What happened to Keith and Patrick?

I used to like Patrick. That's kinda strange.

They are no longer affiliated with this site and I wish them well.

Is this gonna be one of those OKCTalk dictator moments where no explanation is given or allowed?

I remain optimistic that a rapproachment can be found. Such a thing would benefit us all.

Skins can get unrealistically thin ... I recall a day, long gone, about 3 years ago I think, when swords were crossed between Todd, et al, and me, when this site "shut down" for a day or two about or on the topic of membership fees. It was pretty ugly. I said some ugly things, and some ugly things were said back.

But, back in those days of the wild wild west, the Lone Ranger, aka the Downtown Guy, stepped into that period of time now long forgotten and his intervention resulted in all becoming well and good with the world, OkcTalk particularly included! So much so that when Todd announced, years later, that he'd sold this board to Malibu that I was honored, among several others, to be a recipient of Todd's parting thanks and remarks. It doesn't get much better for me, personally, than that! And, Todd, I'm hoping that you're reading this, because I mean this as a very sincere compliment to you (as well as to me)! We both learned and that was a very good thing.

I'm hoping for the same result today. Keith and Patrick have poured thousands of hours of their energy and time into this board, all to the good, perhaps more than any currently existing participants have, certainly including me.

Please, my brothers and sisters, find an amicable solution which will benefit us all. And, by the way, where is the Downtown Guy when we need him? :dizzy:

Oh ... wait ... I think that I hear his music, the William Tell Overture ... The LONE RANGER rides again! I wish!

WOW - just read Keith's blog. It certainly confirms what I was thinking. But I thought maybe it was just me taking things wrong all this time.

Personally, I think a mature mod. would recuse themselves from any TOS debate regarding a friend of theirs.

I think if this forum is truly for the members, then we should be allowed to discuss what happened and provide input.

Of course, this thread will probably get nixed.

WOW - just read Keith's blog. It certainly confirms what I was thinking. But I thought maybe it was just me taking things wrong all this time.

Personally, I think a mature mod. would recuse themselves from any TOS debate regarding a friend of theirs.

I think if this forum is truly for the members, then we should be allowed to discuss what happened and provide input.

Of course, this thread will probably get nixed.

IMHO MalibuSooner does not owe an explanation to anyone. Keith and Patrick made a personal decision to leave the forum. Like der Louderback I hope somehow the planets can all be re-aligned someday. In the meantime Keiths blog is public domain for anyone intersted. On a final note (and this may result in being moved to Nosebleed) I find Keiths comment about this forum no longer being relevant to OKC way off base. This forum has a wide cross section of metro area residents as active participants, easy one stop shopping for anyone, local politico or prospective resident, to get information that may have a personal bias but certainly lacks Chamber of Commerce spin. Said personal bias just may be the perspective based on age, education, marital status, or whatever demographic the seeker desired.

Okay, I'm out of the loop on this...where is Keith's blog?

-soonerdave

-removed-

Thanks.

-sd

IMHO MalibuSooner does not owe an explanation to anyone. Keith and Patrick made a personal decision to leave the forum. Like der Louderback I hope somehow the planets can all be re-aligned someday. In the meantime Keiths blog is public domain for anyone intersted. On a final note (and this may result in being moved to Nosebleed) I find Keiths comment about this forum no longer being relevant to OKC way off base. This forum has a wide cross section of metro area residents as active participants, easy one stop shopping for anyone, local politico or prospective resident, to get information that may have a personal bias but certainly lacks Chamber of Commerce spin. Said personal bias just may be the perspective based on age, education, marital status, or whatever demographic the seeker desired.

I agree with ya...Absolutely no problems w/ this forum that I can think of..Is very rare to see heated discussions even in the religion forum since several in your face posters were retired months back

Have a good mix of serious and fun threads...Exactly how it should be imo

As you can imagine, there is much more to all this than I can or will discuss.

I can assure you that I was forced to make decisions I did not want to make and worked very hard to find other alternatives.

As much as anyone here, I greatly appreciate what Keith & Patrick have done for this forum -- we all owe them a debt of gratitude.

FWIW, I think ya did good.

all I can say is OH HY HECK!!!!!!!!!!


Keith and I are friends and that wont change... Patrick and I had some different ideas but being banned from a site over that is crazy.

I dont know what is going on and nor do I want to know more than I do already. I was hoping this site would change for the better.

I am not sure that is going to happen..

I am sorry to see Keith and Patrick banned from the site.. I will miss them terribly...

FWIW, I think ya did good.

I think when we have a different ideas and beliefs. Just because you dont agree with someone you talk about them?

I dont agree with what happened.. I think when people get that offended on the net that really shows what kinda people they are in life. I can say Keith and Patrick are very lucky not be have friends that are this way in life.

Without knowing all the details (I've only heard Patrick's side of the story), I can understand why they were removed as moderators initially, but they have now been completely banned and I don't know why that was necessary.

As you can imagine, there is much more to all this than I can or will discuss.

I can assure you that I was forced to make decisions I did not want to make and worked very hard to find other alternatives.

As much as anyone here, I greatly appreciate what Keith & Patrick have done for this forum -- we all owe them a debt of gratitude.

See above...Sure something happened to where Malibu had to take an extreme measure

I think when we have a different ideas and beliefs. Just because you dont agree with someone you talk about them?

