A Community Statement

[Celuien]

To the Barrow-Wight and other Administrators and Moderators of the Barrow-Downs,

We, the undersigned, wish you to be aware of the high levels of discomfort we are feeling with regards to the banishment of Davem. With the immense role that the Barrow-Downs plays in our personal lives, we feel it our responsibility to make it clear to you that we are not satisfied with the way this issue was handled.

For a long time now, Davem has been one of the most highly thought-of members of our community, and in terms of sheer volume, has probably contributed a textbook's worth of information and thought to this website, enlivening discussion and earning the friendship and respect of many in our community. His recent, and permanent, banishment seems unjustified. The posts given as cause by the Moderators are not, in any of our opinions, cause for banishment, and many of them came several days before the banishment occurred. It is the consensus of the undersigned only plausible explanation yet given (and this not from the Barrow-Downs administration) for the banishment was that it was incurred following his parody of a famous British poem, which was found to be offensive to someone. We can only assume, if this theory is correct, that the humour of the parody was lost on American-based Barrow-Wight who claims responsibility for the decision.

We further feel that, upon reflection, that those responsible for the banishment have decided to try and cover up this issue, making various excuses, none of which presented have seemed plausible to us, as already noted..

With all respect to the Barrow-Wight, whose site this legally is, we are not seeking the reinstatement of Davem, who justifiably, does not strongly desire re-entry into this community. We do, however, wish to make it clear how betrayed we feel at the secretive manner in which the banishment was conducted. If Davem, who was not in our opinion deserving of banishment, was banned suddenly and without notice, we are ourselves afraid that we may unwittingly step out of line and find ourselves suddenly unable to be a part of this great community.

The Barrow-Downs belongs, in a strict sense, to the Barrow-Wight and all the Administration and Moderators he freely chooses to appoint, and we are normally comfortable and secure-feeling in his guidance, which has helped to build such a strong sense of community. We do, however, spend hours upon hours of time on this website. If it is successful in content and traffic, it is because of the devoted users who return here not only day after day, but year after year. If we are not actual owners of the site, we nonetheless have a proprietary interest. In no way can it be said that we want anything less than a vibrant and comfortable community, goals we assume that we share with the Barrow-Wight and the Moderating team.

The recent events have left us, however, with our comfort shaken, and our energy dulled, as we timidly tiptoe around the forums, afraid to say anything which might be taken the wrong way and see us tossed summarily into the Void. With the peace of mind of the community at stake, we therefore submit to you our discomfort at how the situation was handled, and ask that in the future this not be the normal modus operandi.

Sincerely,

Anguirel
Boromir88
Celuien
Diamond18
drigel
Encaitare
Firefoot
Formendacil
Glirdan
Kath
Laitoste
Lalaith
Lalwendë
Lhunardawen
Macalaure
Mithalwen
Nogrod
narfforc
Rune son of Bjarne
Saurreg
Sleepy Ranger
Thinlómien

~*~

I've posted this with some hesitation, but felt that it was necessary. Discomfort over this issue has been festering, and I don't see the dissatisfaction resolving on its own. This statement comes only with the best of intentions and out of love for the truly wonderful site that the Barrow-Downs has been. The Downs has always been more than just a website. It's a special community, and I don't want to see that diminished by continuing lack of clarity and disappointment. This is not offered with any intent to upset or offend, but merely with the earnest desire to clarify any misunderstandings that may have arisen as a result of davem's ban.

The original statement was constructed here (http://formendacil.livejournal.com/3259.html).

Thanks for your consideration and understanding in this matter.

[Aiwendil]

I hesitate to respond to this, but I thought it might be useful for you to hear from a member of the moderating team who was not directly involved with the incident with Davem.

There is a long thread in the Moderators' forum discussing Davem and how to deal with the behaviour on his part that we found inappropriate. We have all put a lot of time, thought, and effort into resolving this issue in the best possible way for the Barrow-downs, and I can assure you that recent events have left a bitter taste in our mouths as well.

However, all of the moderators and administrators felt that Davem was behaving inappropriately, and we all supported the Barrow-Wight's decision to ban him. I have been very distressed to find that many people seem to blame Mister Underhill and The Saucepan Man in particular for the action taken. This is extremely unfair. The fact is that the entire team of Mods and Admins is responsible; Mister Underhill and The Saucepan Man were simply the ones who gave the time and had the patience to deal with Davem. The final ban was The Barrow-Wight's decision.

I should also note, though this has been said before, that the Slough parody Davem posted was not the reason he was banned. I know that some of you think that this statement is a lie, but it's not. The Barrow-wight had actually decided to ban Davem before the parody was posted. I know this because the Barrow-wight posted a message on the Moderator's forum saying that he intended to ban Davem at 2:57 A.M. on 9/25; Davem's parody was posted at 9:50 P.M. the same day.

Finally, I should note that Davem was not banned suddenly and without warning. He was asked several times by the moderating team to refrain from violating our posting guidelines, and in particular, to drop his personal attacks against those who hold views different from his own. He disregarded these warnings. There was then a delay of a few days before he was banned by Barrow-Wight, for the simple reason that we Mods and Admins can be Entish (i.e. slow) at times.

Davem was banned because he disregarded repeated requests that he refrain from certain behaviours. Please, take it from me that it had nothing to do with religion nor with his parody. We regret the loss of Davem as a member as much as you do, but we stand by our decision.

- Aiwendil

[mormegil]

I would echo what Aiwendil has so wonderfully stated. This wasn't a sudden or haphazard event. It was given much thought and discussion. Everyone involved was rather sorrowful that it came to this but it was sadly necessary.

The issue that has me the most upset is the wanton maligning of both SpM and Mister Underhill. There has never been an explanation required for a banning yet SpM gave one in good faith and it has only been the cause of personal attacks and distress for him.

I do not believe that anybody need to fear a unexpected banning for a minor offense. If there is something that the mod team wants changed it is generally requested to be changed and it is changed. Sufficient warning would be given to anybody to make the appropriate corrective action. Do not feel like you have to walk on egg shells. You can have your opinion and express it just don't personally attack others for having a dissenting opinion.

[Nogrod]

I'd just like to add this comment from Formendacil from the discussion that underwent this statement:The very fact that we feel compelled to make this statement ought to speak for our strong loyalty to the website.

To the point!

Very many of us are worried about the things that have happened... Let us not break this fine community with this kind of polarising and harming actions. The bannig of Davem was an extreme move and this statement is another extreme move to balance it somewhat. (and I do accept my responsibility for being one who has contributed to the statement and has signed it too - ie. I'm not declaring myself neutral here)

Now let us sit down and heal this!

PS.
Reading the post of Aiwendil, I have to comment just a little...

How come Davem was first banned to a short time and after he came back was never notified that his posting was "bad" until he was just outright banned for life? What's the logic here? It's very hard to find a post of davem during the short season he was "back again" that would be the cause of the new (and definitive) banishment!

At least we should all have a right to see it! The reason must be in between the post(s) that Davem made after his short time banishment ended and when his final banishment was executed. In which post did he do it too bad then? I think I can speak of many here, but we can't see the reason lying in there between - and if it's not there, then the banishment was not fair as it was not grounded on actual posts but on something else...

[Nogrod]

Surely, at least to my experience, the mods have been just thoughtful and wise - even on occasions when I have wished to say something, they have toned me down and I have clearly seen their point afterwards.

This surely is no crusade against the mods in general, well at least from my perspective as I can't talk on behalf of the others. But I do believe the undersigned share my worry here (and I can see that the mods need to pull together - it's in a way a good thing to see that, really, think of it!).

This is a questionnaire against a decision that many of us have felt that was bad, wrong and unjustified. I hope this can be handled based on facts and arguments and most importantly, with a generous amount of good will. Otherwise we will just have a disaster here...

[Folwren]

I can not help but feel as though some bubble has been popped.

Alright, what I mean to say is this, I hate to see unhappiness and uneasiness amongst people. I understand, however, how important it is for everybody to get their thoughts out about what they are displeased about. Being the sort of character that I am - hating unpeacefulness, angry words, flaring tempers - I'd like to say, before anyone gets heated over this matter (I've a feeling that this could get hot fast), to please remain calm and as quiet as possible while writing.

The Barrow-Wight and the mods who make up this forum have done a magnificent job for the year and a half or so that I've been here. I've been comfortable here and very happy with how they handled certain situations. I have very much faith that what they do is entirely justified, that they have reasons backing their actions, and would not be rash in anything like banning someone for life.

I do hope, however, that, after time, maybe they'll consider their verdict again, and lighten the punishment? (I can't help but call it punishment, I can't think of any other word, and I can't think of any worse thing you could do to keep order here...)

Anyhow, those are some of my thoughts. Please, please, don't get angry or upset, anyone! Feelings, thoughts, people can be hurt and infuriated so easily, and when that happens, people are torn apart.

With the utmost concern,

Folwren

[The Barrow-Wight]

I banned davem because he continued to act in a manner contrary to the publicly stated wishes of the moderators. The fact that he continued to do so after returning from temporary banishment was enough motivation for me to ban him permanently. You can consider that fair or not, but when a member causes enough disruption to warrant several pages of moderator discussion, I have every right to ban that member without a formal declaration. If anyone fears the ban was made because someone did not agree with davem’s point of view, you are simply wrong. If you can see that the ban was enacted because of his manner, you are correct. Assigning any other meaning is inaccurate.

Think about it. How long have many of you been here, and how many people have we booted simply because we disagreed with them? The answer is none. The few valued members we have banned over the years were all dismissed because of their refusal to adjust their attitude to a tone (not the content) we repeatedly requested.

With this said, let’s get back to the fun of the Downs in the same spirit as always without the unnecessary suspicions. They weren't required before this began, and they certainly aren’t needed now.

Sincerely,

[Meneltarmacil]

I tend to agree with Folwren in that a bubble has indeed been popped.

What I really would like to say is that I am feeling somewhat disturbed about this whole affair. Surely, arguments over administrative issues have their place, but I'd rather not see the Barrow-Downs turned into a war zone here or see those we've all known, loved, and respected be personally attacked.

I've been a member here for over three years now, and in that time I haven't seen anything like this happen to us. Dividing us against each other just doesn't sit right with me.

I was not involved in this before, and do not intend to favor any particular point of view here. I just don't want to see a breaking of the fellowship over this.

EDIT: cross-posted with B-W

[Saurreg]

I have been here for a long time now though I have not posted as much as my contemporaries of the same period of inception into the forum. It is in my opinion, the is a stricter and more tense mood on the boards now then compared to the days when the new cadre of moderators were not in commission yet. Suffice to say, the mood has made me very uncomfortable.

If I should sum up what I feel about this current state of this site in a sentence, it would be,

An unexpected and dubious connoction of "political correctness" and "moral righteousness" has gotten a grip on the boards, resulting in an authoritarian and increasingly elitist atmosphere that is unnerving to many of the older users

Before this fiasco, the serious book discussion forum was a self-censoring, self moderating place. There was no need for any moderator to step in and ask another user to stop posting or to serve a penalty. The community itself looked out for one another and preserved the integrity and morality of that wonderful place out of their own will and loyalty to the site. Indeed any trash spewing or overtly aggressive user were swiftly nipped in the butt by the other veteran members before they could even start a path of "destruction" The serious book discussion forum was one of the best protected board I have come across through my years of internet participation in discussions. I have never seen a "public"community as united and resolute in defending the state of that board in all my life.

The facts speak for themselves. Close scrutiny of the old threads would show that any undesirable elements were quickly suppressed not just by Esty but also by the veterans users.

And Davem was one such user (more of what I think of his ban later).

Play nice, now that's a good thing to have, no doubt about it. But the degree of civility and politeness in various forums differ due to the very nature of the site, the forum's purposes and the discussion that is going on. Let's all admit it, the serious book discussion forum has always been intimidating, severe and stern for the casual newcomers, because the good users are really excellent debators and their posts are always curt, straight to the point and no-nonsense. Given that at all times difficult and time-consuming topics are on the agenda, the good users have to cut down on the non-essentials and go post their feelings and thoughts with proofs, quotes and whatnots; which is a good thing because long meandering posts (which I feel this is going to be, oh dear what a noob I am) tend to lose their gist and do not contribute much in substance. As such a degree of civility and politeness is curbed but I must emphasize that in all times these good users do not go over the board vulgar. Harsh at times, yes but never ever insulting.

So what is a noob (like yours truly) going to do when you enter a debate with a head full of high ideas only to be deconstructed by the big boys point by point and at times a bit harshly? You either stop posting and disappear which many have, or you could simply acknowledge your own inadequacy, read more, learn and try again. The second was my approach and I do feel that my debating skills have improved because of it. Of course it does come with a little sting to the pride but learn to eat humble pie. Never be overtly defensive, read careful and think before posting and never be afraid to admit to your mistakes and apologise. All these I learned to do and I am most grateful to say that those good users most probably saw the effort on my part and they never ever sought to demean me or ignore my subsequent posts.

The worst thing you could do when deconstructed and having your butt handed to you is to be highly upset, show that you're upset and turn the debate into a personal slugfest which is what I thought the bible thread had become. Instead of letting go and just giving yourself and the other chap abreak, some chose to continue posting until the point where I felt what was posted became increasingly deviating from the gist of the thread and at points irrelevant.

The netiquette of not debating (or posting) for simply the sake of debating/posting was lost and even more despicable was the efforts by some to want to appear as the "victim" even when their own posts were getting more insulting with every count. And what was the good user going to do when such posts are directed at him/her? Patience would of course be lost and sarcasm and curt posts would definitely be made. But pray remember what made the good users resort to such an approach in the first place?

So now to Davem's ban - I will not discount that fact that in the bible disscusion and in a post in another thread as linked by The Saucepan Man, Davem made some sarcastic posts which perhaps was not quite proper (but IMO understandable). But to hold him solely at fault and ask that he leave the thread (that I disagree the most since his posts carried an urgent message) was not right. I guess the last straw was to consider his posts in that thread against him when serving the penalty.

And as for the poem, he was simply in his way, showing what he felt about the so called suburban Shire homestead. We have been told that the final ban was not made solely because of that poem (which incidentally, caused some users to reply to it) but I am sure that post played a part in the decision in maintaining the ban.

So the ban was served and yada yada life goes on- BUT the person who was ultimately banned was never given notice nor allowed the final opportunity to even know (let alone defend) himself from why he was banned. The reasons as given by a moderator are IMO shoddy and do not justify the repeating offender profile given to Davem.

Suffice to say people might question the motives of the ban, but people will question the rational behind the decision-making process. By this manner of banning Davem and the lacking explanation given so far, I feel as though there is a great impenetrable wall that seperates us from the moderators and administrators, a wall that at this moment of time promises to get higher and thicker, creating a class system in this wonderful place where I thought we were all equals.

Noone likes to have a damocles sword tangled over their heads held only by a string which we know not of tensile strength or tolerance.

And this brings me to the point of political correctness and moral righteousness which seems to be a fad of the boards nowadays. Given what I have posted above, do we really need someone to constantly look out and censor every post so that a "12 year old" that stumbles upon a thread will not go about telling all that he learned of what is hell (be it concept or lingo application) and all the other whatnots were from the barrow-downs?

First of all, would a twelve year old be really interested in going into the serious book discussion forum and reading through (with understanding) every thread in the serious book discussions? And secondly, who are we kidding in "protecting" an innocent child from getting the wrong ideas from what has been posted.

Like I've mentioned, the forum in question is self-moderating and censoring. Chances are that that remarkable child who in this age is so "pure and innocent" as not have any knowledge on religious and sexual topics (even though he knows how to surf the far more dangerous internet) is not going to stumble upon something really really bad.

...except maybe the posting habits and style of said disasterous newbies in argument with other users. God help us all then.

And what of respecting other people's beliefs and religions and fantasies etc etc? First of all, self-moderation and censorship will without doubt butcher whatever falsities and misinformations. Secondly, if the thread or posts offend then in all common sense, stop reading! With that I submit that the moderators need not pay too much trouble to those the complain of undesirable elements in the Downs. Chances are those non-users are too dense to understand the posts of the good users that regulate the thread or are too dumb to stop reading.

[Lalwendë]

Personal attacks? That is something I never saw from davem's posts. He did post the contents of a couple of PMs, but these were swiftly censored and no harm was done; even in these he was not making 'personal attacks' but asking why certain comments had been made - and before anyone gets numpty about this, please remember that it is an entirely natural reaction to wish to defend oneself. Otherwise, no, I can find nothing which could have been construed as 'personal attack'.

If davem at some points gained the upper hand in debate by finding holes in matters of divinity and theology and it upset some people, I think they may want to stop and consider for a moment the idea of 'strength of faith'; many here have faith (me included) and we have all been challenged. I too have found some deeply unpleasant comments by members old and new on the Downs. Savaging and bullying of newbies. Clever asides in posts and signatures that people think are so 'clever' others will not 'get' them - they do 'get' 'em.

All of this is just because we're all human and we will fall out from time to time. It doesn't mean we hate each other - at least I know that myself and davem wouldn't do that anyway! Erm, don't know about anyone else! But I'd hope a few flamin' (sometimes literally 'flaming') words don't cause you to hate someone.

If davem chose to criticise the 'Bible' thread for being unworthy of the 'Books' forum then he ought to be able to say that. Any member ought to be able to ask the valid question: Is This A Valid Question? As a long standing member who was always concerned to find new points for discussion and not to allow the forum to slowly die into obscurity, he believed he was driving us to be more rigorous, more discerning.

OK, so we all understand that 'content' is a simple thing to define and pick up on when someone puts something inappropriate on the board - e.g. swearing, something a bit too adult etc. A mod tells you off, you might argue about it, but in the end it goes. It's easy to edit, easy to remember what, in future, not to write!

Anyway, that's the taters, now for the meat.

Tone is a whole different kettle of fish. Tone is about nuance, subtlety, humour, irony, all of those complex language issues. What is acceptable in Tone is totally different between English speakers across the world (not to mention Tone can be moderated by Age, Race, Class and Gender, but to discuss this would take up days so I'll concentrate as much as possible). How davem writes may be abrasive to one person, but I have to say it is entirely normal in the UK to use sarcasm, and to be ironic. How are we to understand such cultural differences? How are we to be mindful of them?

Example. Davem made a great point about the understanding of the word 'fundamentally' in the Americas and in Britain. In the Americas it means "exactly", "definitely", "at core" - hence why when Tolkien says "a fundamentally Catholic work" many American readers think "Right! It's at core a Catholic book!". However in the UK we use the language more fluidly, lazily, sloppily even. You can even see that Tolkien himself takes full advantage of this with multiple meanings and origins of words in his books. What does "fundamentally" mean here? It means "kind of", "sort of", "in a way".

There is not just a huge difference in understanding of English use between the UK and the USA but between different regions of the UK itself. Many southerners are deeply offended to be called "love" and "darling" by total strangers when they come to my city, but they are not being patronised, they are being welcomed by being called such things (men call other men "love"). Unfortunately some fail to grasp that language use differs and they get numpty about it. Ho-hum, they usually clear off anyway when they realise houses are equally expensive up here...

I can see right away that it was obviously not content that was causing offence, as there simply was not the evidence for it. So it's Tone. Which is extremely worrying. Especially as I don't speak or use English in the same way as the Mods. Nor does everyone. Lots of people here from other cultures, age groups, backgrounds. How can we be careful of something as subtle as Tone? So davem was, ultimately, banned for being a Yorkshireman, and using English as a Yorkshireman does?

:(

[Celuien]

No one likes to have a damocles sword tangled over their heads held only by a string which we know not of tensile strength or tolerance.

That sums up my concerns. I read through the posts that were cited as the offensive statements which led to the ban, but the problem is that I'm seeing a disconnect between the description of over-the-line offensive content and what I'm reading. If that disconnect exists, how would anyone know if they'd unintentionally stepped over the line, or even after a warning, know that they were continuing to step over the line if the defined boundaries of offensive aren't registering on (a fairly significant number of) the members here? It does make me uneasy. And I think that's the reason the question keeps coming back.

