Quote from FCM:
Baron is correct.
Yes, he is. But.....
While I appreciate that Baron has some almost impossible decisions to make at times, I think here he has not taken Maverick the person into consideration the way he should have. Maverick was banned when his words and actions were so far less serious than so many others we have seen.
Even this very thread itself is just another example of how quickly threads get "hijacked" or go so far off topic as to make the topic seem lost in the thread. Look at the excellent point "Spec8or" made a few posts back.
This is what happened in the thread in which Maverick and Waggie got so carried away. I saw the first few posts, decided I had no interest in following the thread, and when I happened to stumble back in so many pages later, I had NO IDEA AT ALL what the thread was about by that point. Let alone how the thing deteriorated into the flame war between Maverick and Waggie. It all seemed so out of context to me. (It was).
Not until after Maverick was banned, (it was brought to my attention by Pabst starting this thread), did I even try and read the posts to get a feel for how the thing evolved to what it became. And even so, having seen the (somewhat illogical to me) progression of what led to what, have we not seen far worse before? Without the result of a banning?
Baron, I implore you to let Maverick have his right to post under his real identity. His very blatant attempt to post as "Goose" seemed to me to make a good point. He could have certainly used subterfuge to come back, but he did not. He made it very clear that he was just using a new alias. He could have done it differently, but he did not. He was up front and blatant. He made his statement (which seemed basically to just thank those who showed support), and that was that. He did NOT use the alias to further his position in his "war" with Waggie. Nor did he in any other way attempt to abuse the possibilities inherent in assuming a new alias. Another thing we have seen countless times.
Maverick has been a consistent contributor to trading threads. While he has made a vast number of âchit chatâ posts, and virtually all of them in support of his political beliefs, he has been quite constrained and civilized over-all. If he went too far with Waggie, it was not characteristic of his general behavior. And his GENERAL BEHAVIOR should count for a LOT.
He has never before (to my knowledge) made offensive personal attacks that were in any way really hurtful. Maverick has butted heads with me consistently. He even started a thread entitled âMaverick and Error Onlyââ¦to ostensibly argue with me one on one. Yet while he disagreed with me to such an extent that he felt compelled to start a âprivateâ thread to âfightâ with me, he was always respectful enough. He may have said that my beliefs were âstupidâ . Maybe he even said that I was âstupidâ. But so what? âSticks and stonesâ, etc. We have seen so many instances of people being verbally abusive that were really in bad taste. References to lineage, etc.
His âthreatâ to go search public records to humiliate Waggie seemed somewhat extreme. But he did NOT do it. And I donât believe he actually would have. In real life, every day millions of people say âIâm going to kill you if (fill in the blanks)â. But some threats are just so many meaningless words. However, even though I do believe that Mav did get carried away with this issue and should have dropped it after mentioning it once (he shouldnât have mentioned it at all) again, we have seen so much worse here on ET. This hardly even registers on the âcrossing the lineâ gauge.
Furthermore, there have been real instances of ET members actually becoming so obsessed with other members and in fact going through public records, and also doing internet searches on other members, posting personal info, and yet they were not banned. We have seen complaints about this kind of behavior in the past, yet no âpunitiveâ action was taken against the perpetrators of this kind of obsession (to my knowledge).
If Maverick was banned for posting in âpoor tasteâ, again, we have seen so much worse that there can be no comparison.
Earlier in this very same thread, I made this point already. I specifically called attention to the thread about âtorturing harmless animalsâ, which was, whether written tongue in cheek (which I assume was the case), or written with serious intent (which would be REALLY perverse), the thread was, no matter what the motivation, just generally of no value at best, very offensive at worst which seemed to be the real intentâ¦just to stir up conflict. Eventually that thread degenerated into having pornographic photos inserted.
Do I think the people who contributed to and pushed the thread over the edge should be banned? Noâ¦freedom of expression and the fact that the posts, while offensive did not in any way harm anyone should be enough reason to NOT cause the banning of anyone. But this is a TRADING forum. While âchit chatâ exists because âthere is more to life than tradingâ, still there should be some kind of boundaries. (There is a difference between censorship and boundaries IMO).
So if âbad tasteâ is an issue, then the âtorturing animalsâ thread is the high water mark (or âlowâ as the case may be) of what is allowed I suppose. And certainly the moderators could moderate.
Just as they could have in the thread in which Maverick was banned for posting. If what he said was so offensive, then why wasnâtâ the thread just closed? Or deleted completely (we have seen this done in the past).
Or the posts that were deemed so odious as to cause his being banned could have just been deleted and Maverick could have been warned. As we ALSO have seen in the past.
Why is the way âmoderatingâ done so inconsistent? I understand it is not an easy job. But whatever the standards are, canât they be upheld with some level of uniformity? I know that even trying to be consistent here is next to impossible because the nature of what is and is not offensive or intolerable is, beyond some clearly stated ârulesâ always going to be somewhat subjective. But still, there are ways to preempt the kind of thing that happened here. Again, we have seen this done innumerable times.
If, as was said, Waggie threatened a legal action against ET if Maverick was not banned, was this âblackmailâ not at least as equally onerous as whatever Maverick did? Why was Waggie not banned? Where is the evenhandedness in policy in a case of banning?
Baron, I have before stated my admiration for the way you run ET. I am frankly surprised and disappointed in this error as I see it.
I feel that I am qualified to make this plea on behalf of Maverick because I admit to being guilty of probably every kind of transgression one can make here

(although I would never even think about going through public records as was threatened..but it HAS been done as mentioned).
Also, whether you have followed what has transpired or not, you can easily see (if you have the patience or even the will to know) that Maverick and I have been longstanding adversaries. He has challenged my beliefs on virtually every single issue you can imagine regarding politics, morality, economics, and even racial stereotyping. Yet NEVER did I ever feel that Maverick came close to being âungentlemanlyâ. Disagreeable, yes. Subjectively offensive? Yes. But objectively and blatantly so? No, not at all.
So whatever set him off with Waggie, well it was not characteristic of his general behavior. Which, again, I believe should be taken into consideration.
No one needs to point out instances of ET members who do not contribute but to instigate conflict. There are too many instances to even begin to list.
One case has always stood out to me A high school kid came on to ET asking for advice. (He stated he was 16 or 17). He was advised by one member to quit school and start trading. Another member advised this same kid to start using steroids.
Here we have an example of supposed grown adults intentionally trying to influence a child to screw up his life. To me this was a serious breach of the spirit of ET. And a major screw up by the moderators (assuming the thread was attended by a moderator at the timeâ¦.I understand it is almost an impossible task to truly âmoderateâ with anything approaching full effectiveness).
But the point is, real mal intent was ignored. Here, in Maverickâs case, tempers flared, things were said that should not have been, but in the bigger picture, Maverick was treated unfairly if equal treatment and evenhandedness are used to define âfairâ.
I hope you will reconsider the ban. I know there must be something you want from Maverick or from Waggie. I don't know what was said by you or by them in your exchanges. I only know what is has been posted here.
So I write this from the perspective of someone who sees only what is on the surface. Certainly I am respectful enough of you (Baron) to know after a few years of watching and listening that you make your decisions using good judgment and an open mind. But it appears this time that you have miscalculated.
You explained nicely in general terms why Maverick was banned..
But it still seems severe for what appears to be a far lesser transgression than so many we have witnessed,
Why not just let Maverick back on?. Let him make his apologies for the commission of his âcrimesâ, and move on.
Peace,

RS