You assume an awful lot with this statement.

-- and that which you assume is completely off base.

I have a very long history here of being against banning people for their beliefs. Welcome to the board, btw.

I've now read Keith's blog, and I think it's absolutely RIDICULOUS that Malibu won't respond to this. It sounds to me like he (and several other anonymous mods) are the ones in the wrong, and I'd like to see a defense or maybe I will leave this forum as well.

I've now read Keith's blog, and I think it's absolutely RIDICULOUS that Malibu won't respond to this. It sounds to me like he (and several other anonymous mods) are the ones in the wrong, and I'd like to see a defense or maybe I will leave this forum as well.

You assume that 1) What Keith is saying is God's honest truth/the whole truth and that no one could possibly have another version of the story; and 2) that Malibu, the owner of this board has to justify himself to you.

Lots of assumptions flying around here today :)

You assume that 1) What Keith is saying is God's honest truth/the whole truth and that no one could possibly have another version of the story; and 2) that Malibu, the owner of this board has to justify himself to you.

Lots of assumptions flying around here today :)

No, I didn't asssume that. That's why I want to hear the other side of the story, thank you.

And maybe he does need to justify himself if he doesn't want to lose disgruntled members.

You seem to be the only one who's disgruntled.

How often did Todd ever explain himself around here? I can't recall a single time. Malibu can run this board in the way he sees fit, whether anyone else likes it or not. That's the joy of being the owner.

If you weren't a part of it, then it doesn't really concern you all that much, now does it? If Keith and Patrick start their own Christian Oklahomans forum then visit it and support it, and be their friend. That's fine.

I would like to come in in the "middle" of this and offer that we (well, I) only have access to half (a third?) the story. I've read Keith's blog, too, but I don't know what Patrick has to say, and so far Malibu has opted expressly not to say anything about the matter.

First, Malibu is the owner of the site and, in that capacity, I believe he can do whatever he darn well pleases. That's the grand beauty of ownership. He's no idiot, either, and I'm sure he has calculated that not responding to this situation in a more public way is a risk, even if that response is to people that are not directly affected by the catalyzing incident. Whether that is the wise position to take in this regard is subject to debate, but ultimately it is his call.

Second, all that said, it would be my suggestion (for whatever that's worth) that it might be in the best interests of the site that something resembling the "other side" be posted. I realize that moderation activities are often something done quietly, and for good reason. However, with one affected party having chosen to "go public" with their perspective, now we know that imaginations, extrapolations, inferences, and theories are running unchecked about the actions and beliefs of the other involved parties, none of which is an accurate representation of reality.

As I said, I don't presume to tell Malibu how to run his site. It would be my most respectful suggestion, however, that he consider offering his "side" (and I hate to use that term). I can't make any conclusions about what's going on until I have as much hard information as possible. Surely others here would not want to make decisions about leaving okctalk on the basis of incomplete information. There's good to be had here, and while many of us differ (sometimes intensely) on a wide variety of things, it would be a shame for the site in general to be imperiled by this incident.

-soonerdave

Basically comes down to Malibu not wanting to air everyone's dirty laundry on here

He explained things happened that forced his hand...Not like there is an ongoing sinister plot to get new moderators on here

You seem to be the only one who's disgruntled.

Acutally, I count at least 3 people just in this thread who have asked for an explanation.

It's one thing to not go public everytime you ban some guy with 100 posts, but when you are going to eliminate two long-time members that were moderators, I would like to hear an explanation. This is a bigger deal.

But SoonerDave is right. Malibu can do whatever he wants. I would just like to make an informed decision about what is going on here.

And it sure doesn't help that I have people speaking to me in negative tones everywhere I go.

What did I do to you bandnerd?

i don't think anybody needs to be given heat for being curious or asking questions. i know i'd be itching to know what's going on, so i can perfectly understand the desire to know 'the other side.'

jbrown, i (for one) hope you decide to stick around.

-M

Thanks.

I did not assume anything.. I know they were banned... I seen that much. I dont see eye to eye with alot of people in the world. Actually that is what makes America so AWESOME we can agree to disagree.

I dont even like half of my own clients, but to turn them away because I dont like them would be like cutting my own throat.

Patrick and Keith both have said there is no hard feelings, but sometimes being a leader you have to make choices you dont like. However I think also being a leader you should explain some things that seem to effect everyone like them being banned does this site.

They have some great friends on here and them being banned effects most of those friends .

Midtowner I have been a member of the site for awhile.. I was under HottCutz, but I begged Todd to change my name cause it got me confused when people talked to me and called me by my name on here.. Hott Cutz is my business not me...lol

I agree Malibu can do what he wants. That is the joy of owning your own business. I own my own business so I know what that means and I know that sometimes choices are hard to make. However to ban someone is just crazy. I have seen way worse on this site that has happened and none of those people got banned...????

Well.. I am not sorry I stood up for Patrick and Keith. They are great people.. Cant we all agree to disagree...

I apologize--I had an insanely bad day at work and I didn't mean to take it out on anyone on this board. I even canceled a piano lesson so I wouldn't take out my negativity and frustration on my 10 year-old student.

But like several people have now said--it's Malibu's decision. I will say, and I'm sure that everyone will not be shocked, that I am not sad to see either of them go. They had their reasons to leave in the first place. I have no problem letting them go.

