A call for resignation or removal of DEADMONEY from the position of moderator

[WWUPhil]

I have grown increasingly annoyed by Kyle's willingness to not only display anti-social behaviors but to, on one occasion, abuse his power as moderator. As this is the case, I ask the community to speak on the issue and for the management team of this discussion group to consider his removal as moderator. I am sure that several people would be willing to volunteer for his position.

First, I refer you to this thread (http://www.net-benefits.net/showthread.php?t=13232) in which Kyle announces the identity of a voter in a poll who expresses an opinion which differs from the community. He apologizes and then suggests that he SHOULD have announced everyone who voted the same way. I find this behavior to be egregious in its violation of privacy and community standards.

Second, I refer you to this thread (http://www.net-benefits.net/showthread.php?t=13172), in which Kyle attacks Debbie Seltzer, an important member of this community, even if her debate perspective doesn't match with that of the might national champion. He then ridicules Konrad and David Pena calling them names and behaving like an arrogant jackass.

At this point, I am satisfied that Kyle will be more careful in his actions. I do not feel he needs to be removed and, perhaps, I could have had the same result talking to him directly by PM.

[WWUPhil]

In response to DarthYoshi, Mr. T wrote:
<Quote>
Why so serious? </Quote)



Mr. Testerman,
If you don't understand the seriousness of what Kyle did, then your education is failing you and I fear for the future of this nation and its people. It just wasn't right. And his apology is half-assed and backhanded. A person who did not choose to reveal their opinion cast a vote and was publicly outed. This is wildly inappropriate. Eric cares to protect everyone in the community from the bullying that Kyle feels he is entitled to administer. His actions also have ramifications upon the controversy at hand and how we might be able to weather the storm of conflict that has crashed in upon our world.

Phil

[KCalderwood]

This is seriously kind of ridiculous. I do not seek to defend Kyle's actions, nor do I presume whether his apology was sincere or not. I choose not to do those things because I know Kyle. Everyone who frequents this website knows Kyle and his reputation. Everyone who voted had the ability to read his moderating philosophy. Everyone who is a registered member of net-benefits had a right to run for moderator. And this entails the problem. No, I do not think that because he ran opposed he can do whatever he wants. And I certainly think that he was over the line in outing someone's vote. Impeachable offense? Probably not, especially since he has promised not to do it again and has apologized at least somewhat. Just because he continued to criticize "moot" does not mean he should be impeached.

As for Eric's comparison to net-benefits moderator elections to members of congress you have to be joking... seriously, man, you need to take a chill pill and not take this shit so seriously. i love debate as much as the next person, but net-benefits is largely a joke. and its not because people like kyle exist on this site its because people take shit to serious and especially too personal. i learned my lesson this summer when i took something jason said way too seriously, and thought even though my reactions were justified i was still way too much of an ass. this is not congress, and the fact that no one ran against kyle is a warrant as to why he should not be impeached because you had your chance to run for moderator and you chose not too. and so did everyone else. honestly, did none of you think something like this wouldn't happen when he said he will allow flame wars if they are entertaining?

Adam I feel also was not defending Kyle's actions, but more or less was disagreeing with the intense tone that Eric was taking. I don't think Adam's education is failing him, in fact, I would say that he is a lot smarter than those in this community whose knee jerk reactions to these changes fostered the hatred and animosity that existed on this site for the last couple of days. I was extremely upset at some of the changes but everyone of my posts have been civil on this issue.

As for weathering the storm and controversy that has crashed upon our world, you are just delusional. No one's world was crashed because the NPDA made a few changes. And no controversey cannot be solved by a pragmatic approach taken up by some of the very people that had those initial knee jerk reactions. You should probably read my latest post on the "Imagine" thread because I think people are blowing these changes completely out of proportion, and you should be ashamed by your continued fear mongering.

eta: where were you last year calling for dan leibson's resignation as moderator?

Fifth, Kyle regularly applied his theory of acceptable behavior to the community last year. He made many debaters cry. He directly contributed to the decision of debaters to quit the activity. He does not seem to understand that people have feelings and that we ought to be kind to those around us. At this point he has made this clear in his behavior.

