[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. 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.