No one wants to cause a rift in the board, and no one wants to confront the mods/admins of this site, who have done a great job keeping this site going for so long. But I don't want to be in the position of potentially being evaluated as having done something offensive and worthy of banning without knowing that I've done something wrong, and just saying that davem was misbehaving without having the process behind why he was felt to be out-of-line (even with the knowledge that there was extensive discussion) is making me feel like that is the situation, despite assurances that it is not the case. :(

[drigel]

Since I signed, I will say my piece here. It is that time of year for me - so pardon the football references. This is completely all my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

Monday Morning Quarterback:
I have a good trouble radar - so I knew better than to post in the Lord of the Bible thread. I saw trouble (in general) coming on that thing a mile away. But, I am old enough to know myself well. My brain is wired strangely. I don't swim with the current. I always approach ideas with a perspective that is oddly stilted, with regards to the norm. That rubs people the wrong way, given certain subjects. I get it.

Instead of nuking Davem, that thread should have been closed. The seriousness of closing the thread, with an explanation by whoever was having the aforementioned pages of conversation would have been taken soberly by everyone, contributors or not. In addition, more detailed explanation given to the percieved offender would have helped the draconian cloak and dagger feeling that is currently happening. "...what we have heah, is a faylah... to communicate.."

I cant speak for anyone else, but I for sure would rather have seen that daggon thread go away than Davem.

The spirit is an elusive thing. With it, you feel alive as a newborn babe. Without it, your as dead as a rock.

Spirit Crushers - two types: debate and hospitality.
I loved this site because, lets face it - the works of JRRT are finite. A dead end. The author died decades ago. The only thing left is interpretation and debate. A debate requires taking a position. It's not a win or loose proposition, but, that position does require an offence and a defence in order to facilitate a debate. I don't condone ridicule of a personal nature, but I don't consider ridicule of a position necessarily out of bounds. It's naive (IMO) for anyone to enter in to a debate (especially if it's a subject that was the core of that thread), take a position (whether that position is in the popular majority or not), and not expect to get some of their little feelers hurt. Ive experienced that here and elsewhere. I know that through an exchange of ideas, and debate, my oddball perspective gets expanded - whether I agree with you or not. If it's facilitated properly, it's a debate, it's not a tea party (or at least that's not why I come here).

Walk it off, and get back in the game, or go home.

Another thing I loved about this site is the sense of community. We all have different careers (or not), and various levels of expertise (or not). We do all have a love of JRRT. I have 2 MBA's myself, but I knew that going here, all I needed was a degree of proficiency in JRRT (like most here - passionately reading - in my case yearly since 1975) to contribute to a conversation on the subject. In my mind we are all brothers and sisters.

Netiquette will dictate that if what I write isn't getting any proper response or reaction, then my contribution wasnt appropriate \ correct \ applicable, etc. But, if I feel that if my tone isnt just so, or my ideas weren't what those who are in control want to see, then I dont feel welcome. At that point, in many regards, it's game-over. The sword of Damocles is irrelevent, IMO. All I am doing is interrupting a closed conversation. Who wants to go out of his\her way to feel that?

/coach out

[Mithalwen]

To answer Menel and Folwren, this is not an attempt to rabble rouse or an ultimatum. It is a statement of collective unhappiness neither "enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly," and made after we discovered that many shared similar feelings and some had received responses that did not dispell their disquiet from private inquiries.

It was done because the Downs had become such an important part of our lives and it matters to us. We do not own the Downs, and that is fully acknowledged in our statement, nevertheless we have invested many hours of effort: we have no desire to destroy something we have helped to create.

I don't actually think this will get "hot" . Now we have said our piece I am sure we will try to get back to normal... or whatever the new normal is going to be. This statement was formed more in sorrow than in anger for most of us I think. For me certainly, sadness overwhelmed utterly any other emotion. I will not repeat what has been said more eloquently by others but since Drigel has mentioned the giraffe in the room, I will say that I will miss Davem desperately. I know he could be like a terrier with a rat with an argument and sometimes it was better to leave him to it ("You can always tell a Yorkshireman - but you can't tell him much"), but he had, has, a gift for getting to the essence. I know I was grateful for this ability to pick out what I was trying to say from the stream of consciousness ramble of what I actually said. His own thoughts were frequently an inspiration.

Mithalwen

[Raynor]

My opinion won't be the popular one. I am not concerned about how things are. For one thing, I saw the numerous public attempts made by the mods to calm things down; and when things didn't calm down, I just kept away from some threads - and that is very unpleasant, since this is supposed to be a place of communication, among other things; if I can't enjoy that here, the rest pretty much loses significance for me. I am not a fan of the powers that be; on other Tolkien sites, I went throat-to-throat with mods, admins or webmasters, in public at that, and I have earned the title of most rebellious. I don't think my perspective has changed; if I see something wrong, I will put it forward, regardless of the position of the one I challenge or of possible consequences to my membership, should it ever be the case. But in this situation, I believe the site policies have been observed in the interest of its members and that the mods will continue to do that.

[Celuien]

A reader of this thread suggested that I should add a few words to clarify my intentions with regard to what has been said here.

First, I want to make sure it's clear that I absolutely do not distrust or dislike the moderators or administrators of this site. They have done a wonderful job keeping the site running. I am grateful for all of their hard work and dedication and mean no disrespect by bringing up this issue. And so I'll take this moment to thank the Downs team for their time and effort.

I was also asked to clarify the goal of making this statement. Though I can't speak for everyone who signed, my own main issues were the following:

1. The previously mentioned wish to clear misunderstandings and any bad feeling lingering on the site.

2. Trying to gain a better understanding of why davem was banned to accomplish number 1 above. It appears that as much answer as can be given has been provided. I still disagree, but it's not my call to make, and it is not my intention or goal to argue over decisions that are already past.

3. I've always been taught that silence is agreement. If a major event such as davem's ban passed without some mention, it would be silent acceptance. I felt like I couldn't go on in good conscience without voicing an opinion. Watching him leave has made me feel like I'm standing at the Grey Havens, watching a ship fade into the horizon, and knowing all the while that something has been lost, never to be regained. I think that, sadly, we're all poorer for davem's absence.

This is not a call for his reinstatement. My understanding from davem is that even if the ban were lifted, he probably wouldn't want to return. And after all of the discussion that has taken place over this, I doubt anyone who has the ability to make the decision would be willing to reverse it. So asking for that would be futile and probably only cause more grief here. But neither could I pretend that this never happened and go on as before without saying something.

In closing, there's probably nothing else that I have to say. My personal goals have been met as much as they are likely to be. I'd like to thank the BW and all of the rest of the team for their patience in allowing this thread to exist and also specifically thank Aiwendil and Mormegil for their replies.

~*~ Celuien ~*~

[Boromir88]

Thank you Celuien, Formendacil, and all those who worked on this to bring it up, as something needed to be done.

I'm going to be straight-forward here. Davem has been a member I have respected on here since I first entered the downs. His posts always got me thinking and always gave my brain a needed jolt. The time and countless posts through the CBC discussions as well as numerous other threads over my 2+ years. So his ban I think is a great loss to the forum (at least from my perspective).

Obviously what's done is done and it's over with. The decision was made and enacted upon. As a former moderator of a forum I know the mods and the admins make the decisions they feel that would be best for their site, and that is no doubt what has been done here. I understand the Mods and Admins have to keep this a friendly and loving place for everyone. But come on, if someone got upset by what was said in that thread (and the others SpM linked to) than I think that person needs to hammer out there own insecurities.

Whatever somebody posts, writes, creates, and shared to the public, you have to be aware that it is up for public scrutinizing. Not just to get praised about how great an idea is, or how much we all agree, what's the point of that? What's the point of ignorance to the opposing side? Davem (and anyone for that matter) had just the right to argue against and go against the ideas in that thread, just as others had the right to argue and debate against davem.

I'll be frank, if what davem did constitutes a ban, especially someone who has been a great contributor to this site for a long period of time, I'm worried where this site is heading down to. I'm not going to mention any names, but I've seen and been involved with members who have been more patronizing than davem in attacks against other members, and they are still around. Heck, I think I have been been more degrading and out of line at times.

I'm worried where this site is heading down to. The Werewolf games and people's critiquing of players 'game-styles' got way out of hand. An attitude of 'you caused us to lose' was created and that's just not healthy. On top of that, a member like davem just doesn't pop up every day. A member with such a wealth of knowledge and a great person to just share a discussion with.

The decision was made, but from my perspective it is only going to harm the site, as a dedicated and thought-inspiring member of the forum has been lost. Which some may think 'well it's only one member,' but think of how many other members saw this and were effected by it? I'm not going to hide anything this place has change and you won't see me around here much anymore. The attitude has changed, the feeling has changed, I think we have this clique-like softy-softy attitude developing in the downs, and I don't like it.

[alatar]

As I write this, I let you know…I’m a dead man. My hope is that, before I get banned, this information reaches someone else. I don’t expect much, but I have learned to exist on little hope. And so I continue.

You see, I’m a mod. That and $2 gets me a cup of coffee. I do, however, have access to the ‘ivory tower’ of the mods and admins, for that is why I was sent. Four others accompanied me, but fell along the wayside. Breaking through the opaque glass ceiling wasn’t an easy accomplishment. To do so I had to volunteer to write a weekly post for the SbS, and I think that it was sheer luck that I have existed here so long, as the SbS escapes the notice of many. Little did I realize until now much of a blessing that could be, like Merry on the Pelennor Fields, sometimes being overlooked is a good thing.

As a mod, I’ve seen many things, and have always kept my eyes open and my mouth shut. Until now, that is. You would not believe what goes on behind the closed doors.

The Barrow Wight, like Ungoliant, feeds off posters and drains them dry when they are banned. He bans a member or two daily at random - whether they are examples of the perfect poster or spam-bots (though the spam-bots, obviously are less filling). This number doesn’t even include those that are banned for not following his daily edict. Remember last Thursday when the BW commanded that every member MUST post using the word “Sam”? A few who either did not get or heed the message got banned that day. I watched as they were cut down like so much wheat. Some of you, keeping watch like I do at times in the lonely hours of the night, may have noticed that the number of members decreases daily. Why do you think that the ‘spiders’ guest list is so short? It’s because there are none! The BW cleverly lures people in, using the whole Tolkien discussion thing as bait, and after a time, sometimes shorter, sometimes longer, the member feels the Sting. Ban! Some thirsts cannot be slaked. Makes sense, now that I’ve pointed that out, doesn’t it? Why else would the BW use his personal fortune to keep this site going? The mods and admins are his virtual slaves; they either do his bidding or ban! They live in constant fear that they too will end up in the virtual gullet of that which cannot be sated.


:rolleyes: Please… :rolleyes:


Everything above, with the exception of me being a moderator and writing the SbS, is a complete fabrication. Hopefully that was apparent from the first paragraph, but just in case, I’m stating it here. Am I making fun of this situation, this petition? No, I am not. I’m attempting to make a point about an issue that really bothers me as well. That’s something else about which we need to be clear. Though a bystander in some ways, this issue affects me deeply as well, and so I’m taking the time to address it as it makes sense to me. Note that I apologize in advance for my explanations seen below, as they may appear simplistic, obvious, off-topic or otherwise. It’s my way, and I appreciate the freedom that allows me to express myself thus. Anyway…

Before I continue, I want to lay all of my cards on the table and remove my sleeves as well. I have no horse in this race beyond the truth (as far as it can be known) and the Downs. I don’t know any of the actors personally, and I wish them all well. I repped davem in the LotR? thread, where I stated that (from memory) that I thought that he made good points but asked why he continued to post as (1) he and I know we’ve been through all of it before in the Of another world (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12766) thread and that (2) he should know, from before, that trying to talk someone out of faith, or of Balrog’s wings would be a fruitless effort.

With that out of the way, onto some explanations from a mod.

What do mods do? They identify and keep out the spammers, those humans and computers that want to sell you iPods and whatnot. They also keep an eye on various threads in their domain, trying to keep the post ‘on-topic' and ‘on-Tolkien’ and making sure that the site maintains its family-friendly reputation. Why do we need mods? Why are there rules in the werewolf games? Why are there rules in the RPGs? Play a game without rules, where anything goes, and see how long it lasts or how fun it remains. They also respond to questions and concerns from members. Now, these are my observations (note that I even question myself), but regarding the mods, I see them as no different than any of the other members, with the possible exception that they might have more writing experience, more wisdom and definitely more patient than average. Other than that, the mods and admins are just like you and me. Oh, there is one exception to that. Not only do they post here at the Downs, they volunteer their time freely to do so. Instead of playing with the kids, sleeping or even posting on their favorite signature, the mods take a minute or hour (or more) and look over the threads to make sure everything is simply ‘okay.’

So why is there a "secret" meeting place for the mods (so secret, in fact, that it seems that everyone knows about it...)? If you really want to know, it so that they don’t go nuts. Most of the posts there are of the types, “Hey, I’ll be out of town for a few days. Could someone keep an eye on my section?” and “Here’s yet another spam-bot.” It’s also a place where new mods, like I once was (and still consider myself to be) learn from the old-timers. I had questions about what to do in the SbS, and others answered those there. One can post about posts there, and this allows for ‘off-topic’ posts to be posted, yet not within a thread to avoid starting a bad trend. For example, I may have a question about a direction one of my threads in the SbS, and instead of showing my ignorance in the thread, or making it seem that anyone could ask stupid (no, really stupid) questions in a thread about the Shire scenes, I posted in the secret forum and got direction there. It’s like the ‘planning’ threads of the RPGs, with the exception that it’s less exciting.

Persons have suggested more about the mod forum. Problem is, like in nature, vacuums are abhorred and so we tend to fill them with less than accurate information. You might not believe it, but the mod forum, until just recently, saw less posting than even the SbS, which might see three posts on a busy week. I’d say, “trust me,” but even to me that’s silly. How about, “trust but verify?”

But I’m rambling. Onto the real issue at hand: davem’s banning.

First, let me say again that I bear no ill will against davem. He is neither devil nor saint; he was a very well-read member of the Downs, with knowledge deep in the works of Tolkien and he articulated that learning well. He may have not suffered fools gladly. I note that even davem had his own sacred cows penned up on the farm. And here’s the bomb: I also state up front and unequivocally that davem chose to be banned. Believing that he played no part in his own demise is silly. davem is no fool to be caught unawares.

Anyway, here’s how I saw things (note: apologies in advance to all concerned actors. This is what I read into what others have posted, and usually I read two lines for each one seen on the page):

The Lord of the Bible?, like the ‘Of another world,’ thread before it, discussed religion, never a good topic for me as (1) it attracts me like little else and (2) I just know that some toes are going to get stepped on, and that it always sad because that’s never my intent. Like I said, in the Of another world thread, it happened. There I felt that I may have ‘gone too far’ with some of my posts, and so spoke with some of the other participants, publicly and privately as I wanted them to understand that I was just trying to convey my point in my posts, not attack them or their beliefs. It’s a tough rope walk, and so sometimes I think that it’s just better to avoid the whole discussion. Esty stopped in once and prodded that we were 'off-topic,' but davem and lmp (who represented the two 'sides') let her know that we were just trying to define our terms. davem had disagreed with the modding yet was very respectful. And that was the end of it. Interestingly, though the posts at times were heated and emotional, no mod had to step in as we all either ‘modded’ ourselves, keeping it civil, or left the thread if it got to be too much. It’s just not worth it.

There’s a time and a place for discussion of the near and dear. There’s also tact. You might want to discuss ‘the after life,’ in terms of Tolkien and the real world, but is the best place a funeral? Duh!

So the LotB? thread began. To me it seemed that, after a while, it was getting heated, and that davem’s point, of course well made, was that there was no Christianity in the books. Fair enough, and I’ve made a similar argument. What, I think, made the thread get out of hand was that others still wanted to see Christianity in the books, which to me is fine. I made reference to looking at clouds, as you see in the outside world those things that are in your brain. You see the patterns that are in your thoughts. The very imaginative see even more (listen to kids when they view clouds!). Regardless, if persons wanted to see Christianity in LotR, whether they could back up the opinion or not, it was no skin off of my nose. As I see it, when has anyone’s opinion on the Downs been the last word, or considered to be ex cathedra? Anyway, davem continued to let everyone know that there was no Christianity in the books. Okay. Still, others wanted to see this or that, and maybe their ‘proof’ was completely subjective, but so what? If someone wanted to argue that the elves listened to the Music of the Ainur on iPods, well, have at it. I may say my piece and leave the thread. davem, for some reason, could not leave be. It seemed (again to me) that as he had spoken on the debate and logged the only possible conclusion, that there was no reason to continue, especially for those that disagreed. He, in my view, became impatient with them and maybe thought less of them. Ridicule and satire, like above, can be useful, but is it always wise to smash every gnat with a nuclear sledgehammer? Repeatedly?

The mods asked davem to let be or at least demonstrate some tact; show a little respect or civility. Or maybe move to more fertile topics, as he’d obviously said his piece. Many, like myself and the now infamous SpM, agreed with davem’s points, but thought that he was being overbearing and stifling to the discussion.

Then it took a turn for the worse. davem, in my mind, decided that he should not be corrected and could not be advised. In the mod forum, where the mods discussed the situation, I asked if anyone knew if davem were okay, as this wasn’t like him. Sure, he might smack down a fool, but this was unbecoming.

And, while I’m on the point: regarding members, should we actually require more from those of higher standing etc?

Anyway, from then on it became davem against reason. The various mods and admins, both publicly and privately, asked him to just leave it be as there was no point in his continual impolite postings. One side asked; the other turned a deaf ear.

What do you do when someone, especially someone dear to you, goes astray? Contrary to some opinion, the mods did not want to ban davem. But what could they do, given that davem began spurning the rules of the forum? So it was with sadness that davem was temporarily banned, having been given more consideration than I ever would be given. Maybe, just maybe that would get through to him that all that all of the mods were asking was for some civility. Could the old davem come back please?

Did I note that the content of his posts, for the most part, wasn’t really in question? You can verify that using the ‘Of another world’ thread, as I wouldn’t believe me either.

When the temporary ban was over, which davem would return? The returned davem jumped right back to the same argument with the mods, which again seems to me that davem could not be questioned regarding his posts, could not be questioned about his tone, his intent, etc. Mull that one over. Are any of us beyond questioning? Isn’t that what you are doing with this petition? You are (obviously) free to do so. The mods, sadly in the case of davem, were not. Was it then, “Game on!” for davem? Did he decide to find out just how much weight he carried at the Downs? Maybe, here, he was a god and could do no wrong. Only one way to find out, I guess/assume.

What to do. More warnings, more debate. Like a good leader, the BW stepped in, having read post after post after post about the issue and finally made a decision. It was inevitable, because this obviously is what davem wanted, but still it had to be made. davem was disregarding/taunting mods, the rules, and setting a poor example, which is a shame as, like stated before, he was previously more of someone who you’d want to emulate. And so…

davem was banned. No one cheered. It was a sad day. I felt that he, for some reason, decided to destroy himself. The Downs has lost an informative member. But it doesn’t end there. Note that some of the mods thought that some explanation should be given, though others guessed (rightly) that nothing good would come of it. SpM, more articulate than I will ever be, volunteered to bell that cat. And has paid in spades since his attempt to help the situation. Others have been demonized as well. Now, personally distressed, not by davem’s ban but the repercussions from his explanations trying to help, SpM too, like many of you, feels that his time at the Downs has begun to fade.

Great. From my point of view, that would be 0-2 for the Downs. And we may not have added up all of the losses yet.

One bright point in this mess: In the mod forum, the issue was discussed at length. Now, the topic was davem and what to do. What to do that would be best for the Downs and for davem as well? I cannot believe the care that was given to the issue, considering that the death sentence, if rendered, simply banned someone from participating in the Downs discussion as a specific member. This was no capital crime, davem wasn’t going to jail, his membership fees weren’t being confiscated - the davem moniker would be removed from an internet site that discussed Tolkien. That’s it. Yet the mods still took the issue very seriously as if they were part of some grand jury deciding the fate of the world. Think about that. The mods could have asked, “BW, could you ban davem so that I can get back to crushing the imaginations of the members in my part of the forum?” But they didn’t, and I respect that and it gives me hope.