Given these pieces of information, it is my opinion that Kyle ought to do something more productive with his time than moderate this discussion group. As one of the people who contributed financially to this site in order to keep it as a vital educational tool, it angers me that he would conduct himself in this way. Furthermore, as a person who has given a great deal to the debate community, I hate to see him represent the activity the way he does. I find his national championship to be rewarding for his effort and skill but shameful for everyone he does not represent.
(no offense to Kevin or the SIU squad, though if we ever have a conversation, I might mention that I don't think it is wise to associate yourself with such verbally abusive individuals and I wish one of you had taught Kyle how to be civil, if not nice. Tell Cheese to stop making fun of me for being "soft"

Phil Sharp, you are a liar and "I mean no offense" does not excuse your ignorance on this particular issue. I have only met you once, and had no prior thoughts about you and your character, no matter how many rumors I have heard about you. But now we are off to a bad start.

SIU debate did not have an altercation with a single judge last year. Your lies and misconceptions about Kyle's behavior last season are no worse than what Kyle has said and/or done in the past. I had to have a similar discussion last October about whether or not SIU had cleaned up its act since 2006-2007, and I was hoping I would not get the same hating politics from you. Your fabricated stories and lies don't just hurt me because I think Kyle changed as a person, but it impacts our program as a whole. When people hear these lies it impacts our recruiting, and even threatens our ability to maintain our budget, just like any other program that gets constantly lied about. You are an idiot if you think that SIU Debate did not change its image last year. Todd instituted a zero strike policy on yelling at judges, and it was abided by the entire season. We had no net-benefit incidents until after nationals, either, and that was handled very professionally in-house. Since you are now a Director of Forensics, I suggest you act professionally in your position and not lie about programs that try and make this activity better. If you cannot point to one incident form last year where Kyle made someone cry or quit because of his behavior at a tournament I demand an apology from you. Last year was not the SIU of Kyle and Justin, it was the SIU debate of Todd, Ben, Brian, Katie, Adam, Kevin, and Kyle that acted like model debate citizens, won a national championship, and helped better this activity through hard work and commitment.

In the future you should probably save your rumors and lies for a point in time in which they are actually relevant instead of two months into your new position as a DOF making up lies about the defending national champions.

kevin calderwood

[WWUPhil]

Bottom line: I shouldn't have called out one kid. I just don't view net-benefits polls as scientific, private (due to the amount of people that can see them anyway) or really even that valuable. That's why I said that poll results should just be open access. That's an opinion that I have, never a unilateral policy that I'd enforce. I love how you're the apology police and you've deemed that it's half-assed and backhanded.

Herein lies the problem. You apologize but you don't give me faith that you will respect privacy in the future. And I think Gary Rybold first indicated that it didn't sound like much of an apology.

[WWUPhil]

As for weathering the storm and controversy that has crashed upon our world, you are just delusional. No one's world was crashed because the NPDA made a few changes. And no controversey cannot be solved by a pragmatic approach taken up by some of the very people that had those initial knee jerk reactions. You should probably read my latest post on the "Imagine" thread because I think people are blowing these changes completely out of proportion, and you should be ashamed by your continued fear mongering.


My comment was not claiming that the changes were problematic, just that the controversy surrounding them and what it is endemic of is of great concern to me. I love this activity, the people, and my profession. At no point did I call into question your contribution or your role in the controversy, Kevin. Eric has reason to be concerned with Kyle's actions and it IS serious.

I apologize for any assertion I originally made connecting SIU to this issue. I was, in fact, trying to clearly differentiate my criticism from you and the program. You all worked very hard and deserved your national championship.

[kpreston]

I don't have anything to say on most of the rest of this thread, but I will personally say that Kyle's behavior last season was vastly removed from the way he and Justin interacted with people in 06-07. And I say that as a person who sometimes wanted to cry after interacting with the two of them.

And I think this issue is much better handled by soliciting (and accepting) apologies, and clarifying expectations rather than levying accusations and blame.

[moot]

This isn't my business, and I'm not taking sides, but as far as the facts go:

Herein lies the problem. You haven't real apologized. And I think Gary Rybold first indicated that it didn't sound like much of an apology.
I've talked with kyle privately and we're on good terms. In exchange for his past indiscretions, he has offered to buy me a beer. I accepted, provided I am then 21.

