cwald

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

One thing cwald says that does seem legit is that because his IP address is banned, jwald (his wife) can no longer see or post. Can we change that? cwald says (for now anyway) that he’s not asking to be reinstated. I do think it’s a loss, but he needs to get his head together if you ask me.

The last time jwald posted was May 2011 and she has a total of 15 posts. I don’t see that as a legit request, I see it as cwald wanting a back door. Does banning an IP address mean anyone using that address (which could be a public library, internet cafe, or McDonald’s) can’t even access the site? That is not my understanding of how it works, but I admit I may not have a full understanding.

I totally agree with your last statement. I do think he has valuable things to offer, but right now his head isn’t screwed on just right (or it could perhaps his shoes are too tight).

[Anonymous]

He wants the IP unbanned so jwald can continue to read and follow the site. Does a ban prevent someone from even lurking at staylds or does it simply prevent them from posting? Perhaps the difference between deactivating an account and an outright ban?

If jwald starts posting all of a sudden…

[Anonymous]

My understanding was he was going to leave, wanted his account deactivated, and was done here.

If he wants access…we simply tell him he should comply with the site mission and he can have access (maybe in 2 weeks after he settles down).

If we are all in agreement he must remain banned, then ban his username/email, not his IP address.

Hawk’s questions to him were spot on…why does he even want to if he doesn’t agree with the site and thinks it is worthless (my words but seems to be what he is saying about our site)? He has lost a lot of credibility with me to believe he would be a meaningful contributor. But in general, I have no problem giving people access who stick to the mission and rules, I just ignore them if I think they are not credible.

I am still optimistic we can invite and have conversations with ultra orthodox members and those who completely disbelieve the church. My feeling is that sometimes we can, but clearly…some people just can’t have the discussions. Banning is appropriate when they can’t contain their comments.

[Anonymous]

I guess I’m the outlier here. I agree that he crossed a line, but I would like him to come back if he accepts that the crappy treatment he got from his SP or whoever doesn’t relieve him of the obligation to think before he types.

Maybe that’s too sarcastic. Doesn’t relieve him of the obligation to take a deep breath and consider that he’s talking to his friends.

[Anonymous]

My opinion:

jwald doesn’t want to comment, but she might want to read – and banning the IP address stops her from accessing us from the same computer he used. I didn’t consider that, since she hadn’t posted in a long time.

I might be wrong, but I think she might have called him on getting banned if she does like to read the threads. He might be taking heat at home.

I will see if I can figure out how to reinstate the IP address, but, if I can do that, I think he needs to be told that we can’t start getting comments from it under any name until he is ready to tell us he will follow our rules and respect our mission. We can’t trust him right now to not post under another name – and activating the IP address would allow him to register under another name. We would have to suspect the new user to be him and check the IP address, since it wouldn’t flag automatically.

I will let you all know if I can reverse the IP ban.

[Anonymous]

I’m not that worried about his covert posting, personally. He’s emotionally erratic, but he was OK for the longest time. He’d have to be bonkers indeed. I guess that’s possible.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

He’d have to be bonkers indeed. I guess that’s possible.

…or drunk…that’s more possible.

I wouldn’t spend more than 5 minutes on it Ray. I would be surprised if he is trying to come back here for a while.

[Anonymous]

I have wondered quite often if a little over-drinking contributes to his combativeness at times.

[Anonymous]

jwald registered initially under a different IP address than cwald. That IP address still is active, and her username and email address are different than his, so she should be able to comment still. The only reason she might not be able to do so is if she no longer has access to the computer or site she used when she registered and only can access using his computer and IP address.

That is possible, but it is not common anymore.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I have wondered quite often if a little over-drinking contributes to his combativeness at times.

Having grown up with an alcoholic parent, I have wondered the same thing before.

[Anonymous]

Can we reach out to jwald some other way? If she lurks here, that tells us something. We don’t know each of our back stories completely, even if she doesn’t post she may find reading stuff helpful.

[Anonymous]

jwald hasn’t logged in since May 2011

[Anonymous]

I hadn’t considered the drunk posting angle, but that absolutely makes the most sense. cwald’s contributions while sober have been great. While drunk, meh. And occasionally, he’s acting like a 13 year old girl with hurt feelings. (I say this as a mother of one).

[Anonymous]

cwald did PM me at NOM and is kinda being dick-ish still…but is asking to be reinstated.

I’m for it if you all are OK with it.

I haven’t responded to him yet. We can tell him he knows the rules…he is on a short leash.

What say you all? (I seriously don’t feel strongly and won’t fight for cwald, I support Ray and have told him so he doesn’t think I’m trying to dodge mod responsibility and play dumb. I’m neutral because that’s how I see it, not that I feel we owe cwald anything. Should everyone feel he can’t be trusted…I won’t lose sleep over this).

Yes, Hawkgrrl…he is acting like a 13yr old.

[Anonymous]

I’m curious, I must have missed the way things went down. I get the impression that cwald is presenting a false narrative over at NOM. I don’t know anything about the story of the account only being banned after he said he was quitting, I didn’t see any of that, but what I think I saw:

1) Bear created the alternatives to staylds thread.

2) Cwald didn’t initially post in that thread, he created a new thread that pretty much said “staylds sucks, if you think it sucks too I’ll see you over at NOM.” That thread was deleted. Now I don’t remember the exact gist, I only saw the thread briefly.

3) Cwald made out over at NOM as if he innocently posted a suggestion in Bear’s thread that they consider NOM and that’s what got him banned. No mention of the ?mutiny? thread, but he was busy painting staylds as the villain.

4) Not that it matters but now the NOM admins are frowning on staylds for hiding the existence of NOM from people that may need it for the kind of support that they need. This based off of cwald’s version of events.

I could be off in my timeline and interpretations. Please correct me. If that’s correct though I can’t tell if this is the way that cwald really felt it went down or if he’s just intentionally fanning the flames at NOM.

I don’t mind if he’s reinstated. Despite feeling like I’m talking to a brick wall every time I’ve tried to interact with him… I still like him.

One thing, be prepared for the “you only reinstated me because I made a scene” reaction. I’m not saying this is what would happen, but he may feel insecure after being readmitted and he may feel like he has learned a way to get around moderation (complain on NOM).

[Author]

Posts