...

So where do we go from here? I have some suggestions: Continue to ask questions. Keep your eyes open and look to see what’s really going on instead of relying on partisan posts (like this one). Post. Read. Try to relax and enjoy, as life’s short.

Afraid of getting banned? From what I’ve seen, you’d really really have to work at it to be successful. Not sure if the content of your post is verboten? Ask a mod, or better, see if there’s something similar elsewhere in the forum and try to figure it out from there. Thread getting hot? Take a minute and find out why. Take a breath - remember, we’re typing on an internet site regarding a man’s work. Our eternal destiny and that of the world is not going to be decided here.

Also, regarding letting everyone read every jot and twiddle about this issue. Arrogantly, I say, why is that your business? Forum policies are clearly stated. Is your interest in the decision-making process, are you trying to figure out how not to get banned, or is the need to know driven by more voyeuristic needs? And, less arrogantly, if, for some reason you get on the to-be-banned list (not likely), do you want everyone else reading all of your private messages, both sent and received? And, reasonably, there will be, for some, never enough evidence or proof. There is no smoking gun. It wasn’t one post, one comment, one misstep. It was one member willfully careening down a wrong path.

I’m reminded somehow of the Battle of Azanulbizar; that too, like here, was a Pyrrhic victory if anyone can said to be a winner - our hands truly are too small. davem lost, SpM lost, other members not posting for fear or becoming lost themselves, the Downs creeping towards entropy…others trying to help but realizing that, for some wounds, there is only time and good will. With this post, I’ve burned my dead and am now starting the long sad walk home.

Posted in good will to my brother- and sister- members of the Downs.

Signed,
alatar, a mod.

[Mithadan]

*Bang

Don't bother sending Alatar any PMs....

[Saurreg]

I have noticed two trends since Davem has been banned.

The first is that the books discussion forum - the grail of the forum, is on a downward spiral. It is in my opinion that many of the new threads though good, lack the quality of the old in which Davem initiated or in which he played an important catalyst in generating the debates. Ironic isn't it? That only when a member is gone do we recognize the impact he had on us all.

The second trend I noted is that posts in this forum seem to be more muted and less spontaneous than before. Users seem to be accutely aware of the animosity in the air and stricter overseeing of the forums and thus fear to tread carelessly lest they share Davem's fate. I mourn for the innocence lost.

The above observations are of course discerned from my point of view. Take it how you may but I stand by them. If you feel insulted by them in anyway, I apologise for they weren't meant to antagonize. I will be following Boromir88's example and limiting my visit to the downs until the time when I stop all together. After all, what's there left now that the good stuff is gone?

[Diamond18]

I haven't posted on this subject much, and don't intend to, but I suppose since I was one to sign the petition I should make at least somewhat of a comment on the ensuing discussion.

Regarding the private Moderator forum. This is pretty normal for any place that has a group of moderators. I'm not now nor have I ever been a moderator on the 'Downs, but I've been a moderator elsewhere and so I have an idea the kinds of things that are discussed in private moderator threads. I've never had a problem with the fact that the moderators have a forum. In fact, with the old board, you could see the forum though you couldn't access it. So everyone knew it was there... I believe it was called "Mod-in-Gorthad" or some such and the description was something along the lines of "the dry, dusty bones of (grave)site administration." It never chafed me to see this.

Regarding my reasons for signing the petition. The Books forum has been in decline ever since I've been a member here, which is now slightly over four years. These days I rarely visit there and post pretty much never. So the whole "Lord of the Bible" thing went on without my noticing or caring. To me, The Lord of the Rings is a really good work of fiction, and I hang around this site not to dissect it but to have fun in places like Mirth and the RPGs.

But then, through sites like MySpace and LiveJournal, I heard a rather lot of Lalwende and Davem's side of the story and was concerned, and felt that anything which encouraged more discussion on the board and not on other sites, was something for the best. So I'm glad for this thread. It's been interesing reading.

[Thinlómien]

The fact itself that davem was banned was not the (whole) point in the community statement. As for me, one thing that was important and I wanted to criticise is that the public was given no explanation why davem was banned. In a way I understand the argument that mods do not need waste their time to explain every single thing they do to the normal members, but in my humble opinion such a big thing as permanently banning an active and respected member calls for different treatment. If a person people admire or like is banned without giving reasons, it makes people feel empty and they will start asking questions. Yes, there was an explanation in the Coming of age club -thread *a nod of approval towards SPM*, but I wonder how many of the 'downers ever saw it. In my opinion, the information should be provided so that members have a better access to it. The forum is governed by the BW and the mods&admins and it's they who make the decisions, not the common forum members, and we commoners (of course) are mainly satisfied with them making the decisions (they're the mods and admins after all :)) , but would gladly hear the reasons behind their bigger decisions.

[Lalwendë]

Well, all I can say is davem's reactions on the Bible thread stemmed from a love of Tolkien and a love of the Downs and the rigorous debate it offered.

Its a fact that in Tolkien academic circles there is huge concern about the 'hi-jacking' of his work by people who wish to assign it a solely Christian agenda, bypassing all other concerns of language, northern myth, and all the other meaty concerns which went into the Tolkien 'pot'. To those who actually knew Tolkien this is wrong and potentially dangerous; they see how the reputation of Lewis has been ruined by such reductive 'criticism' (criticism in inverted commas because its not really criticism in the sense of being truly objective). So davem was talking from the side that is working hard to keep Tolkien from being pigeonholed.

That Bible thread started to go wrong when someone else proposed, in the most patronising way possible (and being patronised is a guarantee that you will start to get annoyed), to create a thread in which only Christian interpretations could be posted about - a form of 'religious apartheid' with no debate allowed on the validity of claims which some of us objected to not only as that would be prejudiced but also facetious (I have to say at this point I know what the reaction would have been if I had tried to create a thread which merely listed all the instances which support Marxism in Tolkien's work, with all challenges strictly verboten).

davem made the mistake of attempting to break the tension with humour (as English people do, its our nature - we cannot cope with either 'fuss' or earnestness), referencing Python, which only resulted in more flame. The reason davem was asked to stop what he was saying was because his 'tone', one he used all the time, was here used when the topic at hand was religion (now I see how right people are when they say religion is often the root of war - no more will I view it as a benign influence). Had it been feminism, environmentalism, buddhism or any other -ism or -ity would anybody have been jumping up and down and telling us to stop being 'offensive'? I suspect not (in fact I know not - new threads on Buddhism and WWII analogies have been thoroughly savaged on here, and there is no more evidence to support LotR as a specifically Christian book than there is to support it as having Buddhist or WWII metaphors).

Oh, and then to underline exactly what davem had been so afraid of happening, a decline into the kind of poor parallel picking we often see from young newbies who have not read the books happened, and we had some very shaky evidence for LotR being 'Christian' posted. Which again he responded to with typical English humour, which I'm afraid is sarcastic. Now we all know how sarcastic davem could be and has been for a long time, and he was most certainly not alone amongst high up Downers either. Alas, he chose the holy cow of religion.

So there you go. He did it because he loves Tolkien and loved the Downs. Unfortunately some people could not see that because maybe they love other things more than Tolkien or the Downs. :(

[The Saucepan Man]

I, moreso than most perhaps, am hesitant to post here because this is an issue in which I was directly involved and one which has affected me greatly. I am also hesitant to post here because there is a distinct possibility that anything that I say will only make matters worse. There nevertheless remains a chance that it may assist and I am willing to grab that chance while it remains. I also find it very difficult to stand by on the sidelines while accusations, bad feeling and misconceptions continue to fly about (not here, necessarily, but certainly on Formendacil’s LJ site). That said, and despite the temptation to do otherwise, I have tried, as far as is possible, to avoid being inflammatory in this post as heated exchanges will not help anyone, least of all me.

I should also make clear at the outset that I am no longer a moderator, and so this post represents a personal view. I announced my intention to withdraw from modding some time ago and my initial decision had nothing to do with this matter, although it has perhaps hastened my withdrawal. That said, I fully accept my share of the responsibility for the action taken in respect of davem.

Now, to business.

As has been made clear previously, there is no policy and no requirement for an explanation to be given when a member is banned. In this particular case, given that there appeared to be a misunderstanding of the reason for davem’s ban on the “Old-timers” thread, I thought it fair to provide an explanation there. I rather wish that I hadn’t now, given what has been made of it, but please understand that it was given in good faith. It was not intended to cause offence, although it is rather difficult to see how I could have given any explanation without making reference to davem’s conduct. I do regret using somewhat immoderate language in my reference to davem’s post on the Lord of the Rings labelled racist thread, and for that I apologise. I was, however, genuinely angered by the post at the time.

I would note that I did also provide a far lengthier explanation to Lalwendë, covering many of the points addressed below, in response to a PM from her. As a well-respected member of the Downs and as someone who obviously has a close connection with davem, I thought that it was fair to provide that explanation.

Others have provided further clarification in response to this petition. I would endorse what they have said. As alatar’s post, which in my view is spot on in its assessment, makes clear (and this is perhaps where my initial explanatory post was slightly misconceived), there was no single post or comment which led to davem’s ban. It was the culmination of the entire history of the matter, starting with the initial problematic comments on the LotB thread and my and Esty's neutral requests to keep things calm, via numerous warnings, a temporary ban and davem's voluntary departure from the LotB thread, through to his continued references back to the issue on other threads, challenging the basis for our actions and, essentially, the forum policy against aggressive, disrespectful posting. The post on the racism thread was the last of these, although it did assume greater significance because I did (and still do) genuinely think it capable of giving offence, especially in light of the history of the matter and the implication (clear, in my view) that it was directed at some of those who were interested (for entirely legitimate reasons) in discussing Biblical parallels on the LotB thread.

To form a complete view on the issue, you would have to carefully read through the Lord of the Bible? thread in its entirety. You would then have to consider davem’s subsequent comments made on various other threads after he had withdrawn from the LotB thread, but referable to what had occurred there. Even then, you would not have the full picture. You would also have to be privy to the PMs that passed on this matter. It is inappropriate, in my view, for that material to be made generally available, just as it is inappropriate to make the lengthy discussions in the mod forum public.

Even with all of that material, some might (indeed inevitably will) still disagree that it justified a ban, just as, for example, there are different views on whether it was right to ban obloquy. Not everyone will see things the same way (not least, I think, because people have different ideas as to how a site like The Barrow Downs should be run – as to which more later). However, I have gone back over all this material myself over the past few days and satisfied myself in my mind that the ban was justified. It is also worth noting that all of the mods/admins who were privy to this material as it developed and involved in the consideration of the matter felt that the ban was justified. Davem was given numerous warnings, publicly and privately, requesting that he cease posting in a manner which the mods and admins considered to be contrary to forum policy and guidelines, yet he continued to do so. He continued to refer back to the issue which had caused so much trouble on the LotB thread when there was simply nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, in doing so. Having received a temporary ban and so many warnings, it would have been best to simply let the matter drop, particularly on such a sensitive issue.

I always tried to avoid being overly officious or heavy-handed as a moderator. However, the Downs is a community. One with a few perfectly straightforward (and, in my view, perfectly reasonable) rules. In any society, one should not simply ignore the rules which govern it, persist in challenging them and “agree to disagree” with those charged with enforcing them.

As to whether a final warning should have been given, I am absolutely clear in my mind that it would have made no difference to the outcome. As he himself has admitted many times (in the discussion on Formendacil's LJ, for example), davem is incapable of letting things go and resistant to being told what to do. Another post of his on that site makes clear that he regarded the matter as a "battle of wits", rather than a matter of simply accepting polite requests to adhere to forum policies and guidelines. Any further warning would undoubtedly have been met with further resistance and argument. I am inevitably drawn to the sad conclusion that the situation would not have ended any differently, whatever we had done.

In any event, one would expect that someone who has received numerous polite requests, warnings and a temporary ban would refrain from continuing the course of conduct that had led to those things and would be fully aware of the likely consequences of not doing so. It seems to me that this is very much what alatar was intending to get across in his post. All the mods/admins involved wanted was for davem to be civil and respectful. However, he continued to harp back to the issue which had caused so much trouble on the LotB thread, even when he had left that thread, in a manner that was disrespectful and offensive to those who only wanted to discuss their thoughts on possible Biblical parallels in LotR.

It has been suggested that the LotB thread should have been closed. I was always reluctant to see that happen, though, because there were people who wished to discuss the topic raised. It was davem's continuing contributions (continuing long after he had got his point across) that were interfering with this. As I stated many times, I actually agreed with the basic premise of his argument, in the sense that I saw little merit for myself in discussing Biblical parallels. But unlike him, I did not see why people should not be allowed to do so if they wished to. Closing the thread would have shut off that discussion in circumstances where there were people who wanted it to continue. Freedom of speech has been raised numerous times in the discussion of this issue. Closing a thread where people were willing and able to discuss a matter that was on-topic and Tolkien-related due to the actions of one member who was not willing for that discussion to take place would hardly have been consistent with principles of fairness and freedom of speech.

There is a general feeling that the Downs has changed for the worse and/or that the mods/admins acted in bad faith. That is not the case at all. Unfortunately, this seems to have arisen primarily as a result of a few myths that really ought to be dispelled.

Myth 1: The Downs “management” is intolerant of views, beliefs and opinions which dissent from their own.

This has arisen as a result of the perception that davem was banned because he was critical of Christianity and/or of a Christian viewpoint. As has been explained many times, this was not the case. A quick perusal of their posts in many different threads will quickly confirm that there is no “consensus of opinion” among the mods and admins on religious matters (and, indeed, many other matters). There is no bias, when it comes to moderating, in favour any particular opinion, worldview, belief or group of members.

The fact is that the Barrow-Downs as a place is, and always has been, religiously (and politically) neutral. Much effort has gone into maintaining this approach, such as ensuring that threads remain Tolkien-orientated and that signatures do not espouse political or religious views.

A review of the LotB thread will show that I was at pains to be even-handed in my moderation. I did not think that it should be used as an excuse for evangelising. But similarly, I did not think that those who wished to discuss the thread topic should be constantly and impolitely berated for doing so, provided that they remained on-topic and the discussion remained relevant to Tolkien and his works.

Myth 2: Members are increasingly at risk of being banned without justification.

This is not the case. Members have always been banned without warning from time-to-time for gross or persistent breach of forum policies – spamming, trolling, flaming etc. Generally, such incidents pass without comment. No one objects when a spammer is banned (indeed, this is often called for). No one objects when extreme language is used. There are many other examples of inappropriate posting resulting in a ban, which passed without comment (or, in some cases, were welcomed).

As I have explained above, davem was given due warning of what conduct was acceptable and what was not, but ignored it. His case is not without precedent. Respected and insightful members have been banned in the past as a result of persistently abrasive and disruptive posting. Obloquy and Michael Martinez, both well-respected Tolkien “academics” and highly intelligent posters, are cases in point. Obviously, the situations are not identical, but they are similar. The case of Michael Martinez dates back to well before my time, so I cannot really comment on it. But it does show that this is not a new issue and does not represent a change in the approach of the mods/admins.

To address a specific point that has been made here in this regard:

No one likes to have a damocles sword tangled over their heads held only by a string which we know not of tensile strength or tolerance.

That sums up my concerns. Practically the only situation I can think of in which a member might have a "sword of damocles" dangling over their head is when they have received a temporary ban combined with repeated warnings about their conduct. In such (extremely rare) circumstances, one would normally expect that member to take particular care in what they say and how they say it, and certainly not to keep repeating the conduct that had prompted those actions ...

As far as I am aware, these circumstances do not apply to any current member and, from my knowledge of people generally, they are highly unlikely to arise.

Myth 3: The forum policies have changed or are being applied differently.

The Downs has always required members to post civilly, respectfully and politely and not to flame or insult other members. On Fordim Hedgethistle’s blog and Formendacil’s LJ site, davem comments on the passing of obloquy and himself portrays it as a similar situation. His comments point up, I think, a significant difference of opinion on how the Downs, as a discussion forum, should be run (and Saurreg and drigel have also touch on this point):

Well, he [obloquy] was abrasive, but he was interesting. As I've said before, its all very well wanting the Downs to be like a 'polite' dinner party, but its not interesting.

The Downs mods seem to have made a lot of people afraid of being banned - for trivial reasons (or for no reasons at all). I'd rather have an interesting argument than a boring & uninformed 'discussion' however politely its conducted.

Sorry, but I want to be on a board where people with that level of insight are celebrated & valued. And as far as I'm concerned I'd happily accept Oblo calling me an 'ignorant son of a ****' in every post he wrote if I could also read stuff like that.It seems to me that there are ideas being expressed here as to how the Downs should be run that are significantly at odds with the way that it is, and always has been, run. The Downs, while welcoming interesting, insightful, witty and challenging debate, has always placed a very high value on civility and respect. This has been the case for as long as I have been a member. There has been no change in “policy” here. It is also worth noting that politeness and respect are not incompatible with challenging, vigorous argument, nor with humour. One can be provocative without being disrespectful and discourteous.

As for bad language, this too has been a rule since the Downs’ inception. It can be difficult to apply, due to cultural and linguistic differences. If there has been any inconsistency in its application, it is because of this and because mods/admins cannot monitor every post that goes up on the board. The aim of this rule is to ensure that the Downs remains a family-friendly (and indeed friendly) place and that the language remains consistent with that used by Tolkien. It is a worthy aim.

If some of the ideas proposed here and on Formendacil’s site were implemented, the Downs would become a very different place. Is that what people want? A relaxation of the rules against disrespectful, impolite and aggressive posting? As I have said before, I have been to sites like that and I would be very sorry to see the Downs become like them. It never has been in my time here.

Myth 4: The Downs “management” had ulterior motives in banning davem.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is not the case. I have already commented on the groundless suggestion that the mods/admins do not tolerate dissenting opinion or favour any particular body of opinion or belief.

It has also been suggested that the mods/admins, or some of them, were on some kind of power trip. This is simply not the case either. The mods/admins involved in the davem incident all had better things to do than to have to deal with it, but did so because they felt that it needed to be addressed. No one wanted to see it end in a ban for davem, but it was ultimately agreed that such a ban was justified and was the best way to deal with someone who persistently ignored forum policies and mod/admin requests to adhere to them.

In any event, why on earth would the mods/admins suddenly want to flex their muscles inappropriately and embark on a power trip after all these years? The mods/admins exercise their authority when they genuinely believe it appropriate to do so, not because they derive any pleasure from doing so.

Is it a “cheap shot” to refer again to the fact that the moderators and admins spend a lot of time doing what they do voluntarily? Perhaps. But it is nevertheless true. And this is a very different situation from the general membership who devote a lot of time to posting here and contribute immensely to the Downs, as they do so out of enjoyment rather than out of moderatorly duty.

Myth 5: Davem was banned because of persistent requests from one member or a small group of members.

This was not the case. Davem was banned because the mods/admins considered it appropriate, not because any member called for it. I can assure you that any suggestion or speculation that any one member or group of members demanded that davem be banned is wholly incorrect.

Myth 6: The mods/admins couldn’t be bothered to deal with davem any further and so the easiest course was to ban him.

This has arisen because of statements to the effect that davem had been taking up too much mod/admin time. This is true, as far as it goes. But it would not, in itself, have resulted in a ban, had it not been concluded that davem had been given sufficient warning and that there was little point in continuing discourse with him in circumstances where he clearly had no intention of complying with mod/admin requests.

Myth 7: Discussion is dying following davem’s ban.

As I have noted already, vigorous challenging debate is, and always has been, welcomed at the Downs. There has, in recent times, been a downturn in serious discussion and an upturn in activity in the Mirth threads, with, for example, Werewolf and other games taking up much of many members’ time. This predated davem’s banishment and was commented on way before this situation arose. If people want more, and more challenging, debate, then it is up to them to provoke and provide this. The depth of discussion in Books is not dependent upon any one member, and any suggestion that it is is unfair on the many intelligent, witty and insightful members who have contributed there over the years without feeling any need to resort to disrespectful or abrasive posting.

