Vikings Message Board.Com

Can someone tell me what the actual point if the shutdown was? What could one possibly hope to accomplish?

Purpnation wrote:Can someone tell me what the actual point if the shutdown was? What could one possibly hope to accomplish?

I think it was pretty well explained in the article. I'm not saying I agree with the action, but I understand why it happened. At least we have our board back, and no matter what one thinks of the guy who shut it down, there was no way to "compel him" to send the back-ups to Cliff so it could be restarted. I'm choosing to give him credit for that. YMMV

Southsider1979 wrote:It was a selfish move shutting down the site. Glad it's back and hopefully here to stay. SKOL VIKINGS!

How? It's a free site and he runs it. Big deal?

I appreciate the sentiments expressed in the article. I also acknowledge the site admin's right to shut down the site.

That being said, I don't appreciate being banned with no explanation or notification. I didn't even know the site was shut down until I read it on cbssports.com two days later. I didn't get the now-famous 109-word explanation. Just a message saying,"You are forbidden access to this site."

There are thousands of message boards, hundreds for pro football. But there is only one VMB. I'll stay here because it's the best board in the business. But there is a part of me that is seriously bruised. Many of us have invested ourselves in this board, and we all deserve better than to be swept up in an emotional rash of bannings. At least tell me what I've done, or what the reasoning is. Don't just leave me twisting in the wind.

I'll accept an apology from the site admin if offered, but I don't expect it. Onward.

I would say a lot of people are still a bit gun shy when it comes to sharing their frustration. A sizable portion of active members got their accounts deleted and then the entire board got shut down. A message was made calling us ####, which I'm guessing we wouldn't be allowed to call Geoff. I understand the necessity of forgiveness, but the fact that the mods all forgave him so quickly I'm sure makes people question how much displeasure they are allowed to express.

If I may, the fact that he made a backup before deleting the board illustrates that he knew his "VMB is never coming back" stance was over the top and likely untrue. I'm thankful that the board was returned, and I truly forgive him. That said, his tantrum was theatrical and embarrassing.

DKSweets wrote:I would say a lot of people are still a bit gun shy when it comes to sharing their frustration. A sizable portion of active members got their accounts deleted and then the entire board got shut down. A message was made calling us ####, which I'm guessing we wouldn't be allowed to call Geoff. I understand the necessity of forgiveness, but the fact that the mods all forgave him so quickly I'm sure makes people question how much displeasure they are allowed to express.

As far as I can tell, we mods are allowed to express as much displeasure as we'd like as long it stay within board rules. I haven't been given any guidelines so I'm assuming as long as what's posted remains within the parameters of the board's rules, mods and everybody else can speak their minds. I'd just say it's probably better to condemn actions than people and that might even be a good lesson to take away from all of this.

DKSweets wrote:I would say a lot of people are still a bit gun shy when it comes to sharing their frustration. A sizable portion of active members got their accounts deleted and then the entire board got shut down. A message was made calling us ####, which I'm guessing we wouldn't be allowed to call Geoff. I understand the necessity of forgiveness, but the fact that the mods all forgave him so quickly I'm sure makes people question how much displeasure they are allowed to express.

If I may, the fact that he made a backup before deleting the board illustrates that he knew his "VMB is never coming back" stance was over the top and likely untrue. I'm thankful that the board was returned, and I truly forgive him. That said, his tantrum was theatrical and embarrassing.

Not agreeing nor disagreeing with you, just trying to understand where you are coming from. I saw it that GLG "snapped" and committed some acts, that frankly, I don't think he should have committed, and pretty much did some things that few, if any, are saying was OK. I do not think (perhaps I'm wrong) that he did this for "attention" but I really don't have any way (nor is it really necessary) to "test" his sincerity. The fact is: glg has 'damaged' this community with his actions, and the full consequences of those ill-advised acts may not be realized for some time. Assuming my assessment is correct (I find it hard to believe glg was just 'waiting for an excuse' to shut down the board and draw attention to himself, and luckily for him the Vikings highest profile player managed to get indicted on a felony charge to help that happen.) I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that he was sincere with his decision to "walk-away", and that was before all of this "Peterson business" came about.

So in a nutshell, I believe he was a person that believed in his heart that the Vikings were wrong, and he lashed out (irrationally) without fully thinking the decision through.

I am interpreting your post to suggest some sort of "influence" by the "old regime" on the "new regime". (Please correct me if I misinterpreted the gist of your post. I guilty of that at times. )

If my initial interpretation is correct, I'm just finding that unlikely for a couple of reasons.

1) If you look at GLGs account, he is purple (just like us). He no longer has the power to make that happen.
2) Cliff is (apparently) a friend and it's understandable that he wouldn't be as critical as the rest of us might be

I'm really not worried about Cliff as we have had discussions via PM on topics that should be on PMs and we have diametrically opposed viewpoints on those subjects. I have never thought I was treated unfairly by him, nor was I ever concerned about sanctions from him just because I was right and he was wrong. Seriously, though I just don't see this as an issue. I'm "quick to forgive" for some personal beliefs that I have that I could share via PM, but really would be going off-topic here.

