My two knuts

[Tom Wall]

Joywitch penned:
He seems to be harping on this to try and prove that
the admin team is, in some vague undefined way, a
bunch of bad people. <snip>
What this is all about is, once again, is Cindy. Tom,
it seems to me, is holding a grudge against the admin
team for banning Cindy, and as a result spends all his
time on this list walking up and back in front
of Hexquarters with a picket sign reading "Unfair!" –
all for Cindy's benefit. /END

Tom:
That's about enough of that...

You know, I said this on FAQ and I'll say it here,
too: you wanna post charged invective against me? You
have something you want to say? Can't hold your tongue?
Then write me an e-mail, okay? What happened to civility? 
Why do you think you're entitled to act this way?

Up until this point, we were talking about whether or
not your *last* post was in violation of the Admin
team's rules, never mind your latest foray into the
Sans-civility-verse. I wasn't insulting you, and I
wasn't being rude; I was talking about the facts and
the rules. I was being honest. I stated my opinion, and
then defended it. Calmly. Fairly. When I made a mistake,
I apologized for it. That's what constitutes civilized
discussion.

You, however, evidently think it's fine to insult me and
whoever else crosses your path on a cloudy day. You wanna 
leak at the mouth? Fine. But you're the one who looks bad, 
not me. But you probably already know that. In fact, part of
me thinks that you're actually proud of it.

Secondly, I never suggested that the Admin team were
bad people. In fact, you probably won't be surprised
that I have to repeat this over and over again to
people who have simplistic, black and white worlds in
which they pigeon-hole anyone who disagrees with them
into the "evil, muckraking, anarchist dissenter"
category.

No. I'm sorry. No. It's called nuance, people. *Subtlety.* 

Succinctly, I'm talking about Real Life, okay?

We don't live in a black and white world, and I
readily admit that I am frustrated by people who like
to paint in two-tones. There are so many other colors
out there... why don't you try some of them? Shades of
Grey, anyone?

I have never said that the Admin team was full of bad
people. I haven't even implied it. And I certainly
don't think that that's the case. In fact, I quite
candidly like - and have had great off-list discussions
with - many of them; I am, however, afraid that several
members of the Admin team can't distinguish between criticism 
of *them* and criticism of their *policies.* They take my
disagreement *personally.* Well guys, that's your problem,
not mine.

What I *said* in relation to your last post was that
the Admin team should either abide by the rules that
they set forth, or change the rules. Simple enough.
And let's be clear on this: it was *Talisman* who
pointed out that the rules weren't being adhered to,
*not* me. What I did was provide an example of that,
which was, unfortunately, your own post.

You don't like it? Why don't you try moderating your
temper? Maybe then we'll be able to have a discussion
instead of a shouting match.

As for the ban on Cindy, yes, I disagree with it, and
yes, I'm trying to get it dealt with. And no, I don't
see the point in dropping it just yet, as I have yet
to hear a satisfying explanation for why it happened.

But you want me to just *let it go?* To what end? For 
whose benefit?

I'm allowed to disagree with the Admin team without
*hating* them, you know. In this case, I believe that
a good group of people made a terrible mistake. And as
far as I see it, the way that mistakes get rectified
is through a) admission, and b) efforts to actually
solve the problem instead of hiding it in order to
save face.

You should know all about that, Joywitch, as you were
involved with the mudslinging in April, weren't you?
You saw all of the festering resentment that boiled
over the top on the FAQ list more than once because people
wanted to just drop the subject because it was too 
"upsetting," instead of trying to solve it. I'm not going
to pander to people's hypersensitvities here. If you can't
take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. 

People want to make controversial decisions? Then they have 
to accept that there will be, oh, I don't know, *controversy* 
over them.

You know, the truth is that good people make mistakes
and bad decisions all of the time. There doesn't have to
be Ever So Evil Behavior or actual malintent. Sometimes good 
people make these decisions because they think that
the choice will make a problem go away, or that it
will solve or hide a political scandal, or that it
will satisfy disgruntled parties or something. But
that's not the case. These decisions boil down to a
basic theme of Harry Potter: the choice of "what is
easy" over "what is right." And I'll just casually
mention the utterly delicious irony of the fact that
one of OoP's central themes concerned Umbridge's
constant attempts at *banning* stuff and how It. Does.
Not. Work.