I kind of stopped talking with Patrick when a heated discussion ended in him telling me I needed to give back the wedding gift he had gotten for us. I thought that was incredibly rude and it spoke volumes to me.

Keith has crossed words with me several times, and has been very unkind to me.

I have met both these people in person, and they seemed like nice enough guys at the time, but I saw sides of both of them that turned my stomach.

That said, I will wait for my pizza and take out my anger and frustration on it's cheesy goodness.

You seem to be the only one who's disgruntled.

How often did Todd ever explain himself around here? I can't recall a single time. Malibu can run this board in the way he sees fit, whether anyone else likes it or not. That's the joy of being the owner.

If you weren't a part of it, then it doesn't really concern you all that much, now does it? If Keith and Patrick start their own Christian Oklahomans forum then visit it and support it, and be their friend. That's fine.
Well, actually, I do remember at least one ... since it involved ME, I remember it! See my earlier post in this thread.

At that time, after everyone stepped back and took some deep breaths (after Downtown Guy's intervention (god bless that masked man!), each of us involved in the fracus at that time apologized with explanations IN THIS FORUM as well as privately all the way around ... Todd, Keith, me ... I don't remember if Patrick was involved in the situation. We all grew up a little, lo so many months ago!

Midtowner, my friend ... and you've not forgotten that I am, correct? ... I think that you are perhaps being uncharacteristally inconsistent ... in this thread, first, you said,


FWIW, I think ya did good.
... but then ...


I have a very long history here of being against banning people for their beliefs.
Now, I'm sure that these statements are reconcilable, but there does seem present in your 1st remark something other than dispassionate objectivity and agreement that the banning was "good," for reasons you did not disclose.

I was one of your defenders, as you know ... hell, I even defended Mr. Anderson once upon a time, and, if memory serves, the "two o' youtz" are like oil and water! I need not remind you that not a few people here said much the same about your being banned here some time back. I was not one of them, but one who protested. You ventured off into what is now OkMet.com but eventually came back here. Frankly, I like both places and don't see them as mutually exclusive.

All I'm saying, at its core, is that this problem can surely be "fixed" if reasonable minds want to do so. And, I hope that they do.

A starting point is communication between those who are involved.

I apologize--I had an insanely bad day at work and I didn't mean to take it out on anyone on this board. I even canceled a piano lesson so I wouldn't take out my negativity and frustration on my 10 year-old student.

But like several people have now said--it's Malibu's decision. I will say, and I'm sure that everyone will not be shocked, that I am not sad to see either of them go. They had their reasons to leave in the first place. I have no problem letting them go.

I kind of stopped talking with Patrick when a heated discussion ended in him telling me I needed to give back the wedding gift he had gotten for us. I thought that was incredibly rude and it spoke volumes to me.

Keith has crossed words with me several times, and has been very unkind to me.

I have met both these people in person, and they seemed like nice enough guys at the time, but I saw sides of both of them that turned my stomach.

That said, I will wait for my pizza and take out my anger and frustration on it's cheesy goodness.
Bandnerd, in my opinion, "telling tales" of personal stuff is not fair play if the other person doesn't have the ability to respond. Frankly, telling personal tales about another member, in this case, former member, is probably out of line, anyway you cut it.

** sigh ** Now we have aspersions cast against those who can no longer defend themselves. This is precisely what led me to make the suggestion that the other side of this issue should come out for the good of the site. This is how things start spiraling out of control or proportion...

-sd

Bandnerd, in my opinion, "telling tales" of personal stuff is not fair play if the other person doesn't have the ability to respond. Frankly, telling personal tales about another member, in this case, former member, is probably out of line, anyway you cut it.

Doug, these are not "tales" as they are out in the open. These things were said, I believe, on the forum, not in private messages.

All I'm saying is that no one is perfect, and frankly, Keith and Patrick are no exceptions. Neither am I. But obviously, a line was crossed, and something was done about it. People saying they were great people and great contributors irks me because I saw a different side of both of them and I guess others either never saw that, or they conveniently forgot.

And I will politely back out of this thread now, as it is apparent that I have nothing useful to add, at least nothing that anyone would like to hear.

You can make me # 4. Enough said.

Now, I'm sure that these statements are reconcilable, but there does seem present in your 1st remark something other than dispassionate objectivity and agreement that the banning was "good," for reasons you did not disclose.

Doug,

I don't see how the two statements even have to be reconciled. What one does and what one believes are two entirely different things. Perhaps my condemnation is more for the former of those two than the later?

Keith made it no secret that he wasn't my biggest fan. In fact, he's the reason I disappeared for a few months. I suddenly found him nitpicking at what I did while allowing others to get away with murder (e.g., calling my wife a "waste," a "future unfit mother," etc.) He had acted against me, deleting my posts, banning my name on multiple occasions. His actions were reversed every time because they were found to be without foundation and unreasonable.

So am I sorry to see him gone? Not at all.

mods, feel free to delete whatever in this post is objectionable. As I read the TOS, it says "advocacy" of a banned member is verboten.... it says not a thing about condemnation. I'm pretty sure I can prove every bit of what I'm saying as I should have the emails and PM's to show what occured.

