A Community Statement

[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:

Originally Posted by Saurreg

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.

Originally Posted by Celuien

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):

Originally Posted by davem, on Formendacil’s blog

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.

Originally Posted by davem, on Fordim’s blog

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.