[OutsiderFan]

The issue, then, is that some posters believe her actions were simply inequitable.  Just as Yvonne is allowed to ban ferrari, others are allowed to think that action was unjust.  And then, of course, it's up to Yvonne whether to allow us to discuss that or not.

But you can't fight city hall.  Yvonne is laying down the rules and enforcing them.  She doesn't have to take feedback, but is, in the form of a poll. People who are on this board may want to discuss "the ferrari issue" further, but show her some damn respect by dropping the topic and start discussing Stanford sports or something at least tangentially related to it.  If you want to make a post about something off that general line of topics, then just make sure it isn't something that can devolve into a political debate.  Why is this so hard to accept?  Why does everyone have to challenge everything they don't like?  The admin wants board members to act a certain way.  She is going to remove people who don't.  That's it.  End of discussion.

[OutsiderFan]

The issue, then, is that some posters believe her actions were simply inequitable.  Just as Yvonne is allowed to ban ferrari, others are allowed to think that action was unjust.  And then, of course, it's up to Yvonne whether to allow us to discuss that or not.

But you can't fight city hall.  Yvonne is laying down the rules and enforcing them.  She doesn't have to take feedback, but is, in the form of a poll. People who are on this board may want to discuss "the ferrari issue" further, but show her some damn respect by dropping the topic and start discussing Stanford sports or something at least tangentially related to it.  If you want to make a post about something off that general line of topics, then just make sure it isn't something that can devolve into a political debate.  Why is this so hard to accept?  Why does everyone have to challenge everything they don't like?  The admin wants board members to act a certain way.  She is going to remove people who don't.  That's it.  End of discussion.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

End of discussion.

Oh, well alright.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

End of discussion.

Oh, well alright.

[PrinceLightfoot]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=15102.msg163696#msg163696 date=1464189303]Other posters? The subject is well defined and the administrators are included in the periphery. Garvin saw injustice and like most who protest created a scene to ensure it was noticed; the person who began the personal attack is still here while the person who was inflammatory initially and responded to a personal attack likewise is not, thus his statement saying that as long as you align with the administrator's biases, you are safe. The explanation of repeat offenses puts the action taken by the admin in context, but bias impacts what is a considered an offense. Is the same type of scrutiny applied to those who share the admin's views? That is purely rhetorical.

For someone who obviously enjoyed posting here for almost 20 years to make this move is impressive because he is sticking with his conviction (whether we agree with it or not) and forgoing his long kept diversion.

Look, if you're going to call me out at least have the courtesy to name me...

I don't think there's a lot to be gained by re-hashing this ad nauseam, but I want to point out that the Administrator post that explained ferrari's ban specifically stated that it wasn't just one action that did it, and that in previous private conversations between them he had admitted to "stirring the pot", ie trolling. Saying "oh well stupac started it" is missing the point, if you look at all the various threads that blew up there was a common denominator, and it wasn't me.

(That said if anyone really takes issue with the way that I post going forward, feel free to let me know. I know it might not seem like it sometimes but I am a quite reasonable person and willing to take feedback to heart.)
[/quote]

Please, do not misunderstand me. Since you are part of the situation, it is clearly personal for you. For me, it is not and am laying it out as objectively as I can thus not personalizing you in the rehashing.

I stated the explanation of repeat offenses which is the basis of the action, so that point was clearly not missed. "oh well stupac started it" does not miss Garvin's point of view; have you been warned of your personal attack(s)? Are you receiving the same treatment? Like I said, these questions are rhetorical.

As a non-Stanford alum outsider who also spends time on the ןɐɔ Rivals board, perhaps my perspective might be useful.

It is quite amusing to see Stanford people think they are somehow "above the fray" and can peacefully co-exist while having political discussions.

These "Stanford people" are participating in a poll where several have already voiced their vote for "No" on political topics, so their thinking collectively has not been measured yet for this statement to have validity. And with all due respect F*** Cal.

[PrinceLightfoot]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=15102.msg163696#msg163696 date=1464189303]Other posters? The subject is well defined and the administrators are included in the periphery. Garvin saw injustice and like most who protest created a scene to ensure it was noticed; the person who began the personal attack is still here while the person who was inflammatory initially and responded to a personal attack likewise is not, thus his statement saying that as long as you align with the administrator's biases, you are safe. The explanation of repeat offenses puts the action taken by the admin in context, but bias impacts what is a considered an offense. Is the same type of scrutiny applied to those who share the admin's views? That is purely rhetorical.

For someone who obviously enjoyed posting here for almost 20 years to make this move is impressive because he is sticking with his conviction (whether we agree with it or not) and forgoing his long kept diversion.

Look, if you're going to call me out at least have the courtesy to name me...

I don't think there's a lot to be gained by re-hashing this ad nauseam, but I want to point out that the Administrator post that explained ferrari's ban specifically stated that it wasn't just one action that did it, and that in previous private conversations between them he had admitted to "stirring the pot", ie trolling. Saying "oh well stupac started it" is missing the point, if you look at all the various threads that blew up there was a common denominator, and it wasn't me.

(That said if anyone really takes issue with the way that I post going forward, feel free to let me know. I know it might not seem like it sometimes but I am a quite reasonable person and willing to take feedback to heart.)
[/quote]

Please, do not misunderstand me. Since you are part of the situation, it is clearly personal for you. For me, it is not and am laying it out as objectively as I can thus not personalizing you in the rehashing.

I stated the explanation of repeat offenses which is the basis of the action, so that point was clearly not missed. "oh well stupac started it" does not miss Garvin's point of view; have you been warned of your personal attack(s)? Are you receiving the same treatment? Like I said, these questions are rhetorical.

As a non-Stanford alum outsider who also spends time on the ןɐɔ Rivals board, perhaps my perspective might be useful.

It is quite amusing to see Stanford people think they are somehow "above the fray" and can peacefully co-exist while having political discussions.

These "Stanford people" are participating in a poll where several have already voiced their vote for "No" on political topics, so their thinking collectively has not been measured yet for this statement to have validity. And with all due respect F*** Cal.

[admin]

Hi Folks, if you could refrain from posting your perspective on the poll until it closes on Monday, I'd appreciate it. There are still votes coming in on all sides, and I don't want to bias it in any way. Thanks.

[admin]

Hi Folks, if you could refrain from posting your perspective on the poll until it closes on Monday, I'd appreciate it. There are still votes coming in on all sides, and I don't want to bias it in any way. Thanks.