Also, FWIW, this whole thread violates the TOS in that it is questioning the acts of a moderator/the admin. I feel my posts are in line because I'm questioning someone who is an ex-moderator, thus not seemingly falling under the definition of that rule.

bandnerd to be fair you really should have included all the personal stuff on your blog instead of here...:wink:

Those tales were on public threads as you said bandnerd as my dorky self remembers that whole ordeal


I too hope we don't lose anymore on here because of this

Doug, these are not "tales" as they are out in the open. These things were said, I believe, on the forum, not in private messages.

All I'm saying is that no one is perfect, and frankly, Keith and Patrick are no exceptions. Neither am I. But obviously, a line was crossed, and something was done about it. People saying they were great people and great contributors irks me because I saw a different side of both of them and I guess others either never saw that, or they conveniently forgot.

And I will politely back out of this thread now, as it is apparent that I have nothing useful to add, at least nothing that anyone would like to hear.
Bandnerd, I have no knowledge of what you said about Patrick and the gift item was mentioned "publically" in this forum. I rarely venture beyone current Okc & Bricktown stuff, so I'm largely ignorant of what is posted in other elements of OkcTalk since that's not "where I want to go." If, as you suggest, what you alluded to is already in the "public" arena, a link would easily demonstrate that.

We do agree, though, that "no one" is perfect ... including me. I've already "exposed" part of my own imperfection in the 1st post I made in this thread. I made a "knee-jerk" reaction to something long since past ... guys at OkcTalk did, too. Knee-jerks all the way around! But, thanks to the Downtown Guy, ... well, I've already said that.

I have enjoyed reading your messages elsewhere here and have no reason to disrespect either you or your ideas or opinions. And, I don't.

So, when you said, "... as it is apparent that I have nothing useful to add, at least nothing that anyone would like to hear...," if you meant to say that I wasn't opening to listening and considering your thoughts, and I mean, "really" listening, that's just not so.

But, if you think that it's OK for me to tell a "private" story about you (and we've never met so that's an impossiblity) in the public area of this forum, that is where we have to part company. That's never ever an Ok thing to do. I've not read the TOC in a long long while, but I have to assume that there's probably something in there about that. And that's even all the more true when the object of the private story lacks the capacity to respond, i.e., a "banned" member with thousands of posts prior to his banishment, and, in this instance, one of the few who developed this forum into become the place that we, you, me, lots of others, enjoy. There are always at least two sides to every story. Always. It's never any other way. That concept is probably one of those unwritten "god-things" ... something that is universally, always, and invariably, true.

Make sense?

Thank you, Easy, for remembering.

Okay, so I'm not being fair. But this whole thread isn't fair...and I'm pretty sure Mid is right in saying that this whole thread is a violation of the TOS, if we're going to get all technical about it.

Everyone here seems to have completely been in love with these two, and I saw a different side. That's all I'm trying to say. I can't back that up without giving some personal experiences, although they were on this public forum. This forum will continue with or without them.

I did a search for you, Doug: http://www.okctalk.com/okc-underground/7999-okctalk-one-big-family.html?highlight=wedding+gift#post73903

Actually, Patrick asked Mid for the wedding gift money back, not me, but since we are married, I was a little more than insulted. I didn't really say that on the forum, but it was said for me.

I'm pretty sure if you all want to keep in touch with Patrick and/or Keith, you can find their email addresses pretty easily.

And Doug, I didn't necessarily mean you weren't listening to what I had to say, but that my opinion is obviously SO different on this topic, and everyone is going to be protective of these two ex-mods, that I really don't see any point to me posting much more in this thread, because everyone's minds are already made up.

Doug,

I don't see how the two statements even have to be reconciled. What one does and what one believes are two entirely different things. Perhaps my condemnation is more for the former of those two than the later?

Keith made it no secret that he wasn't my biggest fan. In fact, he's the reason I disappeared for a few months. I suddenly found him nitpicking at what I did while allowing others to get away with murder (e.g., calling my wife a "waste," a "future unfit mother," etc.) He had acted against me, deleting my posts, banning my name on multiple occasions. His actions were reversed every time because they were found to be without foundation and unreasonable.

So am I sorry to see him gone? Not at all.

mods, feel free to delete whatever in this post is objectionable. As I read the TOS, it says "advocacy" of a banned member is verboten.... it says not a thing about condemnation. I'm pretty sure I can prove every bit of what I'm saying as I should have the emails and PM's to show what occured.

Also, FWIW, this whole thread violates the TOS in that it is questioning the acts of a moderator/the admin. I feel my posts are in line because I'm questioning someone who is an ex-moderator, thus not seemingly falling under the definition of that rule.
Great, Midtowner! You'll make a great lawyer, favoring form over substance! Not a problem for me, "from time to time." We do what we need to do to represent our clients.

This isn't a "lawyerly" forum, it is an exchange of ideas forum with the focus on Oklahoma City. Hopefully, it is a place that intelligent discussion is the guage. Hopefully, it is a place where substance rather than form reigns supreme.

You are, from my memory, correct in saying that "Keith" wasn't one of your biggest fans! But, so what? Does "Keith=not one my biggest fans" equate to banishment in your book these days? If you are friendly to that equation, how do you handle my support of you during your banishment, and my support of you during your "reinstatement?" Do you think that I should perceive, in fairness, your situation in a different way than I do Keith and Patrick?