Banning doesn't solve problems. Banning creates and 
exacerbates them.

The decision to ban Cindy is a concrete case of choosing "what is 
easy" over "what is right." 

Frankly, I don't see how the ban on Cindy is helping the 
lists. I don't see how the ban on Cindy has *anything* to do
with the well-being of the lists at all. Cindy didn't
do anything wrong except talk about policy on
OTChatter and send a bunch of mails to -owner. Is
talking about policy on OTChatter breaking the rules?
Sure. But guys, the *elves* talked about policy on
OTChatter too in that thread and others, and I don't
see any banned elves. I just see a banned Cindy.

She didn't screw with polls. She didn't stalk or threaten 
anyone. She didn't delete the lists, or even threaten to do
so. No volumes of anti-Potter sentiment. No
harassment. No spam, no viruses, no vanishing
databases or photos. None of that happened. Cindy was
not a threat to HPfGU. All she did was disagree with and
occasionally annoy the elves, who are clandestinely self-selected 
and owe nothing to anyone. And that got her banned.

What I see is that Cindy frequently disagreed with the 
Admin team - as did several of us on FAQ, although I suppose 
you'd probably call us "Cindy's Cadre" or something even more
creatively demeaning - and that she had the guts to tell them 
that she disagreed with them, to articulate a position, and
defend it. Cindy, you'll remember, was *rarely* alone in the
debates on the FAQ list.

What I see is that the ban on Cindy has been perpetrated 
in order to make the Admin team happy, not to help any of us.

How am I or anyone else benefiting from the ban on
Cindy? You tell me that, if you're so certain that
this was the right decision to make.

In fact, Cindy has a lot of positive qualities, like
making new people feel welcome, like her substantial
contributions to HPfGU's culture (which, quite
arguably, are unparalleled by anyone else except
*perhaps* Elkins), like her extensive experience with
being an administrator, like being willing to dedicate
her time and effort to this community and its component
members, like juggling about thirty Admin tasks at once 
and *still* managing to post polite, thought-provoking 
and funny posts to the lists.

So in light of all that, remind us all again how the
ban on Cindy is helping anyone other than the Admin
team?

Answer: it's not. It was the *easy* choice to ban
Cindy. What would have been right? Suspending her?
Keeping her on permanent moderated status? Ignoring 
her? Anything other than *banning* her.

You want to classify me as one of Cindy's brainless
little *minions?* You wanna classify me a a loony who
just can't get a grip? Get real, alright. 

That's just an attempt to diminish the value of my words 
because you disagree with the position that I have taken. 
You think it's easier to proclaim: "Tom must be
brainwashed by Cindy in order to have come to this
conclusion, because obviously no sane person could *possibly*
think that banning a member for disagreeing with the
Admin team is a bad thing to do."

I'm not the only one who disagreed with this
decision... what about the six people who resigned in
*disgust* from the Fantastic Posts list over this and
other Admin-related issues and smackdowns over there?

Are you suggesting that *they're* crazy too? What, do
you think that Cindy egged *them* on? That she
orchestrated their resignations just to make the Admin
team look bad? 

Please, Joywitch. I'm laughing. Who do you think you're
fooling? Maybe the people who haven't seen what you behave like
offlist. Maybe the people who were kept in the Dark about Modgate, 
about The Old Crowd, and about the chaos, disorganization, and
tyrannical clampdowns that happened on the Fantastic Posts list. 
Maybe you've got *those* people fooled. 

But not me, that's for sure.

-Tom, who honestly wrote this himself under zero
pressure from anyone, who doesn't bother with
ghostwriters because this is an internet community
(and what would be the point?), who reserves the
right to disagree with people who make bad decisions,
even if they're good people, and who promises to 
respond to Iggy and Przemyslaw as soon as possible.