UPDATE
I WAS WRONG.
I was completely wrong.
I am leaving the original post so that the world can see my mistake because I made one and was called on the mistake. I went after staff with too much vigor and too little trust. Not that those things have not been earned by some staff but the staff member I accused in this post made a mistake and did not intend to mislead the members. I was wrong about I’ddie and as such offer a sincere apology. If he wants me to redact this entry further then I will but I would prefer to leave it up so that my mistake is visible and reminds me, and hopefully others, that everything is not always as it seems.
I have to say I am happy to be wrong. I am happy to see staff correct what amounts to simple mistakes even after I have accused them of lying. It was gracious and a good thing to do. Below the fold is a record of my mistake. I am putting it there because it is no longer true. What you read if you click more was a mistake made by a staff member and my overreaction. The onus is on me for this one. I put my foot in it and didn’t pull it out. I have been proved wrong and I can’t say I have been happier in recent times to have been proven wrong.
You know I think I skipped a CF post last week. I was browsing the forums and came across more lies by staff.
Here is an exchange between a staff member and a former staff member in the open forums.
I’ddieforhim
Originally posted by Br. Max
How long is long enough for a team to deal with a thread that is closed for review? I seem to remember a 48 hour policy in the unwritten rules - has that gone by the way side?There never was an unwritten rule on this Max.
It was never even a guideline.Originally Posted by Br. Max
I have seen countless threads where closed for review seems to have been only an excuse to get the thread closed. I’m concerned that a thread of 50 posts or less should not take more than 48 hours to review and have reopened. Is it unreasonable to ask?Teams are understaffed and trying to build them up and cannot realisticly or even feasably open a thread back up in 48 hours.
Perhaps adherence to the rules might be a good consideration to maybe HELPING staff with thread issues ?? Something to ponder there.
Let’s deal with the lie and not the misinformation in the second response. The lie is that there has never been 48 limit of reviews. Technically I’ddie is right but the reality is that the standard used to be much shorter as in shorter by half:
2 When closing a thread the note you enter will be made the last post in the thread, be clear about why the thread was closed.
3 If a thread is closed for review be sure and change the reason if you are leaving the thread closed.
4 You can leave a thread up for 24 hours to allow review when issuing warnings in a thread that will stay closed.
5 Thread closures can be used to issue a general reminder of the rules. If you choose not to clean it up, trash it after 24 hours.
That is directly from the old staff protocol. It was staff rules. It was part of the rules they don’t want the members to know. It was in fact punishable under the staff discipline protocol to leave a thread closed and not come back to it. Of course according to I’ddie It was never even a guideline. Of course he is still technically correct but the implication is that there has never been any guideline covering a time limit when in fact and indisputably there was.
The thread is still open but probably not for long. I am willing to bet the support staff slap a debate label on it and close it up tight. Every accusation made in the thread is true. I was kicked off of staff for refusing to leave a thread closed that had no rule violations but some of the support team wanted to shoehorn it into any rule they could find to keep it closed. Herev told me to leave it be but I could not stand by while it remained closed for no valid reason whatsoever. At the time there wasn’t even a rule covering debate in the support forums, a rule that is outright stupid and unenforceable, and nothing in the rules had been violated.
So here we see staff pretty much lying outright about what has existed in the guidelines. This was a staffer who was around when the guidelines in question were written and posted. He knows what was in them. I know he does because he resented that I was the one that wrote then and complained about numerous sections. It’s not surprising that CF staffers lie as all humans fall prey to that temptation. It is surprising to see the frequency with which supposed Christians are willing to sacrifice the truth for their precious little website.
No private staff posts are in this entry and I will not remove anything from the entry. Everything posted here is more than covered under fair use and no takedown notices will be acknowledged.
It HAS existed in the guidelines, OK. Maybe at the time of his posting he forgot about that. Forgetting something and lying are two different things. One’s delibrate, the other is not. Please don’t mislead others like that. I ask as a Christian friend, not as CF staff against former CF staff.
You can see that I state the technically he is correct. He made a statement. If he was not sure of his statement then he should not have made it. Mistakes, in this manner, from people in authority are lies. It is the responsibility of the person in authority to insure their information is correct.
I was the one that wrote the guidelines. I remember the reactions to the guidelines and what was complained about. I likely have logs somewhere from AIM conversations and staff threads showing that the person who made the statement was aware that it has existed. When you state fact, and “It was never” is a statement of fact, and are in a position of authority then you accept responsibility for your statements. I know that I’ddie knew about the rule at the time. Other staff have posted on the thread that they were aware of it while on staff and still no correction from I’ddie.
At the very least it is misrepresentation and at the worst purposeful lying. There was a time, and I am certain that I can find the threads in my archive from leaks, that staff denied that there was a staff protocol and did so openly. This was while I was working on rewriting the very thing they were denying.
Staff either needs to get a clue and be accurate in their statements to members or not post at all when they do not know.
Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /’lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
At the very least I’ddie’s statement falls under 2: in that it does exactly what 2: states. It is a lie. Without correction and apology it can safely be assumed it is a willing lie as well.
