Originally posted by DCBluesman
<br /><b>An open response to Jeff </b>(since I was the only member singled out)
I really believe that the issue between Eagle and me should remain between us and not be up for public discussion. However, since he's orchestrating this discussion via a few friends, I'm going to assume that he won't mind me making this post.
Actually, Jeff, Eagle has specifically asked MANY of us not to write to you nor to post on the forum about the incident.
When I readmitted Eagle to the forum we agreed on some ground rules for his behavior. I told him that there were people on this site who wanted him gone and would troll, bait, and annoy him until he did something to get ejected. My very specific instruction to him was that when he felt challenged by someone and was being drawn into an argument, he was to notify me and I'd take care of it by dealing with the trolls. This was our agreement, plain and simple.
I have to respectfully disagree with you. The thread was not "baiting". It was an assault on his character. Along with your advisors, you chose to allow it to continue. The failure to offer any form of protection while the "sword of Damocles" swung over his head was a miserable failing which caused a valuable member of the site to be dismissed. Not only has he been dismissed from posting, but you have also taken away his right to even VIEW the forum...a right you give to any OTHER member of the public.
Cozee trolled Eagle in the topic with the big bird pictures, and rather than honor our agreement, Eagle decided to deal with Cozee on his own. In an email after I locked his account, Eagle complained that I was making him "run to Jeff" rather than letting him make Cozee justify his remarks.
Jeff, you pulled the thread (and hid it even from the archives) so I cannot quote it, but Cozee did not "troll" It was an outright attack. If you did not see the post for the several days it was up there, surely your moderators did. Someone could have and should have taken action since you prohibited Eagle from even DEFENDING himself. By the way, your hiding the thread reminds me of a quote from you. "Honestly, I want to know because there is a flaw in the logic of ignoring users. Not a flaw in the code, but a flaw in the psychology of "if I don't see it, it isn't there" That thread is STILL here in many of our collective memories.
Lou points out that it's human nature to want to defend against what you feel are false statements or accusations. Nobody wants to run to the principal. But that was the agreement between Eagle and I. Had he not wanted to abide by it, he should not have agreed to.
Yes, our agreement was that he was to let me deal with people who trolled him. I asked him to do that because I felt it was the only way to avoid confrontations between him and those who don't want him around. Eagle does not exactly have a reputation for calm discussion when he's put on the spot. Most of us calmly and logically deal with such things, and he does not. If he had followed my instructions as agreed, Cozee would have gotten the boot instead of both of them.
Let me further say that even though I had promised to eject him permanently if he broke our agreement, I did not intend that after the Big Bird incident. I had given him umpteen breaks already, I figured I'd let him cool off for a while, let him stew over it, then we'd see about getting him back in.
If you are going to tie someone's hands, you have a heightened requirement to make sure they are not assaulted while unable to defend themselves. "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
I received a number of emails from him after the incident. He referred to me as "having no credibility", "making boneheaded decisions", "not having the guts" to deal with him, and "not being able to admit a mistake." I don't have the inclination to deal with someone who has zero respect for other people.
Sorry, but injustice brings out intolerance. In both you and Eagle. I've been on the other side of this with you, Jeff.
I went against the advice of many people when I readmitted Eagle. I realize that people make mistakes, and I respected his approach to me requesting reasmission. Although I promised that I'd ban him at the first sign of trouble, and he understood that, instead I warned him to watch his step on at least six occasions. I bent over backwards to keep him around.
Bent over backwards while holding a sword over his head...by watching his every move...by hanging on to each minor scuffle? As for the "many", you can read IN THIS THREAD that there are more than a few who are more interested in having him ADD to the value of this forum than are annoyed by his style. Of course, there will always be the CJC to take shots whenever and wherever as long as it's under cover of darkness.
Regarding my opening comment about this entire discussion. It's a sham. Unless I am grossly misinformed, Bernie (brokenbit) and Eagle are friends and talk frequently. I believe that Bernie knows exactly where Eagle is, and made his "where is Eagle" post, probably at the request of Eagle, just to stir up this type of discussion.
Can you substantiate this accusation or is this another self-evident truth?
One final thing... On a lot of other discussion forums, this kind of topic would not get past the first post. Complaints about discipline are not generally tolerated. I'm letting it run because reading the followups I get the feeling that you all think I'm dealing with Eagle unfairly and I think that the opposite is true. To the best of my ability, I try to be fair and interpret what are obviously subjective the rules as fairly as I can. When I make mistakes it's usually on the side of tolerance. In this case, my tolerance ran out.
Your tolerance may have run out, but the members of this forum have been cheated by this decision.
As has been pointed out, you (technically) "own" the site. I get no vote, nor do any of the rest of us. But what constitutes ownership? You and Scott paid the freight for this forum in the first year. A few more chipped in during year two. This past year, several THOUSAND dollars of the direct expenses were paid for by members. In your own site documents you acknowledge that you are the "caretaker" of the site. As much as anyone on this site, I know how much time you have and continue to donate in the technical management and day-to-day operations, but do not forget that the REAL owners of the site are the members and contributors.
Without us, there is no site. You don't have to agree with us. You don't have to like us. You don't even have to tolerate us. In the end, if enough decisions are made, decisions that lessen the value of the forum, you will be preaching to yourself.
As to those of you who believe, as I do, that Eagle adds more than he detracts, please keep in mind that "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
In this world, silence is assumed agreement. Weigh in on controversial subjects. "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
] Some of the newer folks missed some good battles between the two of us. 
