What do you feel like saying, right now?

[1963 Owtlaw]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Wow! Why did DrPhil get banned?

Probably talkin shit. She was out on parole, home's LOL!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Wow. I step away to watch the Kentucky game and come back to find this. I don't know what I missed, but the results are unfortunate.

Originally Posted by tld221

But wait! What happened to Dr Phil?

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Wow! Why did DrPhil get banned?

Good grief. Unless there was some blow up in posts that have been removed or PMs we don't know about, there has been absolutely nothing from her that's ban-worthy. Nothing.

I'm embarrassed for GreekChat.

ETA: I would bump this thread, but it was locked. So I guess I just have to hope that the mod who banned DrPhil will have the guts to explain why. To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, if a moderator banned someone and isn't willing to explain to the rest of GC why, he or she should be removed as moderator. With power comes responsibility.

And yes, I know the history with DrPhil/DSTChaos, including the earlier banning she pretty much invited. But I really haven't seen anything recently that comes close to being ban-worthy.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Good grief. Unless there was some blow up in posts that have been removed or PMs we don't know about, there has been absolutely nothing from her that's ban-worthy. Nothing.

I'm embarrassed for GreekChat.

ETA: I would bump this thread, but it was locked. So I guess I just have to hope that the mod who banned DrPhil will have the guts to explain why. To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, if a moderator banned someone and isn't willing to explain to the rest of GC why, he or she should be removed as moderator. With power comes responsibility.

GreekChat, where it is safe to post as long as you aren't too disagreeable. Unless you're in with the in crowd.

I got an email from John today wanting money for a premium membership, but I'm thinking about shutting it down instead. More and more, the vibes around here now are reminding me of the reasons why I took more than a decade away from Greek life after my time as an active before I got involved again. There's a few people that I'd still like to hear from, though.

[Phrozen Sands]

Lol @ people protesting. I had no idea DrPhil was banned before. Wow! Does anyone know why she was banned?

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Does anyone know why she was banned?

The mod who banned her does, but I doubt we'll get an explanation.

I agree with MC - unless posts have been deleted, nothing she posted is ban-worthy.

Are mods now banning GCers whose ideas/opinions are different from their own? If so, the GC community needs an updated list of what is/isn't acceptable.

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

The mod who banned her does, but I doubt we'll get an explanation.

I agree with MC - unless posts have been deleted, nothing she posted is ban-worthy.

Are mods now banning GCers whose ideas/opinions are different from their own? If so, the GC community needs an updated list of what is/isn't acceptable.

Only John and Supermods can ban, right?

NinjaPoodle was not the one. She has also resigned as a mod altogether.

[Kevin]

Right, Sen. Supermods and John are the only people who can ban.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Right, Sen. Supermods and John are the only people who can ban.

Thanks for that reminder, Kevin. I had forgotten that.

So if NinjaPoodle resigned as a mod, does that mean that James, PenguinTrax and SAEalumnus are the only super-mods?

And Sen, did NinjaPoodle just resign? Her profile still shows her as a super-mod.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Good grief. Unless there was some blow up in posts that have been removed or PMs we don't know about, there has been absolutely nothing from her that's ban-worthy. Nothing.

I'm embarrassed for GreekChat.

ETA: I would bump this thread, but it was locked. So I guess I just have to hope that the mod who banned DrPhil will have the guts to explain why. To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, if a moderator banned someone and isn't willing to explain to the rest of GC why, he or she should be removed as moderator. With power comes responsibility.

And yes, I know the history with DrPhil/DSTChaos, including the earlier banning she pretty much invited. But I really haven't seen anything recently that comes close to being ban-worthy.

Originally Posted by SydneyK

The mod who banned her does, but I doubt we'll get an explanation.

I agree with MC - unless posts have been deleted, nothing she posted is ban-worthy.

Are mods now banning GCers whose ideas/opinions are different from their own? If so, the GC community needs an updated list of what is/isn't acceptable.

I checked out her previous posts and also read nothing that was out of line. It's kind of disappointing. I didn't agree with everything she posted, but she seemed to have been the person on here who kept the thread topics going, funny, and interesting. Not that the other folks on here don't, she just seemed to have a little knowledge about every topic on here Lol.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Thanks for that reminder, Kevin. I had forgotten that.

So if NinjaPoodle resigned as a mod, does that mean that James, PenguinTrax and SAEalumnus are the only super-mods?

And Sen, did NinjaPoodle just resign? Her profile still shows her as a super-mod.