You lumped Keith and Patrick together in your "good" comment. You've voiced your grievances against Keith, but what about Patrick? We're talking about two individual people here, so I guess you have a case with Patrick, as well?

Midtowner, "lots" of people weren't your "biggest fan" here. You posted (in olden times) in a provocative manner. You know that's so. I even joined with you on many occasions (e.g., gay issues, whatever) before I decided that engaging in argument for argument's sake was not worth the time spent), but that fact did not prevent me from coming to your defense. Not only once, but on many occasions.

You once were "Thomas Jefferson" (at least in your avatar).

So, Midtowner, are you straight out saying that it was a "good" thing to ban Patrick and Keith, even though, and perhaps because, they didn't "like" you or were your adversaries?

If not that, why do you say that it was "good" for them to be banned as well as stripped of their status?

I'm listening.

My Probable Final Post In This Thread

Well, for sure, some time passing, and it's eveident that I'm not "the Lone Ranger" aka the venerable Downtown Guy who worked miracles in my much eqarlier conflict/resoluton context and, as well, that I am essentially useless in trying to find a solution that will "make things Ok here again."

I sent a PM to Malibu yesterday about this, but I have no reply so far. If Malibu is opting out of the response process to threads such as this, he's he owner here, and that is his priviledge.

In the absence of forum-owner input, this thread goes on for now.

As far as this thread is concerned, the posts in this thread tend to be 'black/white" (e.g. argumentative) ... "I'm right, you are wrong" ... kind of things. I've received some private e-mails from the "dispactched" members indicating they'ed be glad to "talk" with Malibu but that they've not head from him in this conext.

I think that's where I stop, and exit, at least for now.

I have always seen bad and good threads from alot of people. I for one also like bandnerd. She is a great person, tho we disagree on some issues..

Now would I want her husband or herself banned because they said things I did not agree with ? I dont get how we can actually kick someone off a site because we decided we did not like the choice they made or the words they used.

If that is the case Mr Anderson would have been banned along time ago when he was totally insulting bandnerd,karried and myself as women. He got away with all that...

I understand okctalk has a new owner. I get that part..But Mr Bush is our President and I dont agree with him all the time. I also can say giving constructive criticism can be a good thing. So I gave my thoughts on this subject and I am another that is done with the conversation..
One more thing.. I think its really bad when it has banned by their names... I think that shows lack of class or respect for people..

They can just join me as (moderator rejects) lol

Deni

Well judging from Keith's blog he was a big fan of my work on here

Not really sure why he singled me out aside from a recent religious thread that got him upset...Before that I think I had conversed with him less than 5 times in the year I've been on here

Like I said before there really hasn't been any truly heated discussions on here since cc and thecomedian left this fine forum so I'm not sure how this thing blew up

I do want to say I don't believe any of this had anything to do with religion...Think that is quite a stretch and doesn't make any sense at all

Doug, I never received a PM from you otherwise I certainly would have responded.



I don't know what to say about all this other than I really don't think it's appropriate to air dirty laundry in public.

Anyone that has been on this board for a while knows that I have never once had the slightest disagreement with anyone, that I'm always rational and respectful.

You also have to know that I would stand nothing to gain by dealing with this situation in the way that has been forced upon me. I truly regret that these things have come to pass but I have to do what's best for the site.

I can also assure you that if any of you were in my position, you would have done the exact same thing and likely sooner than I did.


As for the "banned" part, there is no way to change that title in the system otherwise I would.


And finally, I'm allowing this discussion to go on because I realize this is a big change and people want to express themselves a bit. However, let's please refrain from posting personal opinions about other members here. Thanks.

Sorry...

*kicks at a rock*

I hate to even address this issue directly because the implication is so insulting and silly...

But of course religion/faith/personal beliefs had absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

That's it - I've decided to leave OKCTalk too!

Oh, wait..... that only impacts me. never mind - I'm back.

We missed you, welcome back. :rolleyes:

I wasn't sure if I wanted to jump into this or not, but heres my personal view points - much like many others here.

1) This Malibu's site now. He is the one that stepped up and made the financial commitment to keep things running.
2) There are always multiple sides to the same story. When someone leaves a job they could never succeed in - they will ususally go on about how horrible the company is. While another in that same company, that same job, will go on about how great it is.
3) The way OKCTalk has been setup over the last year or so has been quite unique. The ability for the moderator team to participate in some heated topics/debates is ususally one that turns my stomach (especially on sites that I operate). My belief has always been to try to keep the moderators in business mode, and everyone else can do as they please according to the terms of the site. The ability for this site to help balance that is a great thing, but also one to note that when things go bad - it won't really be all that comfortable.

This site continues to be a great draw and one of the more organized discussion forums for a city. In order to remain a draw, the site must remain and independent forum for a free exchange of ideas and opinions without the worry that you must watch what you say or becareful how far against a certain establishment you go. From my interpretation of Keith's blog, he wanted this site to stay closely tied to the "Christian values" of the previous ownership. Not exactly sure what he means by it, as I haven't seen a huge shift. I have seen a more open discussion on various topics. He also mentioned that he is going to search out another city forum that is Christian based. My only opinion here is that if we are to truly have a forum that is welcoming to everyone for a city as large and diverse as ours, we must realize not everyone is Christian and we can't expect independent religous views to dictate how it is run. I don't think Malibu wants to create a site that is going to restrict certain (or be very unappealing to) people from joining. Our city has a good number of people from all beliefs...from Christianity to Pagan. We have people of every color, nearly every ethnic background, different orientations, etc.

