Reply #127: Just a thought or two for the moderators....

[geo]

Hi all,

I don't know Bev Harris personally, but I do know what it feels like to fight with government employees intent on distorting rules to their own ends. I have currently a CPRA request with a community college over fraudulent fee expenditures that has been outstanding for a two months as of Dec. 5th. I have had to deal with attorneys and all kinds of nonsense too. This is my point.

Bev is likely stressed to the max, disheartened at the fact she couldn't stop the fraud from happening, etc. Yes, she does seem like she likes to have full control of her environments, and maybe she needs to recognize how sometimes the cooperation is more important. I have been given the same feedback in my own life time to time.

Given the "better behavior" Bev has displayed on the boards up until the last day or so, during which she was examined thoroughly though forum discussion, the "ban" should be a suspension, and nothing more. I am a little concerned that we would ban her even under these circumstances.

We all saw how active the discussion was about Bev since Kieth Obermann made his observations. I myself posted a thread to consolidate the posts when I first started seeing threads pop up every five minutes. I gave up when I saw the trend was not going to stop. Eventually our fine DU moderators came in and calmed things down to a mild simmer. We should all understand that from a personal perspective, watching your name get tossed around so often can be nerve wracking. Bev may have been a little active with the alert button, but if you weigh it against all the chatter, was it justifiable to a degree? Was it at least understandable?

I, like many of you that post here, do get discouraged when we hear Bev sound so litigious with people that are on roughly the same side. We don't like to hear that she has allegedly been difficult to transact with. Personally, I prefer to use statements like "take the necessary steps," "pursue other alternatives," "begin to research my options," etc. when trying to tell someone they are risking being sued. It is normally enough to tell someone they aren't right for X-reason and then get a little firm with them. Also, when you have been pushed to the brink, never say you will litigate, just do it. The word sue is so dirty in our language it is like swearing at someone. Using the word litigate, or even in heated moments "let's sere what a judge thinks" is way better than saying "I am so gonna sue you." If this is in fact how Bev Harris handles things, then maybe she just needs some warm, caring feedback on how she can communicate these thoughts less offensively.

Please folks and especially moderators. We are a community. Sometimes members of this community are a little tough on the nerves, but that does not mean that they do not have the capacity to learn. I will stop short of telling DU how to run this amazing little web community, but will offer strong feedback regarding the banning of members. I personally do not like seeing this happen, especially with players so obviously on this side of the machine issue. I see no reason to exceed suspensions for anyone, let alone Bev Harris. Even all those little punks that run through here and scream "bush won f-in deal with it" should be allowed back in time.

The goal is to be as inviting as possible while still maintaining order. Order can be maintained with time-outs. :)

Warmly,

George