Yes, those are the only supermods and if they banned someone it wasn't because they disagreed about something. Not everything that happens on GC happens in the public fora.

[AZTheta]

DrPhil has been one of my staunchest supporters as I am going through a very difficult physical challenge. That has all been private, and far removed from any public posts, or anything that has transpired in any threads here on GC. We may publicly disagree from time to time on a particular subject or topic, but that is of little consequence to me at the end of the day. Our similarities outweigh our differences. She has been encouraging, honest, and supportive without being pitying, patronizing or judgemental. I am grateful for her kindness and compassion.

I politely and respectfully ask that this ban be reconsidered, and rescinded. I should like to see her return to the forum. She has a provocative style (as MysticCat earlier posted) and when it becomes too provocative, I simply take a deep breath and walk away from the computer. We all get on one another's nerves from time to time. It's the human condition.

Unlike others who have been banned for valid reasons (which they choose to minimize,overlook, distort, or ignore because they are not able to face the truth about themselves, including those who lie to their own fraternity brothers), I believe that DrPhil owns her own behavior. And I think that it is possible to disagree, and to correct oneself when the disagreement reaches too far over the line. That happens. We all do it.

This assumes, of course, that she would be willing to return. Given the circumstances, that may not be a choice she makes. Frankly, I wouldn't blame her.

At the very least, please revisit the Forum rules and clarify the terms. It's difficult to play in the sandbox when you don't know where the boundaries are, or what the limits are.

Namaste.

PS Don't ask me what's going on because I am not going to tell you. Thank you.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not everything that happens on GC happens in the public fora.

Which can be problematic. Very problematic. When an average GCer can't figure out why someone was banned and those who made the decision to ban aren't willing to say why, it can reasonably lead to the conclusion that there was no good reason. Depending on the circumstances the whole story doesn't need to be shared. But silence undermines trust that decisions are being made fairly.

Originally Posted by AZTheta

I politely and respectfully ask that this ban be reconsidered, and rescinded. I should like to see her return to the forum. She has a provocative style (as MysticCat earlier posted) and when it becomes too provocative, I simply take a deep breath and walk away from the computer. We all get on one another's nerves from time to time. It's the human condition.

Unlike others who have been banned for valid reasons (which they choose to minimize,overlook, distort, or ignore because they are not able to face the truth about themselves, including those who lie to their own fraternity brothers), I believe that DrPhil owns her own behavior. And I think that it is possible to disagree, and to correct oneself when the disagreement reaches too far over the line. That happens. We all do it.

This assumes, of course, that she would be willing to return. Given the circumstances, that may not be a choice she makes. Frankly, I wouldn't blame her.

At the very least, please revisit the Forum rules and clarify the terms. It's difficult to play in the sandbox when you don't know where the boundaries are, or what the limits are.

Well said, and I concur.

[DubaiSis]

So GC is now 1-a rush list 2-a place where we can talk about the only way to have a successful relationship is if you're religious (and if you're a woman, subservient) and 3-a place where we in no way state that even if I (read: all of us) consider myself not racist I may still have elements of my personality or experience that do not show well when put under a spot light, and that through that spot light I might just become more tolerant of others. Good to know. I'll check back from time to time to see if things have gotten interesting again. Or at rush time since the list is great. There's no flounce here, just a statement of loss of interest.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But silence undermines trust that decisions are being made fairly.

I can appreciate your perspective. But surely you can imagine a hypothetical situation (I was going to give you an example, but it would have been too close to something which actually happened) where silence is the best option both for the accused and to perhaps prevent retaliation against the victim.

I'm not saying or suggesting there's a victim or anything really, but I think this site has been fairly well run for a number of years, which should have at least earned John and the Supermods the benefit of the doubt.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I can appreciate your perspective. But surely you can imagine a hypothetical situation (I was going to give you an example, but it would have been too close to something which actually happened) where silence is the best option both for the accused and to perhaps prevent retaliation against the victim.

Yes, I can certainly understand such a hypothetical. But in those circumstances, I still think it be best to say something, even if it's just "we're unable to provide details because of the nature of the violations of terms of use, but we want GCers to know that a great deal of thought was given to the situation and a determination was made that it is was in GC's best interest to ban X."

Sure, some benefit of the doubt has been earned. But concerns have been raised before about banning or deletion of threads without explanation. And when we can all see the conversations DrPhil had over the last week, and can all see that some have taken offense while others did not, it shouldn't be unexpected that people will draw conclusions and question whether a ban was called for.