Forums should be dictated by good old common sense, nothing more and nothing less. If you are the one in charge and you see something developing that you know is going to do harm to your investment, you stop it before it gets worse. I feel this is what happened. However the one thing we can't expect is a full blown explanation from Malibu. It's not really our place even though we may feel we were close to those that are gone (not that I was). If you are really concerned about the site...I'm sure he doesn't mind talking to you offline or in another private manner. We aren't really entitled to any explanation and those of us that had to fire employees before will know how that goes. You wish you could just come out and say exactly what happened, but the privacy of that other person must be upheld. No whether or not that other person wishes to disclose it or not is up to them, but beware as if there is any bitterness involved, it will definitely impact the reasoning given no matter how "honest" you belief the other party will be.

I wasn't sure if I wanted to jump into this or not, but heres my personal view points - much like many others here.

1) This Malibu's site now. He is the one that stepped up and made the financial commitment to keep things running.
2) There are always multiple sides to the same story. When someone leaves a job they could never succeed in - they will ususally go on about how horrible the company is. While another in that same company, that same job, will go on about how great it is.
3) The way OKCTalk has been setup over the last year or so has been quite unique. The ability for the moderator team to participate in some heated topics/debates is ususally one that turns my stomach (especially on sites that I operate). My belief has always been to try to keep the moderators in business mode, and everyone else can do as they please according to the terms of the site. The ability for this site to help balance that is a great thing, but also one to note that when things go bad - it won't really be all that comfortable.

This site continues to be a great draw and one of the more organized discussion forums for a city. In order to remain a draw, the site must remain and independent forum for a free exchange of ideas and opinions without the worry that you must watch what you say or becareful how far against a certain establishment you go. From my interpretation of Keith's blog, he wanted this site to stay closely tied to the "Christian values" of the previous ownership. Not exactly sure what he means by it, as I haven't seen a huge shift. I have seen a more open discussion on various topics. He also mentioned that he is going to search out another city forum that is Christian based. My only opinion here is that if we are to truly have a forum that is welcoming to everyone for a city as large and diverse as ours, we must realize not everyone is Christian and we can't expect independent religous views to dictate how it is run. I don't think Malibu wants to create a site that is going to restrict certain (or be very unappealing to) people from joining. Our city has a good number of people from all beliefs...from Christianity to Pagan. We have people of every color, nearly every ethnic background, different orientations, etc.

Forums should be dictated by good old common sense, nothing more and nothing less. If you are the one in charge and you see something developing that you know is going to do harm to your investment, you stop it before it gets worse. I feel this is what happened. However the one thing we can't expect is a full blown explanation from Malibu. It's not really our place even though we may feel we were close to those that are gone (not that I was). If you are really concerned about the site...I'm sure he doesn't mind talking to you offline or in another private manner. We aren't really entitled to any explanation and those of us that had to fire employees before will know how that goes. You wish you could just come out and say exactly what happened, but the privacy of that other person must be upheld. No whether or not that other person wishes to disclose it or not is up to them, but beware as if there is any bitterness involved, it will definitely impact the reasoning given no matter how "honest" you belief the other party will be.



Very well said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doug, I never received a PM from you otherwise I certainly would have responded.

I don't know what to say about all this other than I really don't think it's appropriate to air dirty laundry in public.

Anyone that has been on this board for a while knows that I have never once had the slightest disagreement with anyone, that I'm always rational and respectful.

You also have to know that I would stand nothing to gain by dealing with this situation in the way that has been forced upon me. I truly regret that these things have come to pass but I have to do what's best for the site.

I can also assure you that if any of you were in my position, you would have done the exact same thing and likely sooner than I did.

As for the "banned" part, there is no way to change that title in the system otherwise I would.

And finally, I'm allowing this discussion to go on because I realize this is a big change and people want to express themselves a bit. However, let's please refrain from posting personal opinions about other members here. Thanks.
Thanks, Malibu. When I clicked on your name and used the pop-up list, "Send a PM" or something like that, "Admin" was the identified recipient, and I assumed that to be you. I guess it went to someone else, whoever "Admin" is. I've now pasted my original message into my reply to a message from you a few minutes ago.

On Edit after reading Venture79's post, above: Good observations, Venture, and I align myself with your expressed viewpoints. I don't see that "religion" has anything to do with the matter and it certainly has nothing at all to do with my expressions ... I am not a religious person (as far as I am aware) ...

I do wish that a positive solution could be found ... and I appreciate that Malibu is allowing this discussion to occur even though he could easily enough stop it with a click or two.

Thank you, Easy, for remembering.

Okay, so I'm not being fair. But this whole thread isn't fair...and I'm pretty sure Mid is right in saying that this whole thread is a violation of the TOS, if we're going to get all technical about it.

Everyone here seems to have completely been in love with these two, and I saw a different side. That's all I'm trying to say. I can't back that up without giving some personal experiences, although they were on this public forum. This forum will continue with or without them.