Myth 9: There are sinister, secretive forums restricted to mods only.

There is a forum restricted to mods only. As alatar has made clear, it is purely administrative in purpose and provides a means where mods and admins can discuss action necessary for the proper running of the Downs without need to PM. There is also an admin-only forum. I have never had access to that forum, but I view it as entirely reasonable, indeed necessary, that it should exist.

There is also another private forum called Da End. The mods and admins are members, but it is not restricted to them. No moderation discussion takes place there. The discussions are non-Tolkien related and revolve around matters of general interest (films, books etc). It could be located anywhere, but resides on the Downs as a matter of convenience. It is no more sinister or secretive than PMs exchanged between members.

Well, I really do hope that, by posting this, I have not made matters worse. My intention is to help repair the damage that has been done as best I can. I sincerely hope that it is taken in the spirit in which it is intended.

Submitted with sadness, but in hope

~The Saucepan Man~

[Lalwendë]

I'm afraid the hole only gets deeper.

None of us wanted this to happen. Least of all davem.

All the evidence given - and I can state that people have read and re-read all of davem's latest posts on the Downs until their eyes were falling out - was little more than circumstantial. It was flimsy. It was based on pure value judgements.

We know where it stems from. From a spat on the Bible thread where both davem and myself were spoken to in a most patronising fashion and where a proposal was put forward that was little short of shocking (a most defiantly un-neutral thread with no place for such as you - you dirty stinking heathens! You foul critics! You brigands what roll in the reek and wish to discuss such almighty matters!). davem tried to defuse this with humour. Alas, not everyone understands Python humour (they may not even get the joke above - ho-hum). And so the bomb dropped.

And what did davem do in the end? He. Left. The. Thread.

And went on to construct a good new one, demonstrating his commitment.

Oh, and he left the first time round. He was only banned after saying he was leaving. Kind of a kick up the jacksie to say "good riddance".

Now we have been given again his 'tone' as justification for his ban. How on earth are people to understand what tone to take?! To do this people are going to not only spend an hour or more on putting together a good post with quotes, but possibly another hour analysing the tone! Not only considering "Will this upset someone in the Bible Belt?" but "Will this upset a Communist" "Will this upset a Moslem?" "Will this upset someone with Eglish as a second language?" Note, not content, that's realtively easy to assess, but tone.

Can the admin team not see that this is simply an untenable position?

OK so The Downs is renowned across the Net as a hyper-strict, hyper-pompous site, but people simply aren't going to get any pleasure in spending even more hours in crafting essays which not only have to be correct in content but also in this elsuive Tone.

davem needed a lesson in Tone if this was the problem. So do a lot of people. The people with a tendency towards being patronising who are still very much thriving here, for instance. His 'Tone' was only 'off' because it was used in: Hey! A Religious Thread! And his tone was used in response to someone with an equally sneering Tone.

The simple matter is this was grossly mis-handled. No amount of evidence can make people see what was wrong in what he did, why it justified what he got.

OK so carry on digging a hole, but its only making the Downs get worse. I don't want to see that happen. And nor would davem, who was one of the Downs most valuable, loyal and hard-working members. Sadly the thanks he got was to see his name slandered and dragged through the mud.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

This discussion I had decided to stay out of... but I'd just like a question cleared up...

It was clear to me that Davem meant no offence with his posts. If they were anti-christian I was never insulted and I've head much- much - worse in my time. I accept that that doesn't apply to everyone and it's clear that some people were insulted - I would go into some long rant about 'forgive and forget', 'turn the other cheek' and so forth, but I think it's been said.

My question is this: if he was willing to come back, under what circumstances would the mods consider it? Even if this meant starting some new account or something. Lets just say, theoretically, that davem apologised for insulting some of our members (even if he still stands by some of his points and principals) or his 'tone' or whatever, would the mods consider forgiving him and letting him back into our community? It seems to me that a lot of people have been hurt by this and I don't want to see the Down fall apart or be broken up by it. I'm only looking for a solution to make everyone happy.

It still stands to reason that Mr Dave may not wish to come back, that aside, I'd just like to know there is a possibility that one of our most esteemed Downers, not to mention one of our liaisons with the Tolkien Society, could come back...

- On a side note, davem needs to come back for his role as chief of police in The Downer :D -

[drigel]

The posts here are appreciated. It seems that everyones position, and how they saw things as it went to the breaking down point is clear (although it hasn't changed anyones opinions - nor should, really). Here are some gut feelings with some points that have been brought up.

TECHNICAL:
It has been suggested that the LotB thread should have been closed. I was always reluctant to see that happen, though, because there were people who wished to discuss the topic raised.
As long as they all agreed to not only the subject, but the validity? I'm not saying that Davem was in the right, but there have been threads that were closed before. Never seen a call for the Bill of Rights afterwards, though. Besides which, because there are BD rules, there really isnt any real freedom of speech on this site (and rightly so).

due to the actions of one member who was not willing for that discussion to take place would hardly have been consistent with principles of fairness and freedom of speech.
There is a time and a place for everything. Forever silencing the best asset the Books have is one option (neither fair nor free speech IMO). However, this would have been the time for admin to say OK everyone SHUT UP, and MOVE ON. This ends the conversation that was going nowhere. It had already diverged into "Yes it is - and here is the evidence" and "No it isnt - you are being silly". Anything after those points is moot.

Myth 1: The Downs “management” is intolerant of views, beliefs and opinions which dissent from their own.
I agree. The only run in Ive had with BW was a political post on a political thread that I am sure I would have had the perma ban on other sites. btw - that was a thread that got closed.

Myth 3: The forum policies have changed or are being applied differently.
Maybe not, but tone has. Not from Admin, but the users.

There has, in recent times, been a downturn in serious discussion and an upturn in activity in the Mirth threads, with, for example, Werewolf and other games taking up much of many members’ time.
Not me. I would say look for other reasons. If you would have asked me, I would have loved to give you an honest reply. Which leads me to:

TONE
I completely agree with Boro's post.
Which some may think 'well it's only one member,' but think of how many other members saw this and were effected by it?
Or who here are like me, who only are here because of people like Davem? Im not saying that it's all about a Davem fan club or cult. It wasnt about him at all personally (I dont really know the guy - seems OK to me though). It was about his posts, and what that represented, about him, and (more importantly) this website. In the Books, here was a place for those of us who dont desire to play games, trivia, RPG etc.

The attitude has changed, the feeling has changed, I think we have this clique-like softy-softy attitude developing in the downs, and I don't like it.
Ive experienced it as well.

davem needed a lesson in Tone if this was the problem. So do a lot of people. The people with a tendency towards being patronising who are still very much thriving here, for instance. His 'Tone' was only 'off' because it was used in: Hey! A Religious Thread! And his tone was used in response to someone with an equally sneering Tone.
The point being that the Tone I was picking was not only in the posts, but in other remarks, and were never really up front and confrontable (very BD "rules" savvy). A backhanded way that IMO told me that I definately was not a regular member, and because I dont write in a flowery or english lit. paper style, that my point isnt valid, even if what I said in 2 sentances counters very neatly what they said in 8 paragraphs. A Tone sirs, that I have put up with for a while, because the utility I recieved from participating far outweighed the nuisance. Every site has it's own culture, and this place isnt any different. I can fit in I think. But when something like this happens, all the little things that one puts up with, suddenly becomes unbearable in the scale.

my initial decision had nothing to do with this matter, although it has perhaps hastened my withdrawal.
same here

Hope this explains something to somebody. There is a time to manage, micromanage, and there is a time for Social Engineering. I only post because I care.

[Folwren]

I did not intend to post again here, but having read all the posts to this point, I can not help but ask this one questions:

What is everyone trying to accomplish here?

Which leads to many other things...

If your purpose is to gain a proper explanation - haven't you gotten your explanation? The mods have done their best to tell you what happened! I don't think they can say anything more than they have. You don't think these reasons are good reasons so...

Do you want the mods to apologize? Say so and have done.

Is it to get them to let davem back? Here's a question - would he even return? I've heard from a few people that he wouldn't. To beg for the lifting of the ban only to be disappointed by the person in question will only cause more damage.

Do you want something else? Tell the mods what it is! You're all saying 'The feeling and tone of the Downs is changing.' But how is it changing? Less freedom? Less good, in-depth discussions? Figure out the answer and then try to come up with a solution. There are some things that can not be left up to the mods to accomplish or to fix. They can't make the discussions in the Book Forum better. That's left up for the posters.

Also, I highly, highly doubt that the mods mis-interpreted davem's style of writing, his humor, sarcasm, and all the rest to the point of banishment. I just can't see the misunderstanding being carried so far. He might well be a Yorkshire man, and Yorkshire man may be satirical and sarcastic, but we've got mods from different places in the world who are used to and accustomed to such behavior, through personal experience and reading. It just doesn’t seem likely.

My ideas of a solution:

Say, outright and clearly, what you want done to satisfy your discomfort. State what needs to be accomplished to make this place happy again. Stop arguing and tearing people down. And…….don’t leave the Downs. Another member leaving this place will cause much, much more damage than davem being banished.

In hope that things will clear up soon,

Folwren

[Boromir88]

Hookbill, that may be what some of us wish to see, but I think there's a bigger problem. The banning of davem is done with, the mods seemed to have discussed this greatly and felt like it was the best decision for the site. But, I see a bigger problem here developing. Now that SpM, alatar, and the mods have stepped out and explained the situation more clearly (that which I am thankful for) I see these problems developing more clearly.

Is it logical for me to say that the reason davem was banned, because the mods felt what he was doing fell under, flaming, trolling, and spamming? Since he had continued to discuss the topic of Christianity outside the LOTR bible thread?

SpM,

Myth 1: The Downs “management” is intolerant of views, beliefs and opinions which dissent from their own.
Whoever, started this myth, or whoever thinks it's true I'll be more than happy to tell them differently...just send them to me. :p You know fully well that I've disagreed with you several times...I wouldn't be surprised if I haven't disagreed with a moderator or admin. This has never been a problem in my view.

Myth 2: Members are increasingly at risk of being banned without justification.
I wouldn't call it so much a concern as far as a member getting banned from something they said. I think it's more of a concern of what is it that we can say or can't say? A concern that are we writing something here where a mod is going to come out give us a slap on the wrist, and restrict what we further say in the future.

Personally I didn't feel like what davem said was out of line by your own admission SpM you say nobody lodged a complaint, nobody contacted a mod for his removal or felt he had created some huge hurtful Crusade against religion. So, if nobody felt offended by his remarks why was it such a problem to the mods? It's the mods jobs to make sure to keep this as a friendly and an accepting environment as possible...if nobody had a problem with what he said (and I have yet to see or hear from somebody that did) than why did the mods feel like what he was saying was out of line? What gave them the feeling like what davem was doing was harming the 'good community' of the downs, if nobody felt offended by his remarks?

There have been times that I've found people's remarks offending, and I'm sure people have felt like what I've said before may be rather harsh. I don't think that's an intent on anyone here, and that's certainly not my intent, and I did not catch that intent in davem. If that does happen where some people did feel like they were insulted, than as Saurreg states there always seemed to be a self-modding from the members. They chat a bit, hatch out their problems and move on. If no one felt insulted or hurt by davem's remarks why should he stop from expressing his own opinion?

The point I'm trying to make, anytime you put up a thread or a topic, that topic should not be restricted to simply one view and one opinion allowed on that thread only. What good comes out of that? Ignorance to the other opinion does absolutely no one any good. Why is it that threads must be restricted only to talk about 'references to christianity, references to buddhism, references to whatever it may be,' and anyone that comes in to say 'This is not how I see it, this is not how Tolkien felt' constitutes a banning? That's how I've seen what happened here.

You say that since davem ignored repeated warnings to stop his belaboring against the members who felt like there was christianity in the story, davem had to go. The whole thing is, they weren't attacks, or at least I didn't see them as attacks, and apparently nobody did. I saw it as a challenge, I saw it as somebody who had a different view than me, and therefor I saw it as a test and as a person to argue against. You claim that this is a very accepting site of opinions, in which case I used to agree (to a certain extent I still do). But it seems rather biased to me that somebody had to stop saying what he felt, while others were free to continue to post their opinion on the subject.

Myth 3: The forum policies have changed or are being applied differently.
Aye, but the question is did what davem post constitute as 'disrespectful' and 'abrasive' attitude? If I felt like davem didn't respect my religion, I wouldn't respect him the way I do. I wouldn't respect him as a person. He expressed his opinion, arguments did get heated, but I didn't witness him insulting anyone or a particular group of people (rather he went against those that wanted to use LOTR to push their own agenda- and I find it comparable to authors that like to use the Tolkien to rake in their own profit). So, I don't see how his post to people outside the forum have anything to do with it.

Myth 4: The Downs “management” had ulterior motives in banning davem.
See what I felt about Myth 1.

Myth 5: Davem was banned because of persistent requests from one member or a small group of members.

This was not the case. Davem was banned because the mods/admins considered it appropriate, not because any member called for it. I can assure you that any suggestion or speculation that any one member or group of members demanded that davem be banned is wholly incorrect.
Here's where my biggest concern comes, was it offending, why is it that the mods felt that what he was doing was inappropriate and created an unhealthy atmosphere to the site? Going back, you say that since he ignored repeated warnings to leave the LOTR Bible thread to rest, then he continued to talk about religion and Tolkien outside the thread, that's why he was banned. This begs the question, if no one felt they were being insulted, why was it necessary to tell davem to stop posting his opinion? Why was it necessary to have him repeatedly warned to just let go the LOTR bible debate, while people were still allowed to express their different opinions? Why is it that the discussion of the topics that are sited in SpM's explanation felt they needed to be restricted to a certain opinion?

It appears to me there was some sort of babying the moderators did in this situation. To try to keep one side happy, and freely discussing their own opinion, while he was being told that he had to stop. This is what appears to be what davem didn't like, and I don't advocate it either. From the posts on fordim's and formendacil's blogs, I took that he didn't appreciate he had to stop posting his different opinion, while others were allowed to go on and share their wonderful little conversations of 'Yes, you're right, I agree. You are perfectly correct. That's so true!' (because to start criticizing and critiquing that belief is 'bad.') I don't enjoy those conversations, I'm prone in the movies thread especially, to simply argue against the popular belief of the thread just so we can get a discussion going instead of one big thread of everyone agreeing with eachother. We all like debates, we all like arguments, there have always seemed to have been great tolerance by the mods to allow this, UNTIL the LOTR Bible thread, when one person had to leave the thread at peace and let it go. But the question is why did he have to let his opinion go?

Myth 6, I don't feel is an issue here either so I won't discuss it.

Myth 7: Discussion is dying following davem’s ban.
Well I think book discussion has been declining over the years, long before davem's ban. That's apparent...though it really doesn't help things out when you get rid of a member who always had the insightful and provoking post and contributor to the books forum. It may have been in decline, but getting rid of a solid contributor to the forum only furthers the decline.

Myth 9: like 1 and 4 I know there is no truth to it at all, so not an issue.

So, I guess you can say my biggest concern with what was done is:

1) The Books forum and it's intriging great conversations of old, which davem always seemed to be a part of will continue on a spiral downward trend. There will be fewer and fewer threads where we have two opposing sides arguing their opinion, because of a fear that a mod will come over their shoulder and say 'No no no.'

I can see if davem was a nuisance and cancer to the forum I would be more than happy to make this trade off. But was he causing so many problems that he was a cancer? To the mods it appears so, but I think you fellas made too much out of nothing.

2) It seems like you (by you I mean the mods and admins) went off an instinct that felt like davem's attitude towards the religious viewpoints in several threads was unacceptable, and since he went to other threads to continue the debate he was challenging your authority. Since you were going off this instinct, you watched him and looked for any possible post where he was going against your authority and your warnings. Aye, but was davem challenging your authority as mods, or was he challenging the flimsical and biased reasons for why he was being warned? Aye, now there's the question.

Indeed I would trade one davem for 50 'Yes that's so true...you are dead on' people anyday.

[The Only Real Estel]

Well I guess I'll chime in on this.

First off - I don't want to come off as anti-davem. Though I didn't have a lot of contact with him I am not so short-sighted that I can't see he was generally a wonderful member who contributed a wealth of information, etc., etc. as everyone has said. I enjoyed the small debate that we had in the LotB thread, & he did as well. If he wanted to come back & the powers that be allowed it that would be just fine.

But why again is the sky falling?

After all, what's there left now that the good stuff is gone?

What? Because one member is gone? Yes, davem is a loss, & I don't want to trivialize it or sound cold. But suggesting that the content is declining based solely upon that? As has been said, discussion in the Books was "declining" long before Werewolf and other things broke onto the scene and gathered even more attention away, it hasn't been an overnight thing. davem contributed a great deal but are you suggesting that "if only davem were here, everything would be fine again”? If Downers think the discussion is lagging then I can’t for the life of me see why they don't do something about it instead of wishing davem was here to do it...

I understand you can't replace him but for all the talk of the effect davem has had on people you'd think you could've picked up a thing or two from him rather than appear completely lost without his reasoning.

Yes, there was an explanation in the Coming of age club -thread *a nod of approval towards SPM*, but I wonder how many of the 'downers ever saw it. In my opinion, the information should be provided so that members have a better access to it.

If people didn't see it they can do what I did, PM another member & ask for information. What do you want the mods to do - create a thread entitled Why davem Was Banned and leave it there for two months? Three? Four?

If you really want other members to be more aware of it then post a link to Sauice's post in your signature...did you happen to read alatar’s post above yours? I don't understand why you're clamouing for "better access" when there is a very detailed and, in my opinion, well put explanation right there.

davem was disregarding/taunting mods, the rules, and setting a poor example

That is the way I saw it, though I wasn't personally insulted, & I couldn't believe I saw it coming from davem. In my opinion he was four times the member than the way he was acting. Yes, Lal, I've read all you've said about Tone and I understand where you're coming from. But when you've been informed many times that what you're doing is unacceptable is it that difficult to stop?

He may have meant something completely harmless by it but if the management on the Downs deems that it is out of line then who is to decide? davem? Right or wrong it has to be the moderating team, and if you think they are abusing their powers then I simply don't see it.

Side not: Boro has posted as I've been typing this up and I just want to point out that Sauice said the decision to ban him wasn't based on members complaning. He didn't say no members complained (that I've seen). But there are probably quite a few members out there like me, if I was offended by something I wouldn't go tattle to the moderators first thing...they have to watch out for those members also.

Unfortunately some people could not see that because maybe they love other things more than Tolkien or the Downs.


Or maybe others love their habits of using irony, sarcasm, & occasional downright ridicule too much to give up when asked repeatedly. I don't see how a matter of "Tone" on a touchy subject can't be adjusted if "Tolkien and the Downs" is the chief care and concern.

And what did davem do in the end? He. Left. The. Thread.

Yes, technically. At last, at the constant urging of the moderators, he did the right thing for all concerned and left. But then what did he do? He continued to make reference to it, almost as if to say "oh by the way, remember that subject? I'm still right on it..." which is unnecessary and, quite frankly - though I hate to say it about him - childish. Yes, he was using it as metaphors & examples but there are countless other things that someone as creative as davem could've used.

Lastly, I don't buy this "we are all afraid of one misstep getting us banned!" response. Please. As alatar said:

Afraid of getting banned? From what I’ve seen, you’d really really have to work at it to be successful. Not sure if the content of your post is verboten? Ask a mod, or better, see if there’s something similar elsewhere in the forum and try to figure it out from there.

Or, no offence to davem, maybe try getting the point about the third time you're warned? It doesn't matter if you think the mods are being unreasonable or not, if you truly want to avoid a ban you will cease whatever it is that you're doing.

Users seem to be accutely aware of the animosity in the air and stricter overseeing of the forums and thus fear to tread carelessly lest they share Davem's fate. I mourn for the innocence lost.

I'm treading as carefully (or carelessly, however you like :D) as I ever did.