[WWUPhil]

That is awfully nice of him.

I still feel that Kyle has made it clear that he doesn't respect the privacy of users. How can we be sure he will not do this again to someone else?

[DarthYoshi]

This is seriously kind of ridiculous. I do not seek to defend Kyle's actions, nor do I presume whether his apology was sincere or not. I choose not to do those things because I know Kyle. Everyone who frequents this website knows Kyle and his reputation. Everyone who voted had the ability to read his moderating philosophy. Everyone who is a registered member of net-benefits had a right to run for moderator. And this entails the problem. No, I do not think that because he ran opposed he can do whatever he wants. And I certainly think that he was over the line in outing someone's vote. Impeachable offense? Probably not, especially since he has promised not to do it again and has apologized at least somewhat. Just because he continued to criticize "moot" does not mean he should be impeached.

As for Eric's comparison to net-benefits moderator elections to members of congress you have to be joking... seriously, man, you need to take a chill pill and not take this shit so seriously. i love debate as much as the next person, but net-benefits is largely a joke. and its not because people like kyle exist on this site its because people take shit to serious and especially too personal. i learned my lesson this summer when i took something jason said way too seriously, and thought even though my reactions were justified i was still way too much of an ass. this is not congress, and the fact that no one ran against kyle is a warrant as to why he should not be impeached because you had your chance to run for moderator and you chose not too. and so did everyone else. honestly, did none of you think something like this wouldn't happen when he said he will allow flame wars if they are entertaining?

Adam I feel also was not defending Kyle's actions, but more or less was disagreeing with the intense tone that Eric was taking.

Oh noes, I was using an "intense tone," whatever that means. First, where exactly did I use such an intense tone, especially compared to Kyle? I wasn't cussing about it, though he was. I wasn't *shouting* in all caps, though he was. I even began my involvement with the preface of "I'm not trying to be an asshole." Seriously, Calderwood, since when did you become the sensitivity police?

Re-read my posts again. I didn't say that net-bens was like Congress or should be taken as seriously as Congress. I used the analogy because Congress was the first institutional body I could think of that had codified methods of impeachment. That was it. Could it be possible that you took my reference to Congress too seriously?

After Kyle expressed a desire to out all poll participants, I wanted clarification as to if he actually ever intended to do so--I think that wanting such clarification was reasonable and justified, and I consider my tone to be fully within the realm of civil discourse, even though my disapproval was quite evident.

I read Kyle's mod philosophy. I understand that he said that he would allow flaming wars if they were entertaining. But expecting us to predict that he would START adversarial exchanges on net-bens as a result of the abuse of his powers by way of reading that one sentence seems pretty far-fetched, but hey, I don't know Kyle as well as you do, nor do most people here probably know Kyle as well as you do. I only occasionally interacted with Kyle outside of debate rounds, and I've never had any personal beef with him, so I'm not sure why you're digging up the "people take shit too seriously here" in regards to me. My calling out of Kyle had nothing to do with whatever brief personal history there is between the two of us; it had everything to do with me asking about why he did what he did.

The dispute you have going on with Phil is something that I really don't want to get involved in. I will say that I've never had a personal issue with you, Kyle, or anyone else on the SIU team, nor do I doubt y'all's and Todd's efforts over the past year. But in light of Kyle's actions and some of his statements, I think my concerns were justified. If we are to value discourse in all its forms (including informal online forums), then we should stand up for the atmosphere necessary to allow someone to voice their opinions without fear of hostile retribution.

[syphos]

The initial apology seemed apt. It was the subsequent post that clearly states that the apology wasn't over what I initially assumed:

But in all seriousness, I guess I shouldn't have done what I did in calling out that one dude. I should have called out everyone. Not just one kid. I'll say that I'm wrong for outing one vote instead of outing all 5 (at the time) for thinking dumb shit. Look, everyone is entitled to their own opinion (as stupid as it may be).

Outting all five would have been much worse than just doing one, this makes the initial apology insincere over what more than one NB member was/is concerned about.

