Did Cedars manipulate Lee into having a thread closed?

by cedars 164 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Simon

  Though initially very positive, the thread quickly dissolved into a fierce debate, not about AAWA's mission or objectives, but about its name - which had already been legally registered. Simon was among those leading the protests, rather unkindly I might add.

  By 'leading the protests' what you mean is that I voiced my own opinion on the name saying that I thought it was a poor choice. An opinion that you ultimately agreed with because the same was subsequently changed.

  I and other board members at the time despaired that, rather than greeting our attempts to do something about Watchtower, people were feeling offended at not being involved in AAWA's start-up process and were already venting their frustration over something relatively trivial that could be changed at a later date.

  Wait, one minute the name is super important and can't be criticised, has been registered etc... and next it's trivial and unimportant? Your story makes no sense.

  As I've said before, whether you first approached Lee and asked that the topic be locked or she offered to lock it and you said yes or more likely you were both involved in a discussion about it as part of the board discussion is immaterial. It was locked and re-locked because you wanted it locked despite me unlocking it and making it clear it didn't need to be.
• 

  cedars

  In a subsequent email exchange, Lee sent this email to Simon...

  

  This proves the reason why Lee proposed locking the thread - because there had been an unspoken rule on JWN that threads could be locked at the request of whoever started them - which in this case was me.

  This explains why Lee did what she did, because she was trying to second-guess Simon's ever-changing moderating policies.

  And I don't blame her for telling everyone that I asked for the thread to be locked - because as President I suppose I did.

  But hopefully even those fiercest skeptics among you will see that I did not manipulate Lee over this. Rather, Lee was bullied into giving an incomplete explanation, and was as much a victim of Simon's constant mood-swings as I now seem to be.

  Cedars
• 

  Simon

  I therefore made a few closing remarks and Lee closed the thread.

  Simon then re-opened it and quizzed Lee on why she had closed it.

  Lee got flustered under Simon's pressure and told him that I had told her to close it. While true, surely you can all see from the above email that this is only a fraction of the story.

  But Simon wanted answers and I don't blame Lee for making her explanation concise.

  Ooh, not quite, you're twisting things:

  You made a few closing remarks and Lee closed the thread - agreed

  I then re-opened it and said I didn't know why it had been locked. <-- you missed this one which is important

  Lee then said Cedars had requested it and re-locked it again (second time locked).

  There was no pressure. All I said was "Not sure why this topic was locked or who by". That was it. It should have all ended there.

  It was only after the 2nd time it was locked when it was clear that someone else was pulling strings and had decided that they wanted the topic locked that I needed to spell out the forum rules and make it clear how the forum was run.

  Good try though. Leaving out that one step does put a different spin on things. But of course we know what happened because it's all there in black and white for everyone to see.
• 

  cedars

  Simon

  Wait, one minute the name is super important and can't be criticised, has been registered etc... and next it's trivial and unimportant? Your story makes no sense.

  I meant the name was trivial and unimportant compared to our mission and objectives. Anyone with moderate reading skills can figure out that's what I was getting at. And my point was that it was for the signed-up AAWA volunteers to decide on a new name, not you or the JWN peanut gallery.

  Cedars
• 

  cedars

  Simon

  Lee then said Cedars had requested it and re-locked it again (second time locked).

  There was no pressure. All I said was " Not sure why this topic was locked or who by".

  I had no input on Lee locking the thread a second time if that's what she did, so I'm not sure what relevance that has.

  Cedars
• 

  JeffT

  This isn't a message board, its a time machine. I'm back in Jr High School. This happened SIX MONTHS AGO. Cedars, don't you think this dead horse has been beaten enough?
• 

  EdenOne

  Simon, I wasn't quick enough to take a photograph of it.

  But, for at least a minute, at the bottom of the thread, I had this message saying: Close.. then two buttons, Yes, No.

  What was this?

  Eden
• 

  Simon

  This proves the reason why Lee proposed locking the thread - because there had been an unspoken rule on JWN that threads could be locked at the request of whoever started them - which in this case was me.

  No, that is not proof or evidence of any such thing. That was an appeal to ignorance for making a wrong decision. I don't blame her but what she said is compeletely wrong as our subsequent emails show.