It's being made out like a temporary ban is about to be dropped on anyone all-or-a-sudden; like walking along the street & suddenly stepping into a pothole and breaking your ankle. Downers, that just isn't the case!

If the street is lined with signs stating "Beware pothole ahead!" "Careful, turn back" "Watch your step!" & perhaps even "Warning, pothole right here \/" and you keep going you have no one to blame but yourself.

Again a side note on Boro's post: If the matter is "we're all afraid of saying the wrong thing and being watched extra closely" then I still don't see the uproar. First offences do not bring you immediate probation. If you disagree you can always talk it over with a mod through a PM but in the end if you're going to insist you have the right to overrule a moderator or the Barrow-Wight then the very reason for them to volunteer their time has gone by the wayside.

[Glirdan]

I have been a little hesitant to even consider looking at this thread, but it seems that the bug has finally lured me in.

First things first, I may not know all the details on Davem's band (and personally, I do not have time to pour over every post he's made to see what he's said that could be offensive...), but I will say that I am slightly displeased. Yes, displeased. However, I will say no more on this subject as I regard the mods and admins with great regard and whatever their decision is, no matter how much we are displeased, angered, frustrated or annoyed with them for it, we must respect that fact that THEY have the authority here. Whatever choice they make may (and in their eyes hopefully will) make this site an even better place to be a part of than it originally was.

Secondly, I must concur with Saurreg. I used to get home after school or wake up in the morining to many posts in a variety of threads. These past few days, when I have just quickly jumped on to see what was happening, I've noticed that the talk has been very subdued and less spontaneous than what it used to be. The Books forum has gone down hill from the looks of things. The Mirth section (which was a favorite haunt of most of us) seems to have fallen. The only positive things I can say is that the RPG forums seem to be getting quite a bit of visiting as well as the Quotable Quotes and Quiz Room forums.

Granted, I am happy that the RPG's and the other two are getting more visits as they were falling slightly down hill. But we're here to have fun and get to know new people from around the globe (and I can gladly say that I have become good friends with quite a few members [you know who you are]). We used to have lots of laughs and jokes in the Mirth forum. But now, everything is less spontaneous and it saddens me. I always used to look forward to reading what funny thing was posted about the latest picture in Crazy Captions. The Werewolf games (although they have slightly lost their taste) were always a fun way to get into the RP spirit, even if it was indirectly. Yes, a lot of us (myself included) probably had lapses of stress because we were worrying about being killed off. But that was the fun things about it. The Mirth forum has lost it's spontaneousness. It's true Davem never had a big part in it, but it seems that because of his departure, it has affected all of us who normally posted there.

The Books forum seemed to be one of his favorite haunts and as said previously, it has gone downhill. This also saddens me. We are all Tolkien lovers here. We are here to express our joy in that which the dear Professor brought to us. We are here to honour his memory by discussing the finer parts of his great litterary works. We are here to discuss what we didn't like about the books (done in a proper manner mind you). Granted I've never played a big role in the Books forum (but that's because I feel quite intimidated next to all of you [Davem especially] and because what I wanted to say, had been said before hand).

The Movies forum also was a favorite of many and that seems to have fallen as well. It's true that PJ made the movies without the aid of Tolkien. But I must say that what he had to work with, he did an amazing job. Yes, there are those who would disagree with me. But that is what this site is about. Is to discuss our love of Lord of the Rings, an amazing piece of literary work and film making.

I guess what I am trying to say is that we (as in all of you) are spending time brooding over something that, in the Barrow-Wight's mind, had to be done to make this place better for us all. Thechnically, we have no power to reverse this decision. Yes, I am quite sorrowful at the banishment of Davem. I have even asked Celuien to add my name to her list of members who aren't happy about this decision. My reasoning? Not out of spite of the mods and admins. But for the reason that I am sad to see such a reputed member, a great thinker and an amazing person leave us for (what it seems like) eternity. For the reason that I do not think (in my mind anyway) that they should have banned him. I completely respect the mods decisions, even if I don't agree with it. After all, they are the authority and they are doing what's best for the site.

But I must agree with something that Davem said before hand in his farewell thread. He is the way he is. There is absolutely nothing that we can do about it. I personally don't think he should be banned for acting the way he does. He says he can't change and I agree. I have tried to change myself for so long and it just doesn't work. It may work sometimes, but not in every case. That is why I disagree with the mods.

However, I believe instead of brooding on what has been done, we try and get back to having fun. Yes, we can miss Davem's intelligence and his humour. But do we have to debate about it constantly? I will miss Davem, even though I've talked to him maybe once in my entire year on this web site. I may only be 16, but I am mature for my age (and I would assume that my writing and this post would reflect that...or I would hope anyway).

I know that this may seem to not have had a point (my posts never do seem to have a clear point do they?) but beneath all of this confusion, there is a point. Let us a move on past all this frustration towards the mods. Let us get back to having fun and discussing the things we enjoy discussing. Let's get back to honoring our dear professor. Miss Davem all you want. I am not saying that we shouldn't. Heck, I will miss him greatly! But we cannot brood on this forever. But you cannot do it as openly as you have and with as much animosity towards the mods and admins as most of you have. Even if you haven't outwardly said you're angry, you can tell in a person's posts by their writing.

So, let us move on. Let us get back to things that we enjoy and miss Davem without all this animosity, anger, frustration and annoyance.

That's all I have to say.

Yours always,

~Glirdy~

[Valier]

I know that I am relitavely new here, but I have some thoughts on this that I would like to share.
First off I agree whole heartedly with Folwren on everything she has to say. What does everyone hope to accomplish with this? Is this just a way to let everyone express how they feel, or do you want something to come out of this?

Rules are part of everything. I thought it was understood that the Mods are in charge, if they don't have the right to ban someone then who does?

When I first heard that Davem was banned I thought of course he had to have done something really bad to have been banned. So I checked out the thread for myself, and as soon as I saw that it had to do with religion I didn't need to read any more. Religion is a touchy subject.
I understand where the mods where coming from. If I myself were a Mod and saw that the topic of religion was starting to heat up, and one person was lighting it, I would kindly ask that person to watch what they say. If that person continued to not "play by the rules" then it is their right as the Mods to ask him to leave.

Now I also understand how some people who knew Davem would be upset about this, but it was by his own choice right? I really have no feeling that at any time I will be banned without notice...that's just rubbish! I have thorougly enjoyed my time here and I would hate something like this to turn members off from coming here.

I have to say also that the comment about all the serious discussions going down hill since Davem's ban is kinda offending.I never noticed a big change. There is always lulls, remember new people come here all the time and lots of "newbie's" have shared very useful, serious and interesting things on this site. And just because there are not as many serious threads is that so bad? Something will come up, but in the mean time there is nothing wrong with a little fun.

I do not believe there is anything wrong with feeling that this is a community. We need to put this to a rest and get on with it. If you want something in specific to happen or change then just say it.

I myself think the Mods do a great job keeping weird and offensive people off this site and if sometime in the future something like this happens again, I am sure the Mods will deal with it fairly and tactfully. Really would it solve or help anything if the Mods posted their concerns about members as threads? No. Leave it up to them.
I doubt that my post will make a differnce about anything, but I felt the need to express how I felt, however uneloquently it may be.

Signed a new, but not so new member. Valier

[Lalwendë]

Firstly, why have people decided to do this statement? Well you'll have to ask them; I cannot speak for individuals' different emotions over this, it was not even my idea. There is a general feeling of great discomfort and not a little sorrow, so perhaps that's the overarching motivator; for myself I am motivated by sorrow that the Downs has turned out to be not the place I thought it to be and the intense upset caused to davem.

Has the Books forum been in decline? Yes it has, and we have lost its champion, the man who would spend hours pouring over books and finding new topics to discuss. Why, after he left the Bible thread he even started yet another fantastic thread, which should show his commitment and lay to rest the myth that he wanted to be banned. Nothing has taken off in the same way since. And yes, people could get together to post things, but do people fele like posting right now? I know for myself I could spend an hour or more on a post, several volumes of HoME at my side, but do I want to dedicate my time to that endeavour now?

And why not? There is the fear of being banned - as I've said tone is a very intangible matter - and having your work wasted. There is also the niggling feeling that here I am, writing away, and what for? Who for? Other Downers? As has been made clear over and over, this site does not belong to common or garden members but to the team who head it up. So I am therefore spending my time giving them free content. Most websites would pay a lot of money for such dedicated input. I have the niggling feeling that thanks are not passing down a two-way street. Of course we are glad the admin team take the time to run the site, but this is also a privilege for them, a conferring of status and power. What do members get in this relationship? That's up to the mods of course, but bear my next point in mind.

At face value this is just another website, a collection of bytes and whatnot. However nowadays forums and bulletin boards are something more than this. They are communities. They are Villages. They have populations. And relationships form. The admins must oversee this, but they must also think about how they do this, and the ethics involved once they embark on the creation of a new Village.

Many tangible communities practice 'shunning', whereby if you do not follow the rules then you are ostracised (e.g. the Amish, religious 'cults') for good. Of course this is one way of exercising control, but it is an extreme way. Whether the members accept 'shunning' very much depends upon their own level of either education about the outside world, brain washing or addiction. In this community few of us are 'brain-washed' so we feel we must express our distaste and distress at what has happened to a member of the community whom we love. And even for some who do not love davem, they have concerns about the ethics of the case, the evidence to them is just not there.

As I say, when you create a community, you also create a complex web of human relationships and one tug on a thread can bring those relationships tumbling down. A forum aint just a website.

About some specifics brought up.

Davem was not banned first time out for behaviour. He was annoyed that due to his response to a spat in a thread he was the one being reprimanded. Parties on both sides were in the wrong, davem was the one who was blamed for off colour humour (however, being deeply patronising is not an inappropriate tone, so it seems), and eventually he decided he'd had enough and was going to leave for a bit. He was beaten, he'd taken all the blame, he was lying on the ground, but then the mod team came along and gave him a boot in the ribs just for good measure - a week's ban. Sorry, but I have to say if there was one way to antagonise someone then this was surely it.

Remember davem was man enough to leave the Bible thread when he was asked. He then went on to create a brilliant thread and it was all forgotten about as far as he was concerned. As for the so-called snide asides he made, he was laughing at himself and his hobbyhorse, as we all do now and then. He'd forgotten about it and was only concerned with getting Books back in business. Whether these statements were of the wrong 'tone' is entirely down to personal interpretation. I have mine - and I was there so I know why he said them. Mods thought otherwise as they were still angry he dared to argue his case.

And onto that subject. Davem is 46 years old. He is not 13. He also thought he was a friend of many of the mods, and as such would be able to discuss matters with the mods. He was wrong alas. Misjudgement. He was deeply upset by this afterwards. Nobody thought about how upset this would make davem. This was deeply unpleasant. However many things posted since (including boasts about the importance in the world of Tolkien scholarship of people who have been banned before) have revealed the levels of machismo and male ego that may be involved here; no man likes being argued with after all. Maybe if you all (davem included) were made to cuddle fluffy bunny wabbits and wear bras and dresses and do nurturing things for a week you would learn some of the subtleties of human relationships and drop the ego?

Come on. This was all just a stupid argument that blew up into a misunderstanding and then became some sort of vendetta resulting in davem waking up to find a horse's head in his bed (no not me, that's a mafia reference...). He's not evil, the mods aren't evil (SpM is very interesting to talk to when he's off topic). What can be done to get rid of the bad smell. I have ideas but they might not be popular as they would challenge male egos.

Get back to normal? Aye mebbe. But I've lost me rose tinted spex. It's like finding out that Father Christmas is really your dad in his underpants, he's got mince pie stains on his vest and he stinks of stale booze.

[The Saucepan Man]

Lalwendë, there were repeated requests, here and elsewhere, for a full explanation of why davem was banned, yet when they are given you say that we (presumably those providing those explanations) are digging ourselves a deeper hole. Either you accept the explanations as being honestly given and that the decision was made in good faith, whether you agree with it or not, or you don’t. If you don’t, then the only real alternative is that the mods/admins involved acted in bad faith and/or with ulterior motives, and that those who have provided the explanations are either actively lying or, at the very least, being economical with the truth. That is not the case but, if you believe it, then there is likely to be nothing that I, or anyone, can say to convince you otherwise.

As to whether davem’s ban was justified, I have, again, provided just about as full an explanation now as I feel that I can give. To reiterate it, in its essence, the fact is that the entire mod/admin team involved thought davem’s posts to be inappropriate and, in many cases, offensive and members were in fact offended by them. That is more than sufficient justification, in my view, for the warnings that were given and the temporary ban. The fact that davem continued to post in the same manner, after those repeated warnings and that temporary ban, in my view fully justified the full ban issued by The Barrow-Wight.

Just to be clear, though, there was no favouring one “side” or silencing another. Davem had ample opportunity to make his views known on that thread and did so at length. His position was, I am sure, fully understood by all contributing to it some time before any serious problem arose. As I have said, I agreed with him in essence. Additionally, in answer to Boromir88, I would reiterate a point made in my earler post:

I always tried to avoid being overly officious or heavy-handed as a moderator. However, the Downs is a community. One with a few perfectly straightforward (and, in my view, perfectly reasonable) rules. In any society, one should not simply ignore the rules which govern it, persist in challenging them and “agree to disagree” with those charged with enforcing them.If anyone remains concerned over this issue, go back and read the LotB thread in its entirety and then read all of davem’s posts after he withdrew from the discussion. It’s not the whole story, because there were also PMs involved, but it’s pretty compelling in my view. If you read (or have read) all of that and still disagree, then again there is nothing that I, or anyone else, can say to change your mind.

As for this “tone” issue, no one (spammers and trolls apart) need worry about being banned without being warned and told exactly why a particular post, comment, manner etc is inappropriate. This happens very, very rarely. Rarer still is the case where someone ends up being banned because of repeated disruptive, abrasive and offensive behaviour. Including davem, it has happened only twice in the (nearly) four years that I have been here. That, in my view, is because people instinctively know when something that they have drafted or posted has over-stepped the mark. My experience of discussions on this forum, both serious and light-hearted, tells me very clearly that virtually everyone, if not everyone, who posts here regularly knows what is appropriate and what is not.

Warnings are not given and bans are not implemented because of some machismo urge to satisfy male ego. They are given and implemented because the mods/admins (both male and female) consider, after deliberation, that it is appropriate to do so.

What was the purpose of this thread? My understanding from the petition was that it was to seek further clarification for davem’s ban and reassurance that members will not be banned without warning and without being given a very clear indication as to why whatever it was that prompted the warning was considered inappropriate. I feel that I have said all that I can to address those concerns. There is not much more that I can usefully say.

Finally, for the record, I wish to make clear that I am English (very much so), I am a keen libertarian, I have no strong religious beliefs, I have (or at least like to think that I have) a good sense of humour, and I am a long standing Monty Python fan. None of those qualities alter my assessment of this matter.

[Nogrod]

addenda...
What was the purpose of this thread? My understanding from the petition was that it was to seek further clarification for davem’s ban and reassurance that members will not be banned without warning and without being given a very clear indication as to why whatever it was that prompted the warning was considered inappropriate.You are somewhat right here. I quess many of us felt it really disturbing that just after davem had been banned for a short period of time - and came back - he was banished for ever just like that, *flush*, without any further notice or warning or anything. That I think disturbed many of us - and I think still disturbs.

-----------------

I have never been a friend of any "conspiration-theories" as I see them just voicing peoples hope to have the world look easy & simple and to get a culprit nailed (like the Nazis or modern day fundamentalists) instead of seeing the world as really a complicated place with differing interests and options. But really, Boromir voiced one of my concerns here:
Personally I didn't feel like what davem said was out of line by your own admission SpM you say nobody lodged a complaint, nobody contacted a mod for his removal or felt he had created some huge hurtful Crusade against religion. So, if nobody felt offended by his remarks why was it such a problem to the mods? It's the mods jobs to make sure to keep this as a friendly and an accepting environment as possible...if nobody had a problem with what he said (and I have yet to see or hear from somebody that did) than why did the mods feel like what he was saying was out of line? What gave them the feeling like what davem was doing was harming the 'good community' of the downs, if nobody felt offended by his remarks?I had already let go of this suspicion and thought of myself being too taken with the subject-matter (being a non-believer myself), but as Boro states, the logic doesn't back the point? How come he was banned indeed if not for his views? Is there something that has not been revealed here?

I really would like to continue with a point made by Valier to show a thing: When I first heard that Davem was banned I thought of course he had to have done something really bad to have been banned. So I checked out the thread for myself, and as soon as I saw that it had to do with religion I didn't need to read any more. Religion is a touchy subject.
I understand where the mods where coming from. If I myself were a Mod and saw that the topic of religion was starting to heat up, and one person was lighting it, I would kindly ask that person to watch what they say. Now this tells a lot. If you have a thread were the christian aspects of the LotR or other works of Tolkien are discussed approvingly, that is just allright ("Aragorn had a long hair - like Jesus had", copyright by davem, I think? :) ), no one will come saying that's inappropriate. But when those people think that anyone proposing alternative viewpoints is just downright wrong because of him not sharing the christian point of view, what then? I can see davem's bitterness here as justified: really thought of points and countless hours of thought and deliberation vs. "Hey, isn't Gandalf the White like a resurrection of Christ - so Tolkien wrote him as a christ?" (as he wrote Frodo and Aragorn and Eowyn and...)

If it is so, that is scary how nicely you soften it. If one viewpoint is right without any question and challenging it is not... and include the tone issue: you can preach one interpretation as you will but not another... I didn't see this as a fair judgement, even with the explanations. The "other side" of these debates was at many times as bullying and stubborn (although lacking davem's argumentative skills). So shouldn't you have banned all those flamers there?

But what I am even more worried about, is the attitue of Glirdy and the Only Real Estel. I know Glirdy is a young guy and that should be counted in favour of him (no offence Glirdy, really!), of the Real Estel I know nothing, so leave that be.

But really, this is a question of someone! Hey, a fellow Barrow-Downer! Not just one "freak" you stumbled in the MySpace or who sent you an offer for Viagra or something; whatever, he is / was a colleague, a friend, one of your own community!

And it's not someone you browse as an alias on a random-site, but a real human being who has dedicated lot more hours / years to this thing any one of us could even imagine and whom you have somewhat known during a long time! And yes, and most poignantly, someone to whom this site & the discussion probably was more than to any one of those trying to downplay his situation ("well, that's just one downer, everything's all right soon").

So show some grace, some virtue, please! Maybe turning the other cheek here could be considered if you're so sure about the message and so pure as you think (mainly relating to those in whose interests the bannig of davem was) - or can you choose by your own feeling, which parts of the Scripture to follow and which not? "Jesus loved his enemies but we shall have no mercy with davem, no way, he should go!" :)

Maybe there is no conspiracy - I think there isn't - but if there were people who made complaints about davem and demanded his downfall, I think they really should be brave enough (virtuos, courageous, human...) to come forwards and show why they are good people to the BD's whereas davem is not... and what were their arguments! Hiding in the shadows is not moral nor is it even christian...

---------
I really have appreciated Spm's and Alatar's posting here as they have made me feel that I've on the road to understanding what has happened (and they made a couple of good points I hadn't considered earlier).

But there are question-marks still... If we are honest, everyone should be.

I really think this discussion has all the potentiality to clean the air here and make this site flower again, I really trust that being so.

But we may also break a lot of things.

I hope we do not.

There are too many good things in this site for it. (You see, I'm "backtracking" also as I like this site too much! I don't know whether it tells good of the site or ill of myself... :rolleyes: )

[Meneltarmacil]

I'm concerned that this argument is starting to go too far. I've seen forums starting to go quiet lately, forums that had been seeing a lot of activity in the last few weeks. The "Fortunately/Unfortunately" thread, for one, was virtually guaranteed to have several responses per day, yet it hasn't been seeing much activity lately.

Boromir88, if your intention is to leave this forum, I can't stop you, but I'd rather we didn't lose such a respected and highly intelligent person who contributes so much to this forum like yourself (I'm referring to you here, Boro). Plus, I still haven't had the chance to devour you in Werewolf yet ;) .