[WWUPhil]

Kyle,

I apologize to you for not appreciating and respecting your improvement. I did not make anything up. You actually did all the things a said to a greater or lesser degree and I am sorry I came after you. Your last post is mature and well-stated.

As to my past. Yes I have pissed people off on NB. No I have not had major altercations with people at tournaments. I am quite cordial and have remained close to people from all walks of educational institutions.

In the vein of KPreston's post, I will say that my two clearly voiced concerns were the issue of privacy and the issue of flaming/profanity directed at others. I am sorry I used your past as a reason to justify my fear that you will continue flaming others. I hope you can work on it and avoid it in the future.
I don't have a personal vendetta with you. I HATE it when people are mean to each other. Yes, I have been agitated to meanness but it doesn't come naturally. My little interaction with you and the reputation you carry convinced me that you were intentionally doing this. If it is a problem you have and you are actively trying to work on it, then I support you.

That is all. Maybe we could have a beer sometime.

[WWUPhil]

Done.

I don't carry grudges and I am actually quite willing to talk things out. The reason I get in trouble is because I am not afraid to speak my mind. Kind of a debater trait.

Let it be known to all: If you plan to be mean in round or you think it might accidentally happen, it does effect your points and my decision if it is mean enough. I hope Kyle's story of debating with Justin and then realizing the need to change will inform others who may not have made the realization yet.

[KCalderwood]

Oh noes, I was using an "intense tone," whatever that means. First, where exactly did I use such an intense tone, especially compared to Kyle? I wasn't cussing about it, though he was. I wasn't *shouting* in all caps, though he was. I even began my involvement with the preface of "I'm not trying to be an asshole." Seriously, Calderwood, since when did you become the sensitivity police?

Re-read my posts again. I didn't say that net-bens was like Congress or should be taken as seriously as Congress. I used the analogy because Congress was the first institutional body I could think of that had codified methods of impeachment. That was it. Could it be possible that you took my reference to Congress too seriously?

After Kyle expressed a desire to out all poll participants, I wanted clarification as to if he actually ever intended to do so--I think that wanting such clarification was reasonable and justified, and I consider my tone to be fully within the realm of civil discourse, even though my disapproval was quite evident.

I read Kyle's mod philosophy. I understand that he said that he would allow flaming wars if they were entertaining. But expecting us to predict that he would START adversarial exchanges on net-bens as a result of the abuse of his powers by way of reading that one sentence seems pretty far-fetched, but hey, I don't know Kyle as well as you do, nor do most people here probably know Kyle as well as you do. I only occasionally interacted with Kyle outside of debate rounds, and I've never had any personal beef with him, so I'm not sure why you're digging up the "people take shit too seriously here" in regards to me. My calling out of Kyle had nothing to do with whatever brief personal history there is between the two of us; it had everything to do with me asking about why he did what he did.

The dispute you have going on with Phil is something that I really don't want to get involved in. I will say that I've never had a personal issue with you, Kyle, or anyone else on the SIU team, nor do I doubt y'all's and Todd's efforts over the past year. But in light of Kyle's actions and some of his statements, I think my concerns were justified. If we are to value discourse in all its forms (including informal online forums), then we should stand up for the atmosphere necessary to allow someone to voice their opinions without fear of hostile retribution.

This is the last thing I will post publicly about any things surrounding Kyle's actions as a moderator. I will, however, continue to defend the program I am a member of if our behavior gets called into question. That is something I will not go without a response.

Eric, I began my post by saying I do not support Kyle's actions. I think Kyle was out of line, and I think he has realized that. Kyle can get out of control sometimes, we all can, like when I talked about how I took Jason Steck too seriously earlier this summer. This is why waiting to evaluate what people say and take time to formulate a response is important. We are all guilty of acting irrationally on nerd benefits every once and a while. I'm not saying your actions were necessarily irrational, just rather extreme.

However, Kyle took some extraordinary steps, especially for kyle (;)) to try and defuse these issues. For example:

1) He apologized
2) He said he won't do it again
3) He is going to by said person a beer

My argument has never been that what Kyle did was right, it is that it is not "impeachable, or a call for resignation". Just like we don't think the executive council should be impeached or resign because they unilaterally made a couple of changes. My comments about your intensity are a general reaction to the entire situation at hand- most people also realized that KG's calls for josh's resignation were too soon. It is necessary for people, I think, to let people in positions of power, at least in some instances, make up for their transgressions. For example, Bill Clinton, probably clearly, broke the law. He was impeached for lying under oath, but the nation and the Senate soon forgave him and thought about how ridiculous the situation was.

Whereas this situation is an abuse of power, and could be detrimental if not fixed, the problem isn't easily fixed by impeaching people. Let this be a lesson that we should probably participate in moderator elections, if you think that they are important, or if you think net-benefits is important.

The congress analogy was all you had in response to my argument that "this isn't impeachable", so yeah, I don't think I took it too seriously. No one's calling to impeach Obama that I know of for voting for FISA, which many liberals believe is unconstitutional.

This entire conversation is silly, though. Enough is enough.

kevin calderwood

[DarthYoshi]

Kyle--

I hadn't made any plans to specifically say anything here until I read Kevin's first post. Like I said on the original thread, I have said my piece. I have no intention of formally calling for your impeachment, and I really do appreciate the lengths you have gone to in clarifying everything. Thank you.

Kevin--

Since I am not formally asking, and have not asked, for Kyle's resignation or impeachment, you can take that for whatever it is worth as my concession that yes, demanding impeachment is too much in this situation. If I really wanted to try to impeach Kyle, I would have just done so myself instead of asking him why he shouldn't be. Even simply asking him was something I thought a fair amount about before doing so.

What I don't get is how your observations about my intensity have suddenly become a commentary about the general situation right now on net-bens. Previously on this thread, you used "intense" to refer specifically to me, not to net-bens as a whole. Suddenly it is now a reaction to the situation on net-bens. What gives? My questioning of Kyle had nothing to do with Kevin Garner's call to impeach Josh--something I have offered no support for. I probably would have called out Kyle regardless of the previous circumstances.

[KCalderwood]

Kyle--

I hadn't made any plans to specifically say anything here until I read Kevin's first post. Like I said on the original thread, I have said my piece. I have no intention of formally calling for your impeachment, and I really do appreciate the lengths you have gone to in clarifying everything. Thank you.

Kevin--

Since I am not formally asking, and have not asked, for Kyle's resignation or impeachment, you can take that for whatever it is worth as my concession that yes, demanding impeachment is too much in this situation. If I really wanted to try to impeach Kyle, I would have just done so myself instead of asking him why he shouldn't be. Even simply asking him was something I thought a fair amount about before doing so.

What I don't get is how your observations about my intensity have suddenly become a commentary about the general situation right now on net-bens. Previously on this thread, you used "intense" to refer specifically to me, not to net-bens as a whole. Suddenly it is now a reaction to the situation on net-bens. What gives? My questioning of Kyle had nothing to do with Kevin Garner's call to impeach Josh--something I have offered no support for. I probably would have called out Kyle regardless of the previous circumstances.

Eric, my comparison is not supposed to be between you and the current trends on net-benefits it is supposed to be insight on how everyone can act better on net-benefits. I thought you overreacted initially to what happened, but that isn't really important. What I meant to convey was that when someone messes up in their position as moderator, instead of asking them to defend themselves against impeachment (which is just strong rhetoric to beign with) its wiser to ask questions about why he did what he did, and what he will do in response to fix the problems you address.

And don't think I'm not guilty of reacting on the spur of the moment. Like I said I overreacted this summer when having conversations about the NPTE with Jason.

[DarthYoshi]

Eric, my comparison is not supposed to be between you and the current trends on net-benefits it is supposed to be insight on how everyone can act better on net-benefits. I thought you overreacted initially to what happened, but that isn't really important. What I meant to convey was that when someone messes up in their position as moderator, instead of asking them to defend themselves against impeachment (which is just strong rhetoric to beign with) its wiser to ask questions about why he did what he did, and what he will do in response to fix the problems you address.

And don't think I'm not guilty of reacting on the spur of the moment. Like I said I overreacted this summer when having conversations about the NPTE with Jason.

Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from.

