A Community Statement

[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:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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' 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.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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!

[Durelin]

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

[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.

[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:

Originally Posted by CS

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]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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.

[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 )

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.

Originally Posted by Mith

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

Even 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.

[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) 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 . 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).