‡WD, trolls & my rationale

Subtitle: when only the best will do

-=*=-

By extrapolation, I expect most people to strive to do their best. Objections to this thought immediately appear; and so we get the 1st caveat (from 'Bringing up Baby:') "Yes, but!" - it depends on the objective.

Cast of characters: WD, trolls and me.

1. My prime objective is to seek justice via truth.

2. WD's objectives are specified on their site, but include these three points:

2a. «Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent»

2b. «... banned several people from Webdiary when I am satisfied that they are not commenting in good faith, but rather to destroy the safety of the space for the civil debate I'm seeking to foster. ... invited people who believe I have breached the code to complain...»

2c. «Be truthful. Don't invent 'facts'. If you're caught out, expect to be corrected in Webdiary.»

3. Trolls' objectives are known largely only unto themselves, but by inspection obviously include disruption, diversion and if possible destruction, among other far-darker - possibly criminal - motives.

-=*=-

To cut a long story short, I'll divide the Morrella invasion into three parts; initial (up to MK's 1st intervention) middle (steadily declining productivity from me) and end (with me ejected from WD.)

1. The initial attack phase can be seen here. The threat was immediately recognised and responded to. BIG mistake. One of the 'tasks' for a troll is to 'hook' victims; had I but known... Some 'learning by doing' was done.

2. The mid-phase. As noted, this was a period of declining productivity for me, with steadily rising frustration. During this period Morrella skirmished with other posters; it wasn't 'just' me coming under attack from the vicious troll. But, 'nuff said.

The transition from initial to mid-phase was my 1st banning by MK. In total, I was banned a) from a thread, b) for a week (different poster, similar ethical clash) and finally c) forever. There were some email exchanges.

On 13Jun'07, I wrote:

«G'day Margo,

...you may wish for calm; the victims of the 'murder for spoil' parties can only dream - if not [be] already pink-misted *dead*.

Since you are our 'founder,' and establisher of the WD moral/ethic guidelines, you might care to review the 1st appearances of Paul Morrella, starting with 'Not all things are always'_1891.

Look closely at that 1st post, then my careful answers and finally the slurs that he then spreads.»

After no satisfactory reply, also on 13Jun'07, I wrote:

«Did you not look at Morrella?»

From Margo:

«No. That's the past, before I came back. I'm looking to the future. I'd like us to start afresh.»

But starting afresh with the troll was not an option for me.

3. The end-phase. I serendipitously observed this:

I Agree Gareth
... by Paul Morrella on August 29, 2007 - 11:32am.

«I will though say that if one had of started accepting ...»

[WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella]

Upon recognising the "had of" as the spoor of the perpetrator (perpe-traitor?) Jay White, it was only a trifle, a matter of less than a morning's work, to assemble the proof. Q: Now, what to do with it, in the face of "The Edict?" A: Go public, my only real - and ethical - choice. The material mirrored here was 'posted' to WD under the title "NFP WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella" on thread 1837 and copied to HH's. Note that NFP is a WD term meaning "Not For Publication." The rest is now history; all over but the 'paper work:' this epilogue.

-=*=-

Conclusion:

1. Naturally, I claim the 'high moral ground.' I have consistently striven to pursue my prime objective, i.e. justice via truth. It has been my contention all along, that Morrella was not "commenting in good faith." (2b) also says one may complain, (2c) says detected lies are to be exposed. The deployment of a fake-ID is both unethical and a lie. Basta! I stand on my record; some of my 'contested' posts are on this blog. Readers may decide.

2. Also naturally enough, WD claims the 'high moral ground.' But: in allowing the attacks of Morrella in the 1st instance, WD began it's own downward slide of ethics. WD's denying that Morrella might be a fake-name was a critical turning point. Morrella's presence meant both 'safety of the space' and 'civil debate' were endangered, when not outright excluded.

3. Readers may decide, on the morality or otherwise of White/Morrella.

-=*=-

Possible lessons: Having intercourse with criminal types can be dangerous; a) one may be drawn down to their level, and b) one may become contaminated. These dangers apply to both posters and forums.

Facit: Trolls should be ejected by management immediately upon detection; if suspected by posters they should be a) flagged as such then b) totally ignored. Posters should obviously be allowed to voice their suspicions. That's freedom, ain't it?

End: As things stand, the troll won. But not without assistance.

When trolls win, everybody else loses.

-=*end*=-

PS Updated from here.

David R: ... And Phil wasn't banned for asking questions on those, he was banned for continually and persistently questioning identity when Margo had specifically said that she had checked, was satisfied, and would not publish any further comment on the subject, and for repeatedly accusing Margo and other editors of hypocrisy and other misdemeanours for sticking to that ruling. You can only insult Margo so many times before she's had enough.

Comment: How curious.

From an earlier draft: What a curious statement. Extraordinary, really: "Any attempts ... will be deleted." Hmmm. Just how free, the speech in WD? However, in the light of the info presented here, the statements by DR/MK now require clarification/correction.

The draft was referring to DR's relay of MK's statement that PM=PM. Which I have shown to be false, i.e. by proving that JW=PM.

Kindly note: Roffey seems to be continually hiding behind his Mistress' skirts, and says in so many words, that I was banned for declaring that the Empress has no clothes.

And possibly into the bargain, I may have accused the sorceress' apprentices of being unable sort their arses from their elbows?

Dear reader, can you work out what's going on?

In clear text, isn't it time we get some truth?

(i.e. what WD really knows about PM?)

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] rationale n. fundamental reason, logical basis. [neuter of Latin rationalis: related to *rational] [POD]