Believe me, I don't think davem or the mods want the Barrow-Downs to start dying as a result of this argument. We've been an excellent community for over five years now, and it would be a shame to see us all go our separate ways at this point.

[CaptainofDespair]

Despite my rather obvious lateness, I will add my two cents. And I will try to be as concise and unoffending as possible. Please be aware that my intention is not to attack or offend any ‘side’ or those specifically involved. Like Menel, I am concerned as to the path that is being treaded upon.

While it is certainly disappointing to see great contributors banned, I do not think this matter should have become what it has. Davem, despite his contributions to the community at large, was only just another member of the Downs. To give him some vague special status because of his abilities is to equate him with being indispensable. And that is what would be truly horrible, for coming to rely on someone as a great source of information and discussion (no matter how eloquent and brilliant they are at presenting it) can take away from one’s own abilities to do so over time. He outweighs no other member, and his banning should not be given the special attention some seem to attribute to it. The loss of Davem as a contributing member is a blow, but not so great as to keep the Downs from remaining a great discussion forum. And to allow this affair to drain other members of a desire to remain in the community is equally wrong. All in all I feel that if this matter is not laid to rest with civility and with dignity (as well as the posters being treated as such), it will lead to consequences I’d rather not think about (though I have certainly experienced them in my own right as a member of several forums).

I apologize if my view, or the way it was presented, offends anyone as I do not wish it to. And nor will I excuse my nature in doing so if it does. If you do feel slighted, please let me know through the PM system, as I will no longer respond to the matter by way of this thread.

[Durelin]

Like many, I suppose, I didn't really want to post here, as I don't want this to drag on, but...well, I think it will manage that without me.



Maybe there is no conspiracy - I think there isn't - but if there were people who made complaints about davem and demanded his downfall, I think they really should be brave enough (virtuos, courageous, human...) to come forwards and show why they are good people to the BD's whereas davem is not... and what were their arguments! Hiding in the shadows is not moral nor is it even christian...

Whether or not I am a moral person, and whether or not I am Christian, I found davem to be out of line in a number of his posts, because of his lack of respect for people simply as people, regardless of what they had to say, particularly in his 'Hail and farewell (http://forums.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13158)' thread. And the fact that he could not drop the grudge in his posts afterward was also disappointing. (I'm not saying anything about his character or his contribution to the 'Downs or anything...they are not part of the issue: I'm simply saying what I had a problem with.)

But I did not contact anyone about this, mod or otherwise (or speak to anyone about it, actually).

Whether or not he should have been banned, I will not say, as I don't feel it's my place to.

But, what I can say is that bringing everyone into this with accusations is not appropriate. Please do not spread the bitterness.



I really think this discussion has all the potentiality to clean the air here and make this site flower again, I really trust that being so.

But we may also break a lot of things.

I hope we do not.

And I hope that everyone will act on that hope.

[The Only Real Estel]

Nogrod.

I am trying not to trivialize davem being dismissed from the forums. But the fact remains that I think at the very least his behavior was borderline, certainly for someone of his maturity and standing, and if you hover on the line you can expect a judgment call from the mods.

I certainly didn't ask for him to be banned. I certainly am not jumping for joy over it. I understand that davem is not some forum spanner and that he was important to a lot of people here. But I fail to see how this forum is falling apart as some are making it out to be.

"Jesus loved his enemies but we shall have no mercy with davem, no way, he should go!"

First off, I don't see how the Bible or me being a Chrisitan or not (I certainly never said I was in my post) has any bearing on this thread. Secondly, I don't think you could find a single verse in these Scriptures you speak of that says there are no consequences for actions that were out of line.

[piosenniel]

Well, it's all my fault and nobody else's really.


I banned davem because he ate my hamster (http://www.animalshaveproblemstoo.com/pics/007.gif)!

[Durelin]

Well I'll be smurfed. I never knew the P in Piosenniel might be linked with the P-E-T-A. :eek: :p

[Boromir88]

I do not believe there is anything wrong with feeling that this is a community. We need to put this to a rest and get on with it. If you want something in specific to happen or change then just say it.~Valier
That's always the best thing, right? Just go back to the tea and crumpets and forget the whole thing. It never happened, it didn't happen, so stop saying it did. But see Valier, I can't move on if this is the way that mods will handle future situations just when things get heated.

Rules are part of everything. I thought it was understood that the Mods are in charge, if they don't have the right to ban someone then who does?
Of course, and I don't hear anyone crying for anarchy, oh please anything but that. But let's be at least a little honest and realistic here. Mods and Admins are just like us, therefor they are prone to possibly making a wrong decision (though they may feel it's what's best). Obviously they thought that banning davem would be the best thing to do for the forum, but that doesn't mean it necessarily was the best thing for the forum.

Estel, all I can say is pretty much what drigel said...this isn't some davem worshiping cult mongering fan club (well lal might be...and maybe some others, but I'm certainly not) :p I respect him, but if I felt like he was insulting myself and my beliefs, I sure as heck wouldn't respect him anymore. I just feel that if this is how the mods will handle the business just when a thread gets out of hand, than what's the point of having arguments anymore?

Just to be clear, though, there was no favouring one “side” or silencing another.
Oh, but that's certainly how it appeared to me...davem was asked repeatedly to let the subject go, just leave, while the rest was able to (if they so wanted) to continue on with their opinions. You as the mods personally may have agreed with davem, but looks like took up a babying role so one side wouldn't get their 'feelings hurt.' And as Mod that's supposed to be expected, but I also thought you were supposed to be impartial...just seemed like you only were interested in going after davem because he spoke against the side that was saying there were references to christianity.

As what's been presented to us that seems to be what the whole discussion of the mods was about. It wasn't about anyone else, or what anyone else had said, it was about what davem said because he was against the 'Christianity in Tolkien.' You may not have been favouring one side over the other, but you did choose to only go after one side, or more specifically one person.

Now I hear well that all davem needed to do was just listen and be a good boy, listen to the warnings and everything would be fine. But why should he have, if he honestly felt what he was doing wasn't wrong? Who did feel like it was wrong? Well, I guess the people that count did.

See, you say that the way the rules are applied haven't been changed, but I certainly have never seen a situation such as the LOTR Bible handled this way before. Maybe it doesn't happen a lot (and therefor fortunately I wasn't around before when it did), but there are many times when we get heated and irritated by some threads and some people. We do lose our heads at times, that's going to happen. The thing is, what should happen (or at least the way I've seen it applied in the past by mods) is a mod stepped in, stopped things, and just said hatch out your problems somewhere else...or the two members would just agree to move on and iron things out right there. Mods just didn't privately and publicly warn one person to 'tone it down' it was both people (or parties) involved.

That's not what I saw happening here, I saw one side...no one person, that was gone after and told to stop. (Which I still fail to see why it was necessary, but that's differing opinion for you, I'm not making the decision). So, I can say I fully understand why davem feels the way he did and as he shows in formendacil's and fordim's blogs.

There may not have been any difference in the way the Rules were applied. If you felt like what davem said was out of hand, that's your decision...but what has changed (in my view) is that in this case you chose to stop one side. (This is for those of you who ask for explanations as far as why the downs has changed and why it's grown to be a gushy-softy forum, of 'lets not hurt eachother anymore'. You say there's more to it than that, and if you can't tell us, than you simply can't. I gotta go by what I see. And what I saw was not how the situation had been dealt with in the past.

(I'm not saying anything about his character or his contribution to the 'Downs or anything...they are not part of the issue: I'm simply saying what I had a problem with.)
Thank you for stepping out Durelin, I'm actually rather glad someone did. I guess I should clear up that I'm not saying what davem said could not be taken as an insult, as that's all up to the individual. I really didn't see much to make of it, but hey, that's just me. I got a feeling that it was made into too big of a deal and just grew rapidly, as you are indeed the first person that has expressed an uneasiness about davem's post. If that's how you saw it then that's how you saw it. :)

Nogrod, :thumbs up:, I know there's no conspiracy theory, or if there is one I'm greatly fooled and that's my own fault :rolleyes: . I'm just concerned that this was actually not the usual way the situation is approached when we do get a little angered and irritated...and if this same thing will happen in the future, than well I don't know what I'd do yet.

Menel, it's great to hear that, rather flattering too. Honestly, I really don't know what's going to happen. I wanted to try to find out some answers and get some concerns answered. Perhaps, I wasn't too clear, I do appreciate what the moderators have done to come and and explain the situation. I know they don't have to, and they didn't have to, but they felt like it was a necessary. I just don't like the reasoning behind it, because I still don't think it was 'normal' forum policy, and they were applying the Rules like they've always done.' Maybe they were applying the Rules as they always did to davem (and to anyone else who they felt was being 'uncivil' in their posting), but I don't think they dealt with the situation the same way. (To know what I mean it should be reiterated several times in this very post).

[Firefoot]

As a signer of the petition, I suppose I'd better chip in with my two cents.

For my part, I suppose I am satisfied. I had initially signed hoping for some further clarification/explanation, which various mods have kindly given - I had heard davem's side of the story, and in hearing the mods' was hoping for an account that would mesh nicely with it - unfortunately, they seem to contradict each other in places, so that I do not know for sure which is the truth as far as it goes. And being that I absolutely do not have the time right now in life to read the entirety of the LotB thread, I am probably not the best person to judge.

I never wanted to accuse any of the mods of some kind of conspiracy theory or accuse them of acting in bad faith, nor do I now think they were. I'm sorry that it had to come to this and wish it hadn't.

On a related note, the other reason I was in favor of the petition was to at least have it out in the open - I think having people rant over on Formen's blog was doing nothing to help and only fostering bad will. However, I don't really think there is much more that needs to be said. The mods clearly made their decision based on what they thought was right and at this point I think we're beating the dead horse, per se. I'm not sure I ever expected the petition to accomplish more than it has: getting the issue out in the open and getting the mods' pov on the issue.

[Formendacil]

As one of the chief movers and shakers of the whole Statement and as its primary composer, it is only proper, I feel, that I make a personal statement on this thread. It has taken me a while to compose myself into a collected enough state to do this, but I feel that delaying it, so that this comes after Alatar and SPM’s comments, in particular, is a good thing.

First of all, I received some censure before this thread was posted, to the effect that it was likely that this would drive the ‘Downs in two. With a bit of hesitant timidity, allow me to say that I very pleased to see that this appears not to be the case, but that – as things stand- we’re actually moving towards a resolution, albeit very slowly. Certainly, no one has blown up, and that is good thing.

After SPM and Alatar’s long and, from my perspective, sincere posts, I am finally starting to get an impression of both sides of this issue. And for me, a lack of understanding about the Administration’s side has been the truly big matter. I’m the sort of person who likes order, who likes having authority figures, and who is not averse to measures being taken when necessary. But I’m also a person who, for good or ill, considers himself capable of making his own decisions, and I do not like it when a decision made by those in power does not jive with my own judgment. Observation of my blogs will show severe irritation at only getting Davem’s side of the story. Had I seen SPM and Alatar’s posts two weeks ago, I’d have been in a much better humour, in many respects.

As with most stories with two sides, I would say that both sides of the story have their faults, and both are truthful in the views of the people making them- and that holds true here. The Administration feels that it was justified in banning Davem. They believe what they are saying. For the first time in this matter, I’m convinced of their sincerity.

With most of the bones of contention cleared away, (or “Myths” as SPM called them), the issue of Davem’s banishment boils down to two things: the debate on the “Lord of the Bible” thread, and how Davem acted there (and elsewhere, but that is the main place)- and whether or not Davem was warned that his actions were inappropriate.

(I'm breaking this up into different posts for obvious reasons of making it easier to read. If the Mods think it's a wastage of bandwidth or whatever... feel free to condense into one.)

[Formendacil]

Let me state quite clearly that I think Davem was wrongly told to leave the “Lord of the Bible” thread, if it was done so on the basis of his opinion being that “the Lord of the Rings has nothing in it that is provably Christian”. I happen to agree with that statement fully, and I would dispute that it is “just and fair” to allow anyone to disagree with this on the simple grounds of “opinion”. Tolkien himself said that there was no allegory- said it in the Foreword itself- and there is NOTHING in the book that can only be Christian in its meaning.

Davem believes himself banished for holding this opinion. If this is not the case, it has taken too long for that to come out.

If the truth is that Davem was banned for his arrogance and stubbornness and rudeness in steadfastly holding to this opinion, then I will grant that these were legitimate grounds for banishment. Whether or not these conditions were met is another matter. Stubbornness, for what it is worth, was and is pretty much a cross-forum problem. There is no reason here to single Davem out. If it comes down to arrogance, to “my opinion simply trumps everyone elses”, then I would say that there should have been some deeper looking into WHAT that opinion was. As it so happens, Davem’s opinion that Tolkien’s work CANNOT be shoehorned into any particular meaning is not only a justifiable one, but the one Tolkien himself had. Very tenuous grounds here for banishment. Finally, rudeness.

Here, Davem may have overstepped the line. His sarcasm, there is no denying, can be caustic. That said, rudeness is the most subjective of the criteria given. It’s essentially “tone”. What is rude to one person may be honesty to another. Davem avers, and I can only agree with from what I say, that he never intended, or made, a PERSONAL attack on users, but simply on their positions. My reading of his posts is that this statement is true. There is, I would agree, a sense of frustration about Davem in his later posts on the “Lord of the Bible” thread, but I think that’s only natural if you were trying, again and again and again, to show that the ocean is wet.

The other major issue surrounding Davem’s banishment is that of warnings. Davem states that after he returned from his first, temporary banishment, he received only one real warning from the Mods, from Mister Underhill (simultaneously in the “Lord of the Bible” thread and by PM), to get off the “Lord of the Bible” thread (and, presumably implied, the topic as well). And Davem DID get off the thread- and familiar as we all are with Davem’s stubborn-as-a-mule ability to stick with an argument, this can ONLY be construed as obedience to what the Mods requested.

From what I understand, Davem believes he received one, real warning after his temporary banishment, which he complied to (see above paragraph). This can be reconciled to the Administration's statement of him having received multiple warnings by recognising that these warnings (I assume they were given) either came BEFORE the temporary ban, and were so assumed forgiven by the rescinding of the ban, or else were given in a manner that did NOT make itself clear to be an official warning. And if a warning is not clearly made official, in my opinion, then you have no right to complain if it's not followed.

My verdict therefore, in this entire matter of Davem’s banishment: Davem was unjustly banned. Do I think the Mods are evil, self-satisfying, Davem-hating, power-mongering beasts? No. But I do think there was an error in judgement. And I can easily see how this would happen.

[Formendacil]

From the sounds of it, there was a lot of Davem-related discussion in the Mod forum (and, by the way, how EVER did that forum become a problem here? All forums have Mod forums- or should). It is a very human tendency that, once an opinion has been formed, it remains strongly held. As I would reconstruct it, once the Administration decided that Davem was being insolent and disrespectful (of the Mods and other users), –over the course of the “Lord of the Bible” thread and the temporary banishment- they saw nothing that caused them to deviate from their opinion. Here’s where they got their lines crossed: they saw Davem’s stubborn action against the “LotR is Christian” opinion as an act against opinion. They saw his tenacity in refuting an obviously (from his and my points of view) wrong opinion as an unwillingness to accept their authority. Davem, for his part, saw their suggestions to tone it down as approving the position he was arguing against.

My verdict? Still the same as above: Davem was unjustly banned. But there was no intended malice. The Administration simply made the error of not talking TO Davem, but rather talking AT him. And Davem, not seeing what they were concerned about (thinking it was about Christianity in the LotR, and not the issue of disrespect), continued to fight a totally different battle.

So, that’s my reconstruction of what happened. For my part, I think it fits the facts. Sad as that way, what happened after it was worse. Davem was accused of thinking himself “a law unto himself” of insulting other members. His character was seriously defamed, and that hurt him- and Lalwendë. It also really didn’t jive with what most of us knew of Davem. Retaliations were inevitable. In the search for an explanation, some untenable explanations arose: the Barrow-Wight was on a power trip. The Mods were anti-free thought. The actions of the Administration, in particular, did little to dispel these thoughts, since they remained remote, and their explanations sounded stilted and didn’t seem to take into effect everything we saw. If nothing else, Davem made his side of the story quite loud and clear, and as both sides of any story will do, if heard, his side made sense.

This statement was, for my part, an attempt to find out the Administration’s side of the story, which they didn’t seem to want to share. Despite numerous frustrations at the amount of time and prodding it has taken to get a response that satisfies me, I am now more or less satisfied as to the particulars of what happened. And, sad as it is to say considering the circumstances, my faith in the honesty of people around here is restored. And trust me, it WAS shaken. The two sides looked highly contradictory. The easiest conclusion was that somebody- of necessity somebody I had previously highly regarded- was not telling the truth.

[Formendacil]

So what do we do now?

I’d love to say that we could fix this with a nice unbanning of Davem, and mutual apologies all around. But I’m no idiot- whatever some people may seem to think- and I know that won’t work. Davem does not really want back, he’s said so numerous times. Quite frankly, I don’t blame him. And in light of pride, I doubt that anybody could REALLY make themselves WANT to apologise in this situation.

I don’t know what to do. I wish I did. There were some serious mistakes made that brought us to this impasse, and I would place the blame squarely on both parties. Davem moreso in the pre-banning era, and the Administration in the process of banning, and in the explanations in the post-banning era.

As Lalwendë has said, and as I think most of us would strongly agree, the ‘Downs is very much a community- very much a village. And to continue this analogy, when the village council exiles a prominent merchant, keeping things in the dark as possible is only going to say one thing: Conspiracy. And then giving explanations that do not seem satisfactory smacks of cover-up. Especially when the villagers who are uneasy and in the dark about something have contact with the exiled party.

The way this banishment was handled was poorly done. Once people started sending PMs and posting on the “Coming of Age 2” thread, there should have been a better public relations campaign. That things were allowed to get so far as to have over a dozen highly prominent ‘Downers all sign a Statement of Disapproval ought to show this. The fact that such a high number of committed, prominent ‘Downers are talking of deliberately drifting away from the forum ought to be an even stronger sign. Whether Davem deserved banishment or not, once public interest was aroused, full disclosure was a better way to go that stilted press releases.

All the past is now explainable, to my mind. The big issue is moving forward. There has been a lot of trust broken here- not in the banning, but in the aftermath. We all WANT to move forward, but CAN we?

Finally, I hope all the above is clear. Due to the extreme length, this discursus was written in three seperate sittings and may not flow the way I'd like it to. However, it's late, and I have things to do tomorrow, but I thought it best to get this posted. As always, I hope no offence is taken, but it's a sign of the times that such a reminder seems necessary here at the bottom of the post(s).

Confused, tired, and yawning,

~Michael A. Joosten - Formendacil~

[Snappy]

Do I think the Mods are evil, self-satisfying, Davem-hating, power-mongering beasts?

Well, from what I've read, they might be...

Though, I must say, I am awfully sad about the hamster.

[Mithadan]

Don't believe everything you read Snappy. Rather odd place for a first post, don't you think "Snappy".

[Boromir88]

Aye, Mithadan I would say it is. :D

Snappy, truthfully they aren't (and you can take that at face value).

I've said what I've needed to say, how I felt the thing was handled is way back there. So, to conclude and I'll try to resist from coming back to this thread (though I don't know if I can resist the urge)...here's just some stuff I think is necessary so no one gets the wrong sort of impression.

If someone felt like davem was over board, whether I agreed, or he agreed with them or not isn't the question. Obviously, if you have to be warned to tone it down, I can come to understand you do need to tone it down. Even if you did not intend to sound rude or insulting, somebody felt like you were, so please next time do tone it down.

I am grateful to the mods for their information, and more grateful they have brought this out to 'chat.' I don't know of any forums that is required to do such a thing, nor necessarily even do such a thing. I'm glad they felt like we deserved an explanation.

But, to be my blunt self, everything else I feel is said back in those several posts, I just wanted to clarify things so no one gets the wrong impression (doesn't mean I still don't stand by what I've said about the situation or how it was handled). Oh, and I happen to think Form gets straight to the point much better than I ever could have. :)

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I have followed along. I have read blogs. I have read rants. I have read threads, chatted, been long-winded and concise. I was e-mailed about the Statement; I read it carefully, at least twice, and decided not to sign.