Without correction and apology? So now we get into the ethics of what truth really is I guess. A person can only apologise and correct themselves when they know they’ve done something wrong. I’ve never heard of anyone apologising for doing something right (unless they had terrible self-esteem). I’ve always thought it rather dangerous territory to assume too much though…but I’m one of those ‘innocent until proven guilty’ people. Iddie is a good man and one I cant see intentionally lying for any reason.
I have seen I’ddie stalk users and misrepresent things in the staff forums more than once. I know he knew that the policy existed. You can defend him all you like. I have proven that even without intent that the statement is a lie. A person in authority must be careful when they make statements of fact that affect the people over which they authority.
It proves on of two things. That staff intentionally lies (as lies do not have to be intentional) or that staff doesn’t have a clue of their own policy and as such that could be an even larger problem when you get down to it. So which is it? Does staff lie intentionally or does staff not even know their own policy?
Lying implies intent to decieve. I’ddie never intended to decieve anyone, as he posted what he best recollected. So he was technically telling the truth.
As for intent, what is your here? To call into question his fitness to be a mod? To make yourself feel good by trashing the love of my life and the father of my children?
What really burns my brownies is not only calling him a liar, a stalker, but to call him or any of us “supposed Christians”??? That hurts me. I never did anything to you, yet you feel justified in breaking my heart. What is it about “by their fruit you will know them?”
I am asking respectfully for you to remove this hateful and hurtful blog entry. I don’t care if it has private or public information,has hairy moles or has posted the meaning of life. It is mean, it is not true, and as a sister in Christ I would like to see you rise above this sort of thing. I am not asking for an apology, as an apology begged for is not worth the time it takes to speak it or type it. I am asking for you to think of someone else’s feelings and remove it.
Beth because we were once friends I will consider removing this blog. On one condition. Chris admits he was wrong in the thread where he posted the misinformation.
As for the stalking I have all the staff threads where Chris reported Tas over and over again in forums where he was not a mod and not even a regular poster. That accusation, and I should have said this in the the post, is one he and I were both guilty of. And that accusation stands true.
I am not coming after Chris personally. Yes this was his post but overall, with exceptions, staff does not correct their errors. This was left to stand as fact after other staff had made claims to the opposite. I watched the thread before posting this entry. The misinformation was not corrected.
As for the claim you have never done anything to me do you really want to go there? I have a full record of the forums from that time and the threads at IIDB still exist. You have done something to me in the past. But this has nothing to do with that. If I wanted to get at you I would do a post on how you left staff because the handling of that was total crap. I wanted you off staff at the time but the way Erwin went about things was wrong. It was a case where the outcome was what I wanted but the method was just wrong. Looking back there were better ways I could have handled thing than wanting you off staff but that is the past. Please do not make the claim you have never done anything to me though because it is not true.
As for the supposed Christians comment scripture says that by their fruits you shall know them. I see staff who have very little if any fruit identifiable as Christian. Anyone willing to sacrifice truth for a website is a supposed Christian in my opinion. They may well be in Heaven when all is said and done but it sure falls short of the Christian standard. Can you defend staff lying to the members? Not Chris. I am willing to accept that he was mistaken. Although technically it is still a lie under the dictionary definition of a lie. But staff in general. Can you defend staff lying to members? How about staff abusing members and telling them that they do not consider them married in a valid manner in an open thread? Are these things fruits of a Christian life?
As I said if Chris posts a correction then I will remove the claims of his lying and annotate the entry to reflect such.
Since people keep wanting to misrepresent my words I will have to clarify. I never meant to imply that all of staff are supposed Christians. I even, in the comments, posted specific instances of the behavior to which I refer. As I have stated before there are many on staff who are good people but the problem is the bad ones are over-running any good being done. The institution is flawed and as long as it is flawed in this manner it will continue to have ill effects.
Some refuse to understand what I am trying to do. Some choose to defend the institution. Others try to use guilt to get me to stop. Others agree to leave CF out of our friendship. Some offer support in private. And to each their own. But those that try to attack me will find that their words do not sway me from my endeavors.
I have offered to post a correction if the staff member in question posts a correction. Tomorrow if none is posted I will post the conversation where I even offer to post an apology as I would be wrong if a correction is posted.
Thank you very much Flesh, and I did forget about what I posted at iidb…what…three years ago now? Wow. Anyway, I honestly did forget, because I was insane at the time…blinded by pride and I was totally ugly and took my anger out on other people. Thank you for forgiving me for that. Anyway, I also did not mean to deceive but simply forgot. I try to block alot of that stuff out of my mind anyway.
Beth I do as well to be honest. What you got kicked off of staff for was being right about me. I bet you never thought you’d hear me say that. It is true. Anyway thank you for being gracious in your response.
Well, I wanna thank you for doing whatever it was you did to cause me to say what I said and push to get me off staff. It was just what I didn’t realize at the time I needed. It’s funny how God uses things to accomplish His will.
I just played along with what was going on Beth. I didn’t know it was you until it was well into the issue. I have a piece planned on BS staff firings and was going to tell your story in there along with how you were right about me.
I had a run in with I’ddie4him earlier this year. He posted some slanderous stuff that I followed up to, then he edited his post and issued me with a warning for my follow up and locked the thread. In another thread, I linked to his comments as an example and had the post deleted by him!
CF moderation sucks and I’ddie4him is probably the single worst moderator I have ever encountered. Check out threads t4214572, t4223222, t4038018, t3306753.