Replies to post #6427 on The Jailhouse (JAIL)

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

gg,

I appreciate the post and the information. It clears up a lot of questions.

I know joe was like a wart on the ass of most members, but I found him to be entertaining and colorful. I also enjoyed "sparring" with him.

I also know that joe considered himself to be a hacker and even started a board on it.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=832

Now, after I know the facts, I also consider him "good riddance".

But, I still don't consider the events leading up to it to be in good taste.

And I still consider Fred to be an asshole and an idiot.

Have fun,
Phil

[Churak]

ggraessle...well, at least another part of the puzzle becomes clear(er). I certainly don't condone what Joe did re his actions to you off iHub however, the fact remains that those actions were done off the iHub site.

I for one do not find it acceptable behavior to participate in a conversation on this site and then have someone take it so personal and make threats via e-mail and then follow that up with a harassing e-mail

Email addresses can be blocked (I know, lol) so I guess you could have taken care of that part of the annoyance. I am not suggesting that what Joe did is acceptable behaviour; it is just you could have mitigated the effect. I know it is not up to you and the fact remains that your email address was obtained cause it is on your iHub profile or you gave it out on iHub. But let me ask you something...does the fact that Joe is suspended preclude him from "lurking"? Methinks not. So whether he can post or not, he still has access to info on the site including member's profiles providing he has registered and that is relatively easy & undetectable if one never posts; I think...lol.

Now putting that aside for the moment. Let us look at this from Matt's perspective. He needs to think of the community at-large. People who post here and provide their e-mail address in their profile shouldn't have to expect that another poster, who differs in opinion will send either threatening or harassing e-mails or both. So Matt's job calls for him to not allow that, hence the action he took protects the community at-large

Again, I beg to differ...sort of. If an iHub member makes a direct threat to another on an iHub board then, IMHO, ADMIN of iHub has the right AND obligation to terminate that member. I cannot see how iHub ADMIN can be the police for the WWW, irrespective of whether or not the source of that info was obtained from iHub's site. A member's termination from iHub should be directly & solely related to that member's actions on iHub. Lurkers & pervs can get the same info from someone's profile simply by registering & never posting.

And as to Joe's comment re your future participation on RB...that is why there is the IGNORE button. You will only see one post/logon. Report that post as a TOS violation & then put him on IGGY. If he changes logons...same thingy.

I agree that you should not have to be put on the defensive in order to have peace of mind but I believe that that objective & the termination of Joe as an iHub member are mutually exclusive.

[CharleyMike]

GG,
Thank you for your response. The problem I was having was with the secrecy of the offense. Now that I am aware of the act I have no difficult accepting and even approving the decision taken by Matt.

As an American, I am used to the idea of open discussion and abhor the idea of secret trial, sentencing and execution. If a member of our community commits an act justifying his expulsion from the community, it behooves everyone to take note, and the enforcement personnel to take action. Such is the case here.

Most of us understand that the cyber community of which we are a part and reality are two separate existences. And both have standards of conduct that precludes disagreement in one area from crossing into the other.

We should all know better and most do. Again, thank you for your explanation ~ it sheds much light.

CharleyMike

[Bird of Prey]

Thank you for sharing that with us.

It does shed more light on the situation.
But, it also brings to light the great risk that was taken in bringing Joe back form the dead to place him in jail for rehab with Fred. It appears that without that difficult, stressful interdiction, Joe might not have contacted you at all.

The Bird of Prey
#board-381

[sarals]

I for one do not find it acceptable behavior to participate in a conversation on this site and then have someone take it so personal and make threats via e-mail and then follow that up with a harassing e-mail.

Totally agree... totally out of line. Wish there were laws in place for those types of folks.


Sara

Go Giants! Go 49ers!

[WTMHouston]

GG:

I want to join the chorus thanking you for disclosing the terminal incident with Joe. It does answer a lot of unanswered questions.

That said, I wonder why a generic version of the events (without mentioning who was involved) was not disclosed to the community by Matt? Joe's conduct, especially in his existing precarious situation, is sure the kind that everyone should know and be told will get you booted.

Troy