MelissaC said:

Yeah, that was the problem with Ian.

The problem is, once he speaks his piece and is attacked for it, he can never moderate the attackers again without looking like it's personal. This was a big part of the problem with Ian, methinks.

MelissaC said:

Yeah, that was the problem with Ian.

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

The problem is, once he speaks his piece and is attacked for it, he can never moderate the attackers again without looking like it's personal. This was a big part of the problem with Ian, methinks.

Teller? He's a good man. Y'all? Overreacting.

MelissaC said:

rdhull said:

Melissa? Eeek!! Whiny? Yes. Clueless? Yes. Faithful?? Hmmm...

MelissaC said:

don't matter. he should still speak up, regardless. it would be nice for him to speak his piece.

This is basically a situation of me being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

matt said:

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

Melissa's explanation is a good summary of what I would say.

matt said:

so what? she still shouldn't speak for you on this website ever. it'd be one thing if you weren't a moderator but you are so people see you and melissa differently. maybe it's not fair but that's how it is.

you might catch shit for speaking out in the first place but to have your non-moderator girlfriend, who seems to be on everybody's shitlist, speak for you will only piss people off more. it makes it look as thought she gets special treatment even though that's not the case and it makes you look like you can't stand up for yourself. If you had made that comment instead of melissa i would be like "okay, whatever" but to have your girl speak for your actions is a bit shady and, well, corny. and it's not making anything better around here.

although i do have to say that for the most part things are good. but when melissa starts whiny threads and then drags your name into it and "speaks for you" it just really works my nerves.

jessyMD32781 said:

Fair enough. But please understand that Melissa doesn't speak for me. She made that post on her own initiative. Since I thought what she posted was accurate, I didn't feel the need to waste time and disk space by repeating the substance of it. but in that post she said she was speaking for you. maybe you should tell her not to do that so that there isn't anymore confusion.

However, your point is taken. So here is my account of what happened. in my own words:

After Melissa decided to leave the .org, she started posting at Teller's forum. At the time, it was the "Beta BBS," not the "Center for Banned and Departed .Orgers." The discussion there didn't revolve around the .org. Because I enjoy participating in activities with my partner, I asked Teller for an account there. My participation was mostly limited to reading Melissa's posts and posting in the same threads.

I should mention that when Teller created my account, he set the avatar to the ".orgMark" that I use here. I immediately asked him to change it because I wanted to post as "MattC" the ordinary guy, not "matt" the .org moderator.

As time went on, Teller invited more .orgers to join, and the discussion shifted toward commentary on the .org. For example, Aaron posted multiple threads expressing his unhappiness with his deactivation. I intentionally avoided these threads because: 1) I didn't want to discuss business while "off the clock"; and 2) I figured that people wanted a place to blow off steam about the .org without having a moderator hanging around. I refrained from posting even in the face of Aaron's vicious personal attacks on Melissa (e.g., repeatedly calling her a "cunt-faced whore"). you still could have defended Dansa.

Eventually the .org discussion drowned out everything else, and I pretty much abandoned the forum. At some point thereafter, the racist garbage--which I didn't even see until it was reposted here--appeared.

My name has been dragged into this controversy simply because I had an account on the site. I never intended to take part in some secret society devoted to .org commentary, and when it headed in that direction, I gradually stopped visiting the site. People have implied that I stood on the sidelines, silently watching the action, and that's simply not the case. it is and it isn't. i understand your points, though. thank you for responding.

jessyMD32781 said:

Fair enough. But please understand that Melissa doesn't speak for me. She made that post on her own initiative. Since I thought what she posted was accurate, I didn't feel the need to waste time and disk space by repeating the substance of it.

However, your point is taken. So here is my account of what happened. in my own words:

After Melissa decided to leave the .org, she started posting at Teller's forum. At the time, it was the "Beta BBS," not the "Center for Banned and Departed .Orgers." The discussion there didn't revolve around the .org. Because I enjoy participating in activities with my partner, I asked Teller for an account there. My participation was mostly limited to reading Melissa's posts and posting in the same threads.

I should mention that when Teller created my account, he set the avatar to the ".orgMark" that I use here. I immediately asked him to change it because I wanted to post as "MattC" the ordinary guy, not "matt" the .org moderator.

As time went on, Teller invited more .orgers to join, and the discussion shifted toward commentary on the .org. For example, Aaron posted multiple threads expressing his unhappiness with his deactivation. I intentionally avoided these threads because: 1) I didn't want to discuss business while "off the clock"; and 2) I figured that people wanted a place to blow off steam about the .org without having a moderator hanging around. I refrained from posting even in the face of Aaron's vicious personal attacks on Melissa (e.g., repeatedly calling her a "cunt-faced whore").

Eventually the .org discussion drowned out everything else, and I pretty much abandoned the forum. At some point thereafter, the racist garbage--which I didn't even see until it was reposted here--appeared.

My name has been dragged into this controversy simply because I had an account on the site. I never intended to take part in some secret society devoted to .org commentary, and when it headed in that direction, I gradually stopped visiting the site. People have implied that I stood on the sidelines, silently watching the action, and that's simply not the case.