I did a search for you, Doug: http://www.okctalk.com/okc-underground/7999-okctalk-one-big-family.html?highlight=wedding+gift#post73903

Actually, Patrick asked Mid for the wedding gift money back, not me, but since we are married, I was a little more than insulted. I didn't really say that on the forum, but it was said for me.

I'm pretty sure if you all want to keep in touch with Patrick and/or Keith, you can find their email addresses pretty easily.

And Doug, I didn't necessarily mean you weren't listening to what I had to say, but that my opinion is obviously SO different on this topic, and everyone is going to be protective of these two ex-mods, that I really don't see any point to me posting much more in this thread, because everyone's minds are already made up.

Thanks, Bandnerd,

Well, I now see that there is a good reason that I don't visit "The Underground"! What Patrick said there was clearly in the "tacky" category and the whole discussion of "family" in that thread (which I've just completely read) is as dumb as a can of worms, imo.

I think that you may have a misperception, though, about what I'm saying or, at least, trying to. My intent is not to "defend" either Keith or Patrick in the sense that I'm "in love" with either of them and I certainly don't stand up for remarks like Patrick made in "the Underground," which I gather is something like a no-holds-barred place to go to by definition -- I guess one enters "the Underground" at one's risk! As should be evident enough from comments I've made, in this thread and elsewhere, I'm certainly not a Christian conservative ... I'm not inclined to be a religious person at all. Ethical, I hope, but "religious", not.

But, banning someone from a public forum who I disagree with or who I don't like is not where I'm at, either. Of course, that's not my call to make. As for being "protective", all I would add is that is was just as protective, in this sense, of Midtowner, when he was banned here, if you were not aware.

I've desperately tried to stay out of this discussion because there are no winners in what's taken place.

However, since so many members here are aware of and reading the running commentary on Keith's blog, I wanted the opportunity to set the record straight on some specific mischaracterizations he has made, since he decided to specifically single me out in one of his posts yesterday. It's obvious someone is passing along the information back to Keith, so here's an opportunity for him to correct his mistakes. I sincerely doubt he would give my comment on his blog the same exposure he's allowed his own mischaracterizations.

First, his mischaracterizations specifically about me:


PUGalicious: Wow, I could write a book about this member. He has changed his name many times on this forum. He was Scribe, 111_brad_street, and now PUGalicious. He was a moderator at one time, but he couldn't handle the pressure of having to enforce the TOS. Again, we would try to enforce the TOS, and he would disagree with us. So, he had a short stint as a moderator. One thing that many of the veteran members know is that if you disagree with Pug on anything, it makes him very upset. He doesn't like to be proved wrong on anything (like Midtowner). Three times, he has gotten mad on the forum, and three times he has tucked tail and gone into "exile." He is also very abrasive in his posts. He is also very good friends with the female moderator, Midtowner, bandnerd, and Easy180. If you ever make him mad, watch out. He will either attack you or he will get mad and go into exile.


The reason I single out these certain members is because they are partly the reason why Patrick and I are gone. As you notice, there are only about 4-5 members that we have really had problems with. They never liked us because we enforced the rules, and they have always wanted a forum that was "rule free." Now, they have one. These are the types of members that have no respect for others' opinions, and they will do whatever they can to intimidate anyone that disagrees with what they say. Anybody can agree to disagree in a respectful manner, but these posters can't.


I know all about these members because of the years that I have been on the forum. I don't tell you all of this to be mean or to show disrespect to anyone. These are the facts, and this is the type of behavior that you will now experience on the forum.

First, some clarification to put this fact into context: "He has changed his name many times on this forum. He was Scribe, 111_brad_street, and now PUGalicious."
It is true. I have changed my name — twice, which hardly qualified as "many times." I changed it from Scribe to 111_brad_street when I started a family blog by that name and was inviting others to get to know more about me and my family. I subsequently changed it from 111_brad_street to PUGalicious when I shut down that family blog to protect the privacy of my family after discovering that there were viewers of the blog with sinister intentions and I didn't want to expose my daughters to that any more. I chose to switch to PUGalicious rather than back to Scribe for two reasons: first, because I had just gotten a second pug and I absolutely love my pugs; second, because I was hoping to separate myself from the early days when I tended to be much more abrasive. I wasn't trying to hide anything, because my old posts weren't deleted and the new names were attached to the old posts; I was hoping that a friendlier name would reflect a sincere desire to be less abrasive. Apparently, some interpreted as trying to hide who I was, no matter how ludicrous that is. If I was trying to do that, I would create fictitious accounts and post under false identities, something Keith knows about all too well (calling Rev. Bob and 1Adam12). And I certainly am not the first or only person to have his/her member name changed; I could recount handful off the top of my head. So I'm not sure what Keith is trying to say or prove with this "indictment."
Issue 2: "He was a moderator at one time, but he couldn't handle the pressure of having to enforce the TOS. Again, we would try to enforce the TOS, and he would disagree with us. So, he had a short stint as a moderator."
I was a moderator at one time. And it was quite eye-opening to see the behind-the-scenes stuff going on. Does Keith really want to air out all the dirty laundry? People who live in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones. There's a paper trail, after all.