  This explains why Lee did what she did, because she was trying to second-guess Simon's ever-changing moderating policies.

  The forum rules have been pretty much as they were for a long long time although of course we adapt as we need over the years. I don't believe that Lee truly thought those were the rules.

  And I don't blame her for telling everyone that I asked for the thread to be locked - because as President I suppose I did.

  Finally, an admission. So what on god's name was all this about?

  But hopefully even those fiercest skeptics among you will see that I did not manipulate Lee over this. Rather, Lee was bullied into giving an incomplete explanation, and was as much a victim of Simon's constant mood-swings as I now seem to be.

  Ha, good try. Here is the rest of the email exchange I had with Lee over this:

  Lee -> SImon

  Simon
  
  I apologize. I recall that in the past when a person who started a thread asked for it to be locked or removed we did it. That is all I was doing - following past procedure. If that has changed then let me know.
  
  Would it have been better if he had posted on the thread that he wanted it locked? Or asked me by PM? I'm just confused at this point.
  
  But again I apologize. In my mind, although I didn't ask Cedars why he wanted it locked, it was to stop the incessant bickering on your website about something that was happening on another site. I didn't think that was fair to JWN. And in the past there too we have drawn a line that if something is happening somewhere else we don't needed the arguing about it on JWN.

  Simon -> Lee

  No, it's never been the policy to either lock or remove topics on request as a matter of course. We sometimes do it at our discretion, typically if someone has revealed personal information that they wish to have removed but it's never "just because we were asked".

  The timing of Cedars final wrap-up post and the original locking, then your reply and subsequent re-locking (despite me questioning and unlocking it) makes it appear to me like this was planned and intentional, decided by the new group and was taking advantage of your position as a moderator on the site.

  The cynic in my thinks it was locked because they (AAWA) didn't like the responses being posted and the revelations about what has been going on with facebook and shit-a-gram I had off Cedars convinces me of this. I think if any moderation is needed re: the AAWA then it would be better to pass it on to us or post it in admin so you don't risk appearing to be acting as an agent on their behalf.

  Thanks
  Simon

  Lee -> Simon

  Again Simon I apologize. I have also apologized to Cedars because I was the one in error. He said something and I misunderstood. Then he was not reachable and the confusion only worsened.
  
  I had already decided that I will not deal with issues re AAWA. it is a conflict of interest so I will do as you say and post in admin if there is a problem that needs to be attended to. In fact I had just finished making this suggestion tot hem when I saw your email so it seems we are all on the same page.
  
  Again I apologize and will step out of those issues.

  Simon -> Lee

  Thanks Lady Lee

  No harm done but I don't want you to be put in a difficult situation so if you are ever asked to do something you can say 'this is the policy ... I'll post it in weren't

  Thanks!
  Simon

  (yeah, not sure what my pseudo-grammar was trying to say in those last few words)

  So Cedars, I think you are right that Lee took the flak but it was flak caused from your actions and behavior and now here she is in the middle of it all again ... because of you.

  Any reasonable person would move on but no, you have been obsessing over this for the past 6 MONTHS haven't you?

  Is your revenge / payback now tasting a little sour? Because from where I'm sitting, I don't think I did anything wrong or unreasonable.

  How about you?
• 

  cedars

  JeffT

  This isn't a message board, its a time machine. I'm back in Jr High School. This happened SIX MONTHS AGO. Cedars, don't you think this dead horse has been beaten enough?

  It's easy to look at it that way if you're not the one constantly being misrepresented. With respect, if you don't find the thread interesting, don't open or comment on it.

  Cedars
• 

  Simon

  I meant the name was trivial and unimportant compared to our mission and objectives. Anyone with moderate reading skills can figure out that's what I was getting at. And my point was that it was for the signed-up AAWA volunteers to decide on a new name, not you or the JWN peanut gallery.

  Yes, that is what I' m talking about. You were all pissy because people thought the name was bad and stirred up this whole mess over it and now you are saying the name was trivial and unimportant.

  Do you know how that makes you look?

  Nice throwing in the insults again, keep it up. Turns out the peanut throwers were spot on about the name though doesn't it.