In any case, I'm assuming short of violating the rules (no personal attacks) we are free to discuss the poor choices made by Geoff. I'm choosing to give him credit for at least "trying to fix it" at the end. Frankly, If I'd screwed up that badly, I'm not sure I would have had the fortitude to face people again. And near as I can tell, GLG really didn't have to. I'm not Geoff's parents, and I don't particularly feel obligated to "defend" him, just trying to be fair.

If I can be prepared to forgive Peterson, how could I not be prepared to forgive glg?

I'm not going to speak for Geoff (glg), I think he has told his side both here and in the linked articles. Whether you believe him or not is each individual's prerogative. However, I think there are a few misconceptions going around. The first being that a major portion of the members here were banned. In actuality the site was shut down meaning no one had access, which is rather different than being banned. I got the same white screen, error messages, etc., as everyone else. Yes, there were accounts that were wiped. I don't know how many as that type of action does not show up in the logs but given the number of members we have, I would estimate it to be somewhere around 1%. I know at least a few have come back and have been reinstated but I'm sure some are gone for good.

This was a unilateral decision that caught all of us by surprise. Thanks to Geoff's reconsideration and Cliff's work, for the vast majority of the board this all boiled down to basically the site being down for a couple of days. You're all welcome to your opinion on the matter, no one posting within the rules of the board is being censored. Hopefully we can move on, I think the damage was mitigated rather substantially.

Just Me wrote:If I can be prepared to forgive Peterson, how could I not be prepared to forgive glg?

I, for one, am happy to forgive glg ... just as soon as I am asked. His apology does not seem to include me, and I want to know why.

Understand something here ... I was banned with no notice and no reason given. Nothing. Just a "you're not welcome here anymore." I wasn't one of the so-called ####s who advocated child abuse. I spoke out strongly against it. But even if that were not the case, this is America. We don't censor people we disagree with.

In the end, glg's apology rings hollow. It essentially says, "I apologize to those I like ... the rest of you, such as those I banned, can go #### yourselves."

J. Kapp 11 wrote: I, for one, am happy to forgive glg ... just as soon as I am asked. His apology does not seem to include me, and I want to know why.

Understand something here ... I was banned with no notice and no reason given. Nothing. Just a "you're not welcome here anymore." I wasn't one of the so-called ####s who advocated child abuse. I spoke out strongly against it. But even if that were not the case, this is America. We don't censor people we disagree with.

In the end, glg's apology rings hollow. It essentially says, "I apologize to those I like ... the rest of you, such as those I banned, can go #### yourselves."

Fair enough. We come at it from different perspectives, then. I wasn't "banned" (just locked out - like everyone else) so it wasn't as personal towards me. I'd like to think it wouldn't make a difference in how I would ultimately react, but in the end, I couldn't say that for certain.

Mothman wrote:As far as I can tell, we mods are allowed to express as much displeasure as we'd like as long it stay within board rules. I haven't been given any guidelines so I'm assuming as long as what's posted remains within the parameters of the board's rules, mods and everybody else can speak their minds. I'd just say it's probably better to condemn actions than people and that might even be a good lesson to take away from all of this.

I didn't mean to suggest there was a mod conspiracy. This is another one of those "I'm on my phone and typing sucks" instances where I didn't use enough words. What I meant was that the quick and generous manner in which the people in power forgave Geoff might cause others to question how much they (themselves) are allowed to criticize Geoff's actions (if even one moderator had said Geoff was a jerk, other posters would likely feel more comfortable speaking their mind...although that might not be the most civil way of handling things). There is a bit of ambiguity as to what a personal attack could mean in this instance, and I feel like some people are playing it safe and avoiding the topic altogether.

I have no proof of this, obviously, I just know that it is a question that initially went through my head, so I wonder if anybody else has felt the same way. I DO trust our moderators, however, which is why I have voiced my feelings.

Just Me wrote:I am interpreting your post to suggest some sort of "influence" by the "old regime" on the "new regime". (Please correct me if I misinterpreted the gist of your post. I guilty of that at times. )

Thats truly not what I meant, and I apologize for not wording things more concisely.

Just Me wrote:In any case, I'm assuming short of violating the rules (no personal attacks) we are free to discuss the poor choices made by Geoff. I'm choosing to give him credit for at least "trying to fix it" at the end. Frankly, If I'd screwed up that badly, I'm not sure I would have had the fortitude to face people again. And near as I can tell, GLG really didn't have to. I'm not Geoff's parents, and I don't particularly feel obligated to "defend" him, just trying to be fair.

If I can be prepared to forgive Peterson, how could I not be prepared to forgive glg?

You're correct, coming back took guts. Also, I do forgive him, and think that it's best if everyone else does, as well. We all deserve forgiveness. That said, I'd be lying if I said that his actions did not greatly alter my perception of him.

I think Jim is a weenie-head...

Let's see if I get a warning...

I've had meltdowns, none of which affected anyone else to be honest. My account was straight up deleted, but at the end of the day its just a forum.. I think i've been a member since 2009, and just because of one persons meltdown that I don't know personally, doesn't mean that i'm going to be sour and ruin it for people or demand an apology, i'm not. I'll breeze through here as usual, killing time and throwing out opinions just like I always have. Killing time and visiting on gamedays.

Just my 2 cents

I think he reacted in the same way the team that he's upset with reacted. He made a bad decision then based on public backlash, realized that he made a bad decision, changing it apