed them. It's very bizarre for me to to watch him explain that dynamic with a semi-calm face, as if it's nothing he's ever done himself. Bizarre.

Sat Sep 30, 2023 1:08 pm

Page 43 of the mega thread

[drumdude]

Here’s what John had to say to Rosebud in 2014:

Rosebud,

If you have nothing better to do with your life, then by all means milk the innuendo/slander for as long as you can (or for as long as the moderators will allow). You can only play this game until you decide to reveal whatever information you claim to have. Once you do, I will respond (with facts/evidence), and the chips will fall. Then I wonder what histrionics you will pull afterwards. I'm sure you will think of something...but over time...folks will figure you out. They already are. In droves.

What a life you have made for yourself. I hope you are happy with the bed you've made. For us, life is better than ever.

All the best to you and yours.

It’s amazingly accurate 10 years later.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=135492&p=2340920#p2340920

Page 21

[canpakes]

Pointing out that DCP has said multiple unpleasant things about Paul Osborne, and giving examples of those unpleasant comments, is not the same as a campaign of unsubstantiated accusations of “in real life” criminality.

I understand you want to draw distinctions in order to protect your desire to heavily censor another poster.

The rules simply don't support your argument.

To be fair, Shades could decide tomorrow that anyone who has not attended a Perfume concert will have their posts removed, and it would be perfectly within his rights to do so, as we are using his asset and subject to whatever rules he decides upon.

I don’t necessarily see an objective or universal case for ‘censorship’ in either that situation, or the one discussed here, even without considering the wealth of other resources available to Rosebud to express her opinion or document her thoughts.