[stuthekid]

Kyle still owes me two cases of beer from a bet. Impeach his ass. And if you even try any shenanigans Kyle I will come after you. Ask Jess what happened to the last guy to renege on a deal with me. It can happen to you too.

[WWUPhil]

I AM ENTIRELY SURE I HAVE EDITED MY POST AND THE OFFER TO MATCH THAT EDIT HAS NOT BEEN MATCHED. MY REQUEST FOR KEVIN'S POST TO BE EDITED HAS BEEN IGNORED> MY PMs HAVE NOT BEEN RESPONDED TO. FOR ALL THE TALK AND DIRECT OFFERS< I HAVE SEEN NOTHING> I would appreciate if people held up their end of the offer.

[JackC]

I think I wanted to cry one time when Kyle spread me out once in freshman year. 13 off in parli? srsly?

[KCalderwood]

I AM ENTIRELY SURE I HAVE EDITED MY POST AND THE OFFER TO MATCH THAT EDIT HAS NOT BEEN MATCHED. MY REQUEST FOR KEVIN'S POST TO BE EDITED HAS BEEN IGNORED> MY PMs HAVE NOT BEEN RESPONDED TO. FOR ALL THE TALK AND DIRECT OFFERS< I HAVE SEEN NOTHING> I would appreciate if people held up their end of the offer.

We made an agreement? Is typing in all caps necessary? I haven't edited my post or responded to your private messages because I felt it necessary to take some time to decide on an adequate course of action. I'm sorry, but it takes me a while to think of how I should respond when a DOF sends me four private messages that line by lines something you say you have apologized for. After reading your private messages I have not decided whether I will edit my post. Apologizing for something publicly, but privately holding onto false ideas that I have no guarantee you won't spread to other people does not sound reassuring to me. Also, I think it's unfair that for probably 24 hours, you thought it was fair for your post to stay, but adamantly defended that my respond should happen backchannel, with no public response. For now, my post stays. Check your private messages.

If you wish to continue correspondence, I appreciate that it either be done through AIM or email. Kjcalder@siu.edu. 2000 characters is just way too short and annoying to deal with.

[WWUPhil]

Kyle,
I can't dlete the first post. It isn't an option for me. I would appreciate it removed or at least for you to edit as you offered. I am not trying to start a new fight but I took out the things you were concerned with and you said you would do the same.

Kevin,
I was not talking to you. I had asked that your post be temporarily pulled while ou looked at my posts. I will go read your response. You didn't make any agreements. You have no guarantees about what I will say to people about you except for my word that 1) I did not intend for any of my posts to target you or your team, 2) I have apologized publicly for that confusion, 3) I PMd you and didn't hear back. 4) Yes, a DOF is communicating with you in a discussion board. Could you please stop with the innuendo of wrong doing on my part because I am employed by UNR. My involvement on NB is not a function of my position at UNR. I speak here as a member of this discussion group. Furthermore,My PMs were merely trying to assuage your concern. Sorry for any additional misunderstanding.

[KCalderwood]

Kyle,
I can't dlete the first post. It isn't an option for me. I would appreciate it removed or at least for you to edit as you offered. I am not trying to start a new fight but I took out the things you were concerned with and you said you would do the same.

Kevin,
I was not talking to you. I had asked that your post be temporarily pulled while ou looked at my posts. I will go read your response. You didn't make any agreements. You have no guarantees about what I will say to people about you except for my word that 1) I did not intend for any of my posts to target you or your team, 2) I have apologized publicly for that confusion, 3) I PMd you and didn't hear back. 4) Yes, a DOF is communicating with you in a discussion board. Could you please stop with the innuendo of wrong doing on my part because I am employed by UNR. My involvement on NB is not a function of my position at UNR. I speak here as a member of this discussion group. Furthermore,My PMs were merely trying to assuage your concern. Sorry for any additional misunderstanding.

I am not insinuating wrong doing at all. I am explicitly saying that you are in a position of power (i.e. a professional, and someone that will frequent many tournaments I attend in my last two years of debate), and that I am trying to be as careful and respectful as possible in the process.

[tarvis79]

This community's inability to escape drama never ceases to astound me.

And whatever our political differences, I love it and all of you for it. :)