Who Was That Guy? Banned.

QED:

So. Banned by Lolly, eh?

ndifference:

Yep.

QED:

Pourquoi?

ndifference:

Does it matter?

QED:

Maybe. Maybe not. A lot of people would like to know.

ndifference:

If you want to know every nasty, sordid detail I'll tell you, but that isn't appropriate for Suture. Suture is about writing and art, not imbecilic episodes. Well, I guess you could say Suture itself is a protracted imbecilic episode. (laughing)

QED:

(laughing) I think that's a self-deprecating statement, but why don't you just give us a nutshell explanation here and we'll worry about the nasty details elsewhere.

ndifference:

There is no explanation, only theories. One thing is certain, though, and this is from Angelo himself: I didn't violate any specific policy. The inference Angelo made in a recent email to me was that he simply can't have me criticizing his management, whether they deserve it or not. Especially if they deserve it.

QED:

Well that's just narrow-minded and childish, isn't it?

ndifference:

It's his site so he can do as he pleases. If that's what pleases him, then so be it. I'm not going to argue that.

QED:

Lolly obviously has a beef that goes beyond what you said to him in the forum. He went to great lengths to construct an elaborate back-story in a couple of user journals after you were banned, much of it being refuted by imperfect, but he's got to be really pissed or upset or childish to do something like that. Any ideas about what's behind it?

ndifference:

A year and a half ago I forced Lolly to do something that was ethical and fair and I recently reminded him of that.

QED:

And?

ndifference:

And what? That's it.

QED:

That's a prefectly silly thing to be pissed about. And you reminded him of it...why?

ndifference:

I reminded him of it because I saw him going down a treacherous yet well-trodden street again. I'm not going to apologize for it.

QED:

What makes you think that was the reason for your ban?

ndifference:

Because all the "explanations" he's given for banning me are nebulous and fact-free. When you string them all together you get a better picture. The "official explanation" on my user page accuses me of "…publicly fighting with any other team" while I was a "representative of this site." Well, I haven't been a representative of the site since November '05, so that dates it. [link]

QED:

Seems to.

ndifference:

Elsewhere he states, This divide and arrogance and sheer disrespect you have been shoving down peoples throats for years now is done. Years? That dates it as well. And the only person who had something shoved down his throat, you know, forced to do something he didn't want to do, was Lolly. Well, realitysquared too, but Lolly was the one who banned me this time. So if you cobble those two "explanations" together and read between the lines, you can figure out what his motivations were. They were purely personal, make no mistake about that. I didn't violate any policies. I "disrespected" him a year and a half ago and recently did it again. Shocking!

QED:

Forced to do what was ethical and fair, which was getting rid of a PVA who spent her entire tenure on Staff causing and perpetuating fights. Is that correct?

ndifference:

That's it in a nutshell. But, in a very real sense, if they'd taking some kind of action sooner than they did, they probably wouldn't have had to get rid of her at all. That it led to that is realitysquared's, Lolly's, and Angelo's fault. Frankly, they owe her, mirrorkills, me, Toni, Paul, and the Lit Community an apology for their compounded botch-job.

QED:

I thought he and Spyed apologized for all that.

ndifference:

They did. Well, kind of. They said one thing, I think just to get everyone to shut up, but their actions have consistently run counter to what they said. They certainly didn't appear to want to do what was fair or else they would have done it without being forced, and it wouldn't have taken them six months to do it. None of it, really, makes any sense at all.

QED:

Maybe they were just sticking up for a Staff member, right or wrong.

ndifference:

Possible. However, I was a Staff member and had been one for two years. They sided with one who had been on Staff for two weeks instead?

QED:

Right. Since that is the case the only real difference I can see is that she was CommDev and you were AR. A case of protecting their own?

ndifference:

I suppose. They do seem to have a complete lack of respect for AR.

QED:

Okay, roger that. But why did you have to force him? Why didn't he just do it and be done with it? Why would loyalty to a psychotic PVA trump doing what's right?

ndifference:

I am under the impression that he was doing what Angelo told him to do. Never mind that it made him look like a complete retard. I don't think that fact bothered Angelo one bit. I'm sure it bothered Lolly but he went ahead and did it anyway. I have no way to verify this - that's just my impression of the situation. And I base that partly on the pathetic way he "handled" the Submission Agreement situation. Of course, you can't take a word any of those guys say as the truth. They all act like Karl Rove disciples. The Truth is merely what is most convenient at the moment.

QED:

Ha.

ndifference:

You know, I'm remembering an email that Angelo sent me right after I left Staff. The very last thing that email said was, "Thank you, tremendously, for voicing to us the needs of the community all of these years. I hope you continue to do so, yours is a voice that we will always consider." And the next two times they heard my voice? They banned me both times. (laughing)

QED:

And you've been permanently banned this time?

ndifference:

Permanently. Journals obliterated. Gallery cleared. Except for the things in storage, for some reason. I'd file a bug report on that but...you know. (laughing)

QED:

(laughing) Yeah...I think he already has plenty of bugs to fix. Starting with the one up his ass.

ndifference:

Ba-dum psssh!