Couldn't handle the pressure of having to enforce the TOS? That's simply not true. I resigned for three reasons:
It's not that I could not or was unwilling to enforce TOS. I certainly enforced them a few times with a handful of agitators whose mission it was to attack Todd, Patrick and Keith and to troll the threads. However, I had distinct differences in interpretation of alleged violations of TOS and a profound disagreement as to the heavy-handed and oft-unbalanced approach by Keith. I never really had an issue with Todd or Patrick in how they were handling matters on the board at the time.
I was uncomfortable with some of the practices of two particular moderators that most members on this forum would likely be disturbed by; for now, I'll leave it at that, unless Keith wants to continue to mischaracterize the "honesty, integrity and trust" of the various players in this drama);
The final straw was my own actions. I resigned out of principle as a form of self-policing when I allowed my emotions to cross a line and another member called me on it — I resigned because it was the right thing to do. If Keith had operated with the same principle, he would have resigned long ago.Issue 3: "One thing that many of the veteran members know is that if you disagree with Pug on anything, it makes him very upset. He doesn't like to be proved wrong on anything (like Midtowner)."
I plead guilty, at least in part. There are very few people who like being proved wrong. However, I never objected to people disagreeing with me, until they made it personal. I've had respectful, even heated at times, disagreements with other members — MadMonk, Easy180, Curt, Midtowner and others. And a simple review of recent posts will demonstrate that Keith certainly is guilty of that which he indicts me of.
Issue 4: "Three times, he has gotten mad on the forum, and three times he has tucked tail and gone into "exile.""
Again, this is partially true. I did go into a self-imposed exile on three different occasions — it was a self-imposed banishment when I let my emotions get the better of me and I needed to step away, take a breather and get some perspective. Is a self-imposed exile the same as tucking tail and running or is it an honest attempt at diffusing the situation and trying to stay with in the TOS? I suppose that's open to interpretation. But Keith himself has gotten mad on the forum and "tucked tail and going into 'exile'," two times which he openly admits on his own blog! Again, why does he chastise and indict me of actions that he himself has done?
Issue 5: "He is also very abrasive in his posts."
At times this is true. But any disagreement can be classified as "abrasive" by someone sensitive to that; and certainly anyone who strongly disagrees would find is "very abrasive." Again, I ask you to review Keith's most recent posts, especially in the religion thread, and ask yourself if those posts aren't themselves "very abrasive."
Issue 6: "He is also very good friends with the female moderator, Midtowner, bandnerd, and Easy180."
This indictment is probably the most entertaining of all. I don't know what classifies as "very good friends;" however, with all due respect to each of these members, by my definition we are not "very good friends." I only know these members from my interaction with them on the forum. I don't interact with these members on a one-to-one basis (like PMs) on a regular basis. I don't talk with these members outside of this forum. I've never met any of these members in person. And, honestly, I don't always agree (and sometimes even strongly disagree) with some of these members. I know them, I generally respect them, but by most reasonable definitions, we are not "very good friends."

Issue 7: "If you ever make him mad, watch out. He will either attack you or he will get mad and go into exile."
Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you ever made Keith mad, watch out. He would stalk you, threaten you with a ban and bitterly and hatefully attack you when you dared to disagree with him or hold him to the same standard he held others — again, I have a paper trail should he decide to disclaim it.

And, his accusations against me are indictments of himself. "He will either attack you or he will get mad and go into exile." Sounds like what he just did, as evidenced on his blog:


I can�t continue on with this forumhttp://www.xanga.com/images/sad.gif. I have not officially resigned from the forum, but I do know that I will no longer be posting.
...
Actually, Patrick and I could start our own and have a really good one�..I just don�t know if we want to devote our time to it or not.

Either way, we are through posting on this certain OKC message board.

If that's not getting mad, tucking tale and running, I don't know what is.
Issue 8: "I don't tell you all of this to be mean or to show disrespect to anyone. These are the facts, and this is the type of behavior that you will now experience on the forum."
He is, in fact, being mean and showing disrespect in his blog posts. He's disrespecting Malibu, he's disrespecting Karrie and mmm, and he's just plain being mean to those who ever dared to disagree with him.

"These are the facts..." No, they are mischaracterizations. But I really have no doubt that this is Keith's reality, even if it isn't the truth.
There is so much in Keith's posts that are misleading and outright false, and there is so much that is unfair to many involved, that it would take pages to tell the "other side" of the story. And it's not because I'm privy to anything that transpired in the last week. It's solely based on my personal experiences on this forum and interactions with some of the players involved. There is indeed more sides to the story. I've offered one more piece to the puzzle and only after I was called out on Keith's blog, which was then referenced in this thread.

I wanted to offer the "other side" on those things that Keith directly accused me of. I'll let the other players offer their side as they see fit. But for now, I'll leave it at that.

I sent a PM along those lines to Malibu.

I did make the top of his list though.. even after being gone for sixish months..

..which is awesome.

obsess much, Keith? :)

Oh.. and in honor of the Keith's list of infamy, the wife found this smiley:

:gossip:

I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish by doing that. It really is quite petty and childish.

Okay, I think everyone has had their say and it's time to close this thread, as I don't want posters here to get in a retaliatory mode for what they might read elsewhere.

All of us affiliated with the site are going to stay on the high road and frankly, the way this has been handled on both sides provides you a small hint of the underlying problems.

If you have any more questions or concerns please send me a PM.

Thanks.