My decision not to attach my moniker to the Statement stands. I will support the mods for my own reasons. My qualms are my own. But I have my own Statement to make.

I did not want to post here because I did not want to get involved. But I am involved. For the very fact that I am a member of this community. For the fact that I have been around for a while. For the fact that I may well have played a role in how far this whole ordeal has gone. On that thread, that very legendary thread, that famed and ill-reputed Lord of the Bible, there is a hint that davem was the only antagonist.

Yeah right.

If nobody else will admit to it, I will. davem asked, on the thread, for specific details about what could be called our thesis. I responded, honestly, thusly.

Thus far it's been fun simply to antagonize you. The specifics will come when I have free time to think about it. As for anybody else's specifics... you'll have to wait for their responses.
I am sixth on the list of posters to that thread. Prolific. Lengthy posts. Some discussing the topic, others qualifying the topic, still others being a pure and simple annoyance.

Sure, davem's sarcasm bit. But I encouraged it. And I am not the only one, though I may be the only one to freely admit it. I love to argue. I miss davem's presence here. I miss debating with him because he is an intelligent man with firm opinions. It is an educational experience to pick his brain. I respect him immensely and I like him.

Yep. I encouraged his sarcasm. I stated that it is what I was doing. I loved that everyone was getting passionate. Real debates require passion. Beautiful writing requires emotion. You have to care. You cannot sit back and be objective. You cannot. And even if you could, you never, ever should.

I very enthusiastically encouraged the discussion in The Lord of the Bible. I wanted to learn. I wanted people to think. I wanted to see views and to refute views and to bend and stretch and break preconceived notions.

So I posted frequently. I composed posts to draw out both sides.

I knew it was going to escalate. I did it even after there were warnings about the thread's future.

I didn't want to post here.

Wanted to keep out of the argument.

Refused and still refuse to sign.

I am firmly of the belief that my thoughts mean a lot. But I am equally firmly comfortable with the knowledge that this is a privately owned website with carefully chosen moderators and admins, almost all, if not all, of whom I have interacted with and enjoy. I respect them whether or not I agree with them.

In the case of davem's ban, whether I agree with it or not, I have only one Statement to make, as a member of this Community.

If the ban was caused in part by davem's refusal to drop issues, it may be wise to consider banning me, for my own encouragement of all sides toward passion.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I think this whole thing has got out of hand.

We need a solution that does not leave so many people hurt. Here are the facts as I see them:

1) Davem did something that the mods deemed against the rules.
2) Davem was banned
3) Davem now feels like he has been wronged and betrayed.
4) Many Downers have been affected and some feel hurt by this whole situation and
5) Argument will only fuel the malcontent and make things worse.

I've decided no longer to take sides in this argument as I think that both parties have got something wrong. (I'm not saying that I've got it right, by the way). The mods need to realise that they have hurt Davem and made him feel betrayed. Weather or not you think you have betrayed Davem is irrelevant. That’s how he feels. And Davem, the mods felt that you broke the rules. Again, weather or not you think you did is irrelevant. That’s how they feel.
The way this argument has gone on is shocking. It needs to stop now! The longer it continues, the more Downers will be hurt.

Davem was a highly respected member of the Downs and he slipped up. The mods have had a long and good career and have kept the Downs in order and they slipped up. The feeling of many Downers is of fear and betrayal and no amount of explaining your actions will solve this problem. Not now.
The Saucepan man* has given his reasons. The Barrow Wight has given his. Davem has also given his reasons. We could discuss who is right and who is wrong till Kingdom come and it won't solve anything.

We need a solution. We need to heal the wounds we've all helped to create with this ridiculous argument. Both parties need to admit that they've hurt each other. If we keep up the argument about 'was it right to ban davem' or 'would it be fare to bring him back' then nothing will get solved.

We need to put this whole sordid business behind us and move on. If there is any way both parties can forgive and forget then it will be most wise. If, however, you wish to say 'I'm not apologising until the other apologises', isn't that a little childish? One of you needs to make the first step and admit that the way this business has been handled has been rotten from the start. To use an old cliché, you need to 'kiss and make up'. Other wise, more people are going to get hurt and more division is going to grow.

The suggestion of a second forum is, I think, a bad idea. What will happen? There will be masses of malcontent thrown between them. If you're part of one, you must hate the other. How will it be when all the current members are gone and there are new members on both? They'll both hate each other and not know why. Is that what we want? If we don't solve this now, we never will. If we want to find out who is right and who is wrong we may as well have a dancing competition... Hmm... Maybe we should. :p


*By the way, this week’s episode of 'The Phantom and Alien' has nothing to do with this argument, as some people have thought. The preliminary sketches were made several weeks ago before I was aware The Saucepan man was involved in the argument.

[Lalwendë]

davem was not the only one at fault in that Bible thread and I thank Fea for being honest enough to admit that all sides were involved in the game of winding one another up. davem was unfortunately the most visible of the parties involved, and others involved flew under the radar by various crafty and sneaky means. What happened to him was like a teacher faced with a class of disruptive kids simply choosing to pick on the one with the loudest voice instead of dealing with everyone. The easy way out. Of course, you couldn't possibly punish the angelic little girl in the corner who is always so sweet - depsite the fact that she's just spat on the boy next to her and provoked him into doing it back...

SpM - holes are being dug simply because the evidence for banning davem is poor, circumstantial at best. I'm sure you know all about dodgy evidence? :) The statements you refer to as being snidey asides were read in the light of a moderating team that had just got over an argument with davem - a mod team that had wounded pride due to the dispute, lets admit it. More on pride again later.

But in that dispute, you, the mod team, had won! You had beaten davem. He had retreated and had forgotten all about the dispute, and gone on to new thoughts. If you did find his asides offensive - and lets face it they weren't offensive to anyone but the mod team, were they?! Hmm?! - then you should have told him so and he'd have cut them out. As for if his use of analogy in his post in the Racism thread - did you not notice that he also used environmentalists in that analogy? I am one, and it didn't even register until it was brought up as 'evidence'; picking this out was an entirely personal, reactive selection.

The 'evidence' given was nothing of the sort. It was nothing to offend anyone. Only the mod team, in the light of davem's temerity of actually daring to question you would find this kind of 'evidence' anything of the sort. I suspect you were getting more than a bit paranoid that he was trying to get at you? News. He was not.

So he was not banned for his tone in the Bible thread, he was banned for arguing his case with the mods.

Male pride yet again. I note that the mod team is predominantly male. One stubborn man arguing with another load of stubborn men. You wouldn't get good odds if you wanted to place a bet on the outcome. It's time for you ALL to drop your egos and pride and shake hands and return to how it was before that stupid spat on the Bible thread caused all of this to blow up. And because if it carries on like this then the Downs will be harmed.

I don't want that. The mods don't want that. B-W don't want that. davem don't want that.

And I have to ask, this being a Tolkien forum and all, what has anyone actually learned from Tolkien? Isn't one of the biggest lessons in the book Forgiveness?

What, exactly, is the Downs gaining from davem's ban?

What does it stand to gain from Forgiving him?

And if you simply cannot get over your precious pride and consider this then I feel quite sure poor old Professor Tolkien will be rolling in his grave.

EDIT: X-posted with Mr Hookbill, great minds think alike, you see! :cool:

Yes, the inevitable thing that will happen if this carries on will be division, and a bad name for the Downs, it only stands to get much more sour. Why? Because the evidence as I said was based on 'value judgements'. If davem had been effin' and jeffin' it would have been clear cut, but it's not. So it can only get worse for the Downs. Even when/if the dust has settled it will remain spoiled (soiled?).

What has been forgotten is FORGIVENESS for davem, a guy many of us think is a huge loss to the Downs.

[Thinlómien]

If people didn't see it they can do what I did, PM another member & ask for information. What do you want the mods to do - create a thread entitled Why davem Was Banned and leave it there for two months? Three? Four?Do I smell some sarcasm here? But yes, I would have liked to have a thread from the admistration sayin something along the lines of "we, the admisntration, after giving this a lot of thought, have decided to ban davem. In our opinion ...." + provide quotes. People wouldn't have to wonder about things develop a fear they would be banned for even a slightest disagreement (not that I have such fears).

I don't understand why you're clamouing for "better access" when there is a very detailed and, in my opinion, well put explanation right there.If you're speaking abot alatar's post you're either misunderstanding my post or you didn't read it properly. I'm quite satisfied by the explanations that have been given here on this thread, but my point was that I would have liked to have all this info the moment davem was banned without living weeks (?) in ignorance.

Then, I would like to add, that alongside with asking an explanation, this thread was to expressind the displeasement the "secretive attitude" received.

[The Saucepan Man]

This is not intended to stir the boiling pot further, but to correct a few lingering misconceptions. Please understand that.

First, something that I meant to say earlier. The Werewolf dispute that arose earlier this year has, from what I have seen, at times been conflated with the current issue. They are not related, but the former is instructive. It involved a disagreement between members which became heated. I attempted to resolve it because that is what mods do in these situations. I believe that it was successfully resolved and that, in my view, is because those involved took a sensible approach to the requests and suggestions that were made in the interests of harmony, even though they may not entirely have agreed with every point that was made. Unfortunately, despite best efforts, there are some issues which cannot be resolved in that way.

Now, to those continuing misconceptions.

There seems to be a continuing view that this issue arose because davem was attacking Chrisitianity and/or the positions of some of those participating in the thread. Although it has been said many, many times, it cannot be emphasised enough. This was not the case. The issue arose because of the abrasive and disrespectful manner in which he did so, ridiculing and mocking rather than constructively debating and discussing. That this was the issue was made crystal clear to davem on a number of occasions (not least my own posts on the thread), so I really do not think that he could have been under any illusion as to the basis for the requests that were made and the warnings that were given. There was no “favouring” or “protecting” one side at the expense of the other. If you want a good example of someone who continued to challenge the positions taken in the thread by those looking for Biblical parallels in a respectful, calm and constructive manner, I can do little better than point you to the majority of Lalwendë’s posts in that thread.

Boromir88, as I have said the fact that davem’s posts were considered disrespectful and, in some cases, offensive by the mods and admins involved and did in fact give offence is, I believe, sufficient justification for the warnings that were given and, indeed, the temporary ban. Had they been heeded, the matter would have gone no further. I make no bones about the fact that davem’s continued references back to the thread after he had left it were taken to be in defiance of the basis upon which those warnings were given, as well as continuing the earlier course of conduct against which he had been warned. I also have no doubt that they were intended that way. The thing is that, if we get to the stage where polite and reasonable requests to refrain from certain conduct contrary to forum policies made by those tasked with enforcing them are simply ignored, that would not, in my view, bode well for this little community that we have all referred to. By all means, the reasonableness or otherwise of those requests can be discussed and debated privately and any representations in that regard will be listened to and carefully considered (as, indeed, occurred here), but where there is a clear indication that they will simply be ignored, few options are left. It is not a matter of pride or ego, but simply one of trying to maintain the Downs as it is and as it has always been.

Afraid that something that you say may give offence? Well, you have no cause for concern unless you do so repeatedly, in which case you may receive a polite request from a moderator or administrator not to do so. Ever received such a warning? No? Then you have absolutely no reason to fear. Just keep posting in the way that you have always done.

Can I forgive and forget? Well, it would be rather difficult after some of the things that I have seen said about me on some of the private blogs discussing this matter. I do not discount it as a possibility, though. Will I apologise for anything that I have said or done? No, I am afraid that I will not. I am absolutely clear in my mind that, save to the extent that I have already apologised in my earlier post, I have done nothing that requires an apology. However, I am no longer a moderator and I was, in any event, looking to scale down my involvement in the Downs. So, in all the circumstances, my own personal views are not really the issue. They are certainly less important than the continued and prosperous existence of the Downs. I have done all that I feel that I can reasonably be expected to do to further that aim.

[Lalwendë]

What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Um...who knows?

But no. What we want is now clear, we want to return to the Downs as was. Of course, we could all just shut up about davem and carry on as normal but there would then be a permanent undercurrent of resentment and suspicion, hence Downs Marred would be all we would have. One thing we clearly cannot do is to agree on who is right and who is wrong as all the evidence put forwards is subjective - from all sides. No amount of posts will get us over that barrier and we are only digging our trenches a little deeper each time as we simply do not understand one another.

So it is time to broker peace.

Of course I talk to davem about this on a daily basis (hourly, sometimes :rolleyes: ). His one constant emotion is that of regret. He regrets that he may have unwittingly caused offence. He regrets that he chose to argue about this rather than just take a break or a step back. He regrets that this has caused distress to so many (and is surprised that so many people who he may have barely ever spoken to think so highly of him). He has said he is sorry about the whole thing.

We must remember we are not words on a screen we are all different people from different backgrounds, cultures and with different expectations and disputes will happen. We are not a homogenous mass.

We cannot have our old davem back, but we want the old Downs back. How are we going to get that? Of course as I said earlier we could just keep our traps shut about davem and this whole issue, but its clear that's not going to work; this would instantly create a two-tier Downs with a barely buried hatchet. We could move on and get onto other topics, but that would have the same effects as the above. We could split off from the Downs but that would be an obvious division. What is needed is a very real gesture of peace.

As I've said above, davem is filled with regret about what has happened. He loved the Downs and he loved the members too. He is sorry. If he was here now, he would not be posting as he is shaken and upset by all that's happened. But from chatting with other members it has become clear that in order to bury the hatchet the most effective solution now is simply to unban him as an effective gesture of peace.

This will tell the membership that forgiveness has taken place on both sides and in all sectors in between. It will tell the members that all considerations of pride and ego have now been put aside in favour of a more inclusive approach. davem has stepped down from his high horse and it is time all parties did the same. If we cannot find it in ourselves to provide a gesture of peace then it says a lot of terrible things about us, that we enjoy the thrill of power (or rebellion) more than friendship and comradeship, and we might as well all pack up and go back to our bunkers and hunker down. :(

So, who wants to smoke the pipe of peace? Hands up, now. :smokin:

[Celuien]

Send the Pipe of Peace this way, please.

And to reiterate, I have absolutely no problem with anyone in the 'Downs management. As my part of the peace gesture, I apologize to anyone who was hurt by anything that I've said either here or on the blogs. It was certainly never my intention to cause hurt feelings.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

He has said he is sorry about the whole thing.

I'd say that was an apology on Mr. Dave's part. If the mods would pay him in kind, I think we could (and probably should) put the matter to bed.

There is a lesson to be learned here, I think. Keeping short accounts is always best, if someone feels insulted by you, apologise immediately, and don’t let the matter drag on or we might end up with a situation such as this again.

After all this trouble, I hardly think it's going to happen again in the foreseeable future. I think we're all tired of this argument and it would be best to resolve it sooner rather than later.

As I said, it doesn’t matter who was right and who was wrong. What matters is that we make amends for any wrongdoing. I don't want to take sides, but it seems that Mr Dave has attempted this (through lal). So, can the mods put aside any bad feelings towards all this? I hope so. We all make mistakes. If we held a grudge against anyone that had done something wrong, we'd have to hate everyone in the world.

Or should we have that dance-off? :p

[Mithadan]

I see a lot of names I do not recognize on this thread mixed in with names of people I am familiar with. This is understandable since I have barely set foot into this Barrow in several months. I pretty much decided to return a few weeks ago, though I did not intend to return quite so soon. But when I peeked in a few days ago, I realized the time had come.

For those of you who don’t know me, I am one of the original four Administrators of this forum; Barrow Wight, Mr. Underhill, Sharku and Mithadan – the original cabal. We have been working together at making this into a special community for six years now. During this time, we have experienced an array of problems and issues ranging from spamming and flaming all the way up to alleged stalking (fortunately the purported victims and the persons accused turned out to be separated by a rather broad ocean). In order to maintain order and to preserve the character of this place, we have been forced to delete posts and threads, give warnings to members, close contentious threads and suspend and ban members. In addition, there is constant redirecting of posts to the proper forums and work to make the site and discussions better. BW started this place as a community for serious Tolkien discussion. Unfortunately, we have often been so busy putting out fires, fielding complaints and suggestions and working to maintain order that we barely have time to post ourselves. That’s why I left for a while. I got burnt out. To any of you who may have a contrary perception, it is really not easy being an administrator.

I am writing here as a disinterested and uninvolved insider. To define terms, I am uninvolved in that I was not part of the Moderator/Administrator group discussing the problems that had arisen with Davem and the Lord of the Bible thread and took no part in the decision to ban him – I wasn’t around. I am disinterested because I have not and will not take the time to reconstruct what happened. I am an insider because I am intimately familiar with how this site is operated and what goes into decision making here. We determined early on that we had to have rules so people understood how to comport themselves on the BarrowDowns. They boil down to “stay civil and stay on topic” although they go farther than that. We also have to enforce those rules. Sometimes, its easy. Spammers get nuked out of hand. Newcomers who engage in flaming and demonstrate no real interest in participating get banned without discussion. I’ve done this many times myself. Newcomers who don’t get how things work but actually seem to want to be involved get directed to the rules or get guidance.. It’s more difficult when a long standing member starts acting up. These cases get debated, sometimes for weeks or months. Warnings or suggestions are sent. If the member doesn’t straighten out a temporary ban comes next. A permanent ban is the last resort. Often, even “permanent bans” aren’t always really permanent if the member shows real contrition, recognizes what he or she has been doing and promises to shape up. Such decisions involve lots of angst and concern; the decision to ban a long standing member is NEVER made lightly. We try to give people chances and regrettably have, in the past, given people too much rope.

A few years back, there was a well-respected and long standing member that I’ll call “X”. X joined even before I did. X was given a lot of leeway and apparently believed X was indispensable and untouchable. X became rude and abrasive, ridiculing posts of others and actively harassing newcomers. X was given warnings and even a temporary ban. But members avoided posting in the forums X frequented; they were intimidated or scared and some claimed X received preferential treatment. There was another member, “Y”. “Y” was about as knowledgeable in things Tolkien as anyone. Y knew HoME inside and out, and developed unique theories and opinions, some of which were fascinating and some of which were disputed. Y had a set of issues as well but was a valuable member. X didn’t like Y and engaged in a campaign against Y. The Admins didn’t know about this. Finally, Y had been insulted enough and left. No amount of requests made Y return. X was permanently banned but Y never set foot in the Downs again. Y was not the only member to leave because of X. Since then, the Admins have been very aware that there is such a thing as giving a member too much rope and too much leeway. We also learned that we shouldn’t even appear to treat one member differently from others because of who he is. This place is a community and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the one.

As I said, I have not researched what happened in this case. I have not even read the Mods thread in any detail. I have read this thread. Some people have posted to say they felt Davem had acted improperly. Even some of Davem’s supporters concede that he was not acting in a sterling manner. The Mods that have posted have reported that this issue was discussed at length; this is true. Warnings and a temporary ban were given. What was done was clearly not arbitrary or capricious.

I have found some of the posts on this thread to be a little offensive or, at least, lacking restraint. There is no pro-religious slant to this site. Look back at the Tolkien and the Bible thread from a few years back. I personally closed that thread a few times when tempers flared. Without naming names, I will tell you that some of the Admins and Mods are not even Christian. If this forum were suddenly swept up in a revolution of fundamentalism, they would vote with their feet. They haven’t.

The theme of this forum is Tolkien-related free expression within reason, reason being civility and some degree of propriety. This site has always been this way and will stay this way. We have always been the “serious” Tolkien board.

The quality and volume of posts in the Books forum has always been in a state of ebb and flow. I’ve peeked in and there are some good threads there right now. But people are not posting as much there right now. Why? We could publish traffic information showing thread hits but it’s not necessary. Everyone is watching this entertaining sideshow rather than posting elsewhere.

If the Admins and Mods were the evil dictators some have implied, this thread would have been killed on day one. It wasn’t. People need to express themselves, state their dissatisfaction and maybe rant a bit. So we’ve allowed everyone to vent a bit. But I think enough is enough.

