Keith & Patrick??

[jbrown84]

Thanks.

[Deni]

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...

[bandnerd]

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.

[Doug Loudenback]

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!

[Doug Loudenback]

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.

[Doug Loudenback]

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.

[SoonerDave]

** 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]

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.

[TomGirl]

You can make me # 4. Enough said.

[Midtowner]

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.

[Easy180]

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

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 Loudenback]

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?

[bandnerd]

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-undergrou...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 Loudenback]

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.

[Doug Loudenback]

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.

[Deni]

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

[Easy180]

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

[Pete]

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.

[bandnerd]

Sorry...

*kicks at a rock*

[Pete]

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.

[BailJumper]

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

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

[Karried]

We missed you, welcome back.

[venture]

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.

[Deni]

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 Loudenback]

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.