We appreciate Lalwende’s post indicating Davem’s regret and sorrow. If he had expressed those sentiments early on, we might not be here. Our members need to feel free to post in Books and elsewhere without fear of ridicule, disparagement or even condescension. An “I won’t do it again” might have sufficed at the beginning if it was sincere. But now there is an awful lot more to apologize for than his posts before he was banned. There has been a campaign of disruption since then and some truly nasty things have been posted on blogs. This whole thing has been truly sad.

Could I wave a virtual wand and unban Davem? Yes. Will I do so? No. That is up to the person that made the final decision. I won’t second guess his judgment. Will Davem be allowed to return? Maybe. I won’t close the door. Some healing needs to take place before we can even consider that and some semblance of normalcy must be restored. I think that all that can be said in this thread has been said for now. It is time for healing and this thread is antithetical to that. This thread is temporarily closed for a few hours so that members can reflect and so that tempers can cool down. If posters cannot act civilly once the thread is reopened it will be closed again.

[narfforc]

Being possibily one of the only members on this site to have met both Davem and Lal on a number of occasions, I can only say what a pleasure it was. They are both sensible, articulate, friendly and funny. It grieves me to see what has happened to Davem, I for one enjoyed his threads, I enjoyed even more his humour. I think the main reason for this is that we are both of the same ilk, the type of humour employed by Davem is quite localised to the North of England, and we just do not see sarcasm as an almost physical attack on another, as some people quite obviously do. I have no doubt in my mind that had Davem known he was causing peoples personal worlds to collapse around them, he would have desisted, in the same context I think some have taken things he said too literally and blown it out of proportion, react first and think later. Davem would be the first to admit that on reflection, he may have gone too far. I have many of the same beliefs that he has, yet this is not the place to use them as a battlefield against those that don't, I may as well try to convince a door that it is a window. Nothing at all has been achieved by that post other than The Banning of Davem, everyone still thinks there own views, and the same ideas are still going round and round, only now there is no-one to contest them, how banal..........

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately, although really it only involves me insofar as I'm a long-standing member of the forum. I'll make no bones about the fact that I've met several of the senior mods personally and that I like to think I can count them as friends. I wouldn't feel like that if I believed that any of them were in the habit of kicking people off the forum arbitrarily or without due consideration. I was one of the first to comment on The Saucepan Man's initial explanation and I freely admit that my main motivation was to calm down any controversy, not because I necessarily agreed with the decision, but because I've been around long enough to know that heated public argument is the best way to ensure that a ban remains permanent.

I like davem. I've enjoyed his posts and I respect his opinion. I also share his distaste for hijacking Tolkien or any other literature as propaganda for a particular religious or political system. Although I felt very uncomfortable with the tone of some of his last posts here, I was no less uncomfortable about his ban, which came as some surprise despite his mild antagonism towards the moderating policy here. It's never easy to be told that one must be more polite when one is confronted with opinions that one considers foolish, but that's the way we do things around here. It's possible to be provocative and substantial without sarcasm or ridicule, and in fact I consider them to be fairly weak and inelegant rhetorical techniques that undermine one's own argument as much as anyone else's. Nonetheless I felt certain that davem and the mods would come to a satisfactory agreement and that he'd continue to post. For whatever reason, that didn't happen, and as always I'm very reluctant to start attributing motivations in a dispute in which I wasn't involved.

Since I'm well-disposed to all parties in this matter I don't want to take sides. What I will say is that my personal experience of conversations with those moderators most closely involved is that they are not petty-minded or vindictive people, and I have never known them to say or do anything in fits of pique or offended pride, male or otherwise. If this was a mistake, it was an honest one, and made with the best interests of the forum at heart. That's not to say that I wanted davem to go, or that I wouldn't welcome him back if he were reinstated; I don't think that he has been responsible for a lot of the invective that has been written on his behalf, and I'm sure that he has also acted in good faith. However, he is wrong about the reasons for his ban and there were several points at which he could have defused the situation by forgetting what other people were doing and looking to his own conduct; that is, after all, the only thing that any of us can control in any argument.

I should also like to address the issue of tone and regional speech. Yorkshire and the North of England are not the only parts of the English-speaking world in which forthrightness and acerbity are common features of speech. We have members, some of them very long-standing, who hail from other places where bluff, tough honesty is highly prized, and they have managed not to get themselves banned. The point is that it's possible to be forthright without being rude, and sarcasm is specifically mentioned in the section of the forum regulations mentioning tone. I sometimes use sarcasm myself in everyday speech, just as sometimes in everyday speech I swear and tell crude jokes. None of those are allowed here, so you won't see me doing them here. On one occasion when I was aggresively sarcastic towards another member I was publicly reprimanded and posted a public apology, not for my argument, but for my rudeness. What I did not do was to argue with the moderator who had issued the reprimand, make more sarcastic comments or question the policy of frowning on aggressive sarcasm. It might also be helpful to say that the moderator made no objection to my point.

The reason I joined this forum and more importantly the reason I stayed was because I could see that courteous and friendly debate was the encouraged norm. People disagreed with one another, but without the nasty fights that can break out elsewhere; but that comes at a price, and that price is that sometimes we have to take a deep breath before composing a rebuttal. We're allowed to crush arguments with ruthless logic and quote chapter and verse to prove someone wrong; we're just not allowed to belittle people, for example by using sarcasm on them. The more senior a member is, the higher their reputation, the more strictly should they avoid that sort of behaviour. I may not like it that davem is gone, and I certainly don't think that he meant any harm or offence in his posts, but the fact remains that he repeatedly set a poor example in a thread that was already dangerously emotive, which is how this whole situation began. The tu quoque approach that others were doing it too does not excuse it: I've been on the receiving end of sarcastic and belligerant posts myself without descending to the same level, and in the end I was not the loser thereby. It's rather sad that our members let themselves down so badly on that thread, and it's even sadder that it has caused members to question one another's integrity, but the thing to do now is to make sure it doesn't happen again. If we treat each other with the respect that courtesy implies then it won't. As for rectifying the ban, it will be some time before I can see the way clear to that: the dust must settle first.

Mithadan, whom incidentally it's good to see back again, has made a very good point, which bears repeating. In the recent atmosphere it's been highly unlikely that anyone would reverse the decision about davem. If I were responsible for maintaining forum discipline I too would be reluctant to reinstate someone in response to a campaign, particularly one involving off-site attacks on the moderating team. It's not impossible, though, that private persuasion would stand more of a chance than public pressure once all of this furore has calmed down. However unpleasant it may be to let things that upset us pass without public comment, undermining the authority of those responsible for running the forum is not the best way to right wrongs or iron out problems with the rules.

I don't like making statements like this, so anything else I say on this subject will be said in private. I'm aware that this won't be a popular line to take, but I'm not about to keep it to myself either. Davem isn't the only person who has feelings, nor is he the only member who has made a significant contribution. That's how one gets offered a moderating post in the first place.

[Anguirel]

I have nothing like the stamina to deliver an oration on the subject, but I fear Squatter's on the whole wise and conciliatory post makes the mistake of a bit of pigeonholing towards the end.

I do not regard the statement I signed as a "campaign", nor, certainly, as an "off-site attack on the moderating team", and as for "undermining the authority of those responsible for the running of the site", I regret to say that I think that is venturing upon insult.

That letter was extremely carefully, consideratedly couched expression of regret, unease and malaise. I didn't write a word of it, but I wish I had done; a masterpiece of articulacy. It was an attack on nobody, only a request for a conversation which I think is even now proving healthy.

If the authority of those responsible for the running of the site really is undermined by this refreshing breeze, then it is an authority I have little enthusiasm to support.

On the other hand, it is good to know that fears about the Slough parody instigating davem's ban were unfounded.

That we are surer about such things is a result of that community statement, and in that case it is not a matter of undermining authority, but demystifying and restoring confidence. It is to bolster such confidence and, er, general well-being, that this chat should continue.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Sorry. The community statement is not a campaign, and I support both its sentiments and the language in which it was couched. Close to the end of an exhausting and reluctant post I got sloppy and drifted away from the community statement onto other ground. At that point I was thinking of certain comments made both on the Downs and elsewhere that were unrelated to the community statement, but which touched on the same issues. Those comments call into question the competence, integrity and fairness of the moderators here, and as such seem calculated to undermine their authority. I should have made it clear that I was trying to address those reactions as well as the community statement, which is in itself a laudable and well-conceived reaction.

Some of the other reactions have been less constructive and can be interpreted as a campaign, although they might easily be nothing more than angry responses to a perceived injustice.

Yes, I know I said I wouldn't make any more public statements about this, but I thought I'd make an exception in this case.

[Lalwendë]

Yes, this was not a 'campaign', just a lot of people who ended up finding each other's blogs, e-mail addresses and whatnot and there was the idea to put up a statement - partly to stop people bombarding mods with PMs it must be said. There was nothing 'sinister' going on, just a lot of emotions ranging from confusion, through regret to simple anger, and this statement covered all sorts of people, some of whom remember are quite young and might be upset to think they have been naughty - and its just mean to accuse them of that kind of thing.

As for anything else, its just a lot of people who felt frustrated and angry mouthing off and moaning to one another. As people do. 'Campaign' is more than a bit too strong a word for what are just rants from lots of different people.

Now back to your posts! :smokin:

[Bêthberry]

One of the things I have been observing in this whole affair is the connundrum of interpreting words on a screen, and I think it bears remembering just how difficult communication is without physical presence, without body language, a smile or a grin, a wink, a shrug of the shoulder, a deliberately bland visage, etc etc.

Throughout the blogs and here on various threads there have been many comments about davem's intentions, from davem himself and from others, about how he did not mean to engage in personal insult or attack when he used sarcasm and invective. The problem here, of course, is like that of any literary text: recovering an author's intention. And from our discussion of Tolkien we all are aware of how difficult that is. Even authors, our discussions have shown, cannot always with clear authority and vision recall intentions. And their intentions can change. (I'm speaking of Tolkien now.)

For me, for instance, I found this paragraph from the Community Statement very troubling:


We further feel that, upon reflection, that those responsible for the banishment have decided to try and cover up this issue, making various excuses, none of which presented have seemed plausible to us, as already noted..


I saw, and I still see when I read this, a statement that those responsible were being deceitful. That is how I interpret "cover up" and "making excuses". Now, perhaps the writers did not intend to convey this idea of deceit. I would hope they didn't. It is entirely possible. Yet that is what these words suggest to me. And what I could not understand was how quickly the trust in the mods and Admins evaporated so that such an implication could be made. I had to shake my head and wonder what happened to trust, why did things get so angry so quickly, why did no one stop to wonder what might have been on the minds of the mods and the Admin and give them some benefit of doubt? Those are the things that ran through my mind. See-- because of this one paragraph--that statement did not make me think the way I suspect the signees wanted me to think. I was not moved to question the decision to ban davem, but to wonder what had happened to our communal trust.

But my point is not to ask this now, and not to put the writers and signees on the defensive. I wish simply to suggest that we all remember how difficult it is to interpret words on the Internet.

We come from many different cultures and the English we use is, for most purposes, a "Global English." Gone are the days when Britannia ruled the World; our maps are no longer coloured in pink for the Empire. ( A colonial's JOKE) Each culture has manners unique to that culture and what we need to strive for is a recognition that, when we write, we write not just out of our own little corner of the world, but for the world. Many cultures, especially non-Western ones, place--at least in my experience as a teacher of ESL--a higher expectation of courtesy and politeness and public decorum in their communication than my North American compatriots. And it isn't just culture that influences our interpretation, but our age and generation, our own personal experience, our own habits of reading. And unlike spoken language, written language does not fade away, but can be returned to, read over and over, an act which can even increase the depth of feeling and misunderstanding. Rants, once spoken, dissipate in the air and turn into memory, but rants written remain, to be reexperienced.

I know that from now on I will step back from every post which strikes any 'spider senses' and I will ask of my own posts if I, as a writer, have really controlled my meaning as much as I should. None of us are perfect writers, of course, not even Tolkien or other great authors, but we can all take responsibility for trying as hard as possible to ensure that our intentions are fully represented in our posts.

Now, I do hope Fordim will be pleased with how I wangled a canonicity question into all of this. :)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Now, I do hope Fordim will be pleased with how I wangled a canonicity question into all of this. :)

Almost as delighted as I am by your use of the word "wangled".

[Bêthberry]

Almost as delighted as I am by your use of the word "wangled".

Irony is the most difficult thing to get across. Glad I succeeded. :D

[Lush]

As an older member (almost 5 years!!! Can you believe it?) and a tireless fan of this site, I am saddened, both by the banning and its aftermath.

A few points,

I like davem, his sense of humour, his dashing (yes, dashing) style, and his intelligence. His posts, however, could be abrasive. People have discussed the decline of the "Books" forum here, and I'd like to admit that personally, I have been avoiding "Books" because of davem's often confrontational methods. I have been tempted to jump in many times over the recent months, but have resisted. Very few people on the Downs made have made me feel unwelcome in "Books," and, I regret to say, davem was one of them, in spite of the fact that I tended to agree with him on most of the things he said. I am sure he never meant to make me, or anyone else, feel unwelcome, of course. And this belief of mine makes me feel an even deeper sense of regret.

You know, Slavic Internet culture is a whole lot less tame than what happens on the Downs. But as a member of this community, I have learned that I cannot use the same style I employ in my Russian-language LiveJournal discussions here. This doesn't mean I have to be someone I'm not. And if davem ever reads this post, I hope he takes note of my experience.

Finally, as a moderator of a popular religious forum, I deal with such episodes on a regular basis. I've had to vote "yes" on banning charismatic, erudite members, and weather intense critcism. It's not easy, but then again, being banned isn't easy either. I completely understand what the moderators are going through, but I also see davem's point of view, and I sympathize greatly.

I would like to echo Mithadan's (Hi, Mith! What a story you related to us! I'm pretty sure I know who X is :eek: !) statement concerning bannings - nothing is set in stone.

I hope that davem will be able to return eventually. I hope that we will all learn something from this. I do not wish to see my favourite Internet community torn apart over something like this, and will do whatever necessary to keep the flame burning.

And davem, I apologize for discussing you like this, in a place where you have no way of answering me. If you ever want to talk, come over and say "hello" on my blog.

xoxo
Lushie.

[Mithalwen]

I really wasn't going to say any more but , while fully appreciating that people can have very different experiences of the same place, I would want to balance that a little since I found Davem encouraging in my albeit limited "Books" participation. He and HI and Fordim were particularly encouraging to me as a newcomer and the only really serious topic I have started there was inspired by, or more accurately ripped off from, a Davem post.

And on the in for a penny in for a pound theory I will add that if the mods and admins collectively do not have the unfailing loyalty that Bethberry feels they deserve, then it may be that for some of us they are remote figures. I have been here for two and a half years, nearly every day (sad sack that I am) and have participated in all parts of the forum apart from the New Silmarillion and many of them are no more than names . This may be a sign that I have kept my nose relatively clean, but it is asking a lot to expect people to trust people they don't know over those that they do.

Finally, I would state again that the the community statement was not an attempt to destroy the Downs. The choice as far as I was concerned,was to speak out and hope that a way through could be found or to simply leave. Some of you may have preferred that. Staying and pretending it never happened was not a long term option, I tried for a while and found I couldn't live with my conscience. We didn't do this frivolously, and believe me, having had been sneered at by people I had previously regarded as friends, I can see the attraction of turning a blind eye. Nevertheless I do not regret my choice

[Lush]

Some of you may have preferred that.

Not I, said I.

I'm glad this thread "happened."

[Lalwendë]

Seconding Mith (of alwen, if we must discriminate ;) ) davem was the first Downer to take an interest in what I had to say. And while he might seem intimidating he's most certainly not in real life. But his intelligence is certainly intimidating, that's one of the things that attracted me to him, as I find a very clever man very attractive. ;)

[Nogrod]

I would say that Bêthberry goes straight to the point in her post.

We all know that speaking about sensitive topics is hard even face to face. So how do we manage without a physical contact? And when we have a global community, would even the physical contact help us to interpret each other?

And as Mith said, we have a varying degree of knowledge of or familiarity with each other. Some know each other personally from daily RL, some have PM'd, chatted etc. a lot and maybe even met, some have learned to know one another through lengthy discussions here at the Downs and some people are just "unknowns" to us.

And some people write with their mothertongue, with varying dialects, and others use their fluent second language, some their pretty unsure foreign one.

So there is a fertile ground for misunderstandings here.

We really should all remember that. Not only us from the non-English speaking countries (or the Yorkshireans :) ), but also the native-speakers.


But we should not infer from this that somekind of politically correct eg. crippled language of "clean information" (which is not possible) is the only allowed manner of speech either. The joy of language, the joy of speech and writing - and the deeper grace of communication - lies in the multiple ways the meaning can be conveyed and given birth to. We will always construct the meaning of the other differently as we can not share the "world" of the one who addressed us. The world of the sender is embedded in the culture and individual life-history of her/himself. But within limits it still is shareable with those outside: otherwise we could not communicate at all.

All this requires trust and mutual-effort to gain new views of the things discussed and sharing the points of the others (however well or badly they are interpreted concerning the initial meaning). In here I quess any of us (myself included) could learn more.


And here we come to one of the cores of this row. It feels to me that there has been some initial ill-will or frustration, or anger or disappointment or whatever that has lead to actions that have generated even more ill-will, frustration, anger, disappointment and whatever. That is most sad, both because of what actually happened to davem and to what may happen to the Downs as a community of good faith.

Gaining trust takes time, losing it takes a second.

I really agree with the few last remarks that this thread has been a good thing. Without this discussion that has been partaken by the mods and also those not overtly happy or compliant with the "community statement", I think I would have been left a lot more suspicious and less happy to hang around here. ("That would be a relief!", some of you may say... sorry :D )

Concerning the banning of davem I'm not yet assured that everything went correctly and in the smoothest and most reasonable way possible (reader warning: sarcasm involved). I still think it wasn't the right decision. Much could have been done better - and I believe some wounds that would not heal by themselves still could be healed to a degree with some carefully thought of actions. But nevertheless, this discussion has made me drop many of my darkest speculative ideas and because of that I'm somewhat relieved with regard to the BD as a community.

We didn't do this frivolously, and believe me, having had been sneered at by people I had previously regarded as friends, I can see the attraction of turning a blind eye. Nevertheless I do not regret my choiceEven though I have not felt that so acutely as Mith seems to have, I must admit that I know what she's talking about. And I can only second her here. There's no regretting in things that have to be done for the common good. Just staying silent about this issue would have been like saying after a snake bite that: "it's only a toe, why should I bother the inconvenience" and thence letting the silent venom spread...

[Lush]

Well you know, Lal what the funny thing is: my boyfriend wouldn't last a week on the Downs. Although I wouldn't call him intimidating - he just doesn't know how to disagree without biting his opponent's head off. And here I am complaining about davem... Everything is relative. :D

[Boromir88]

Squatter, if it appears like I, or anyone, was trying to undermine authority, that wasn't an intent. I won't deny that I was slightly irritated by early comments made upon the matter, but all that has been straightened out. I don't take back anything I've said (except that I've come to understand if somebody found the comments made offensive, whether they were intended that way or not isn't the problem...if the comments were seen as offensive, than they were offensive). Anyway, I don't take back in 'feeling' anything I've said.

I don't think the situation as far as what happens when people in threads get a little out of hand was dealt with in the normal way. And I still feel that way. The normal way I've seen on my time here is a mod stepping in and halting the problem telling the people to solve it through PMs and move on...not the mods privately (albeit publicly as well) discussing one indvidual who was out-of-line with his comments. It takes two (or more) to tango as they say. That was my big problem with the situation in that I just don't think it was the normal way of handling threads that got heated and the people in those threads who got heated.

Gaining trust takes time, losing it takes a second.~Nogrod
Isn't that the sad truth? Just like somebody's reputation. Takes a while to build up, but in a single moment could be smashed to dust. Which case the only real thing to do (as walking away isn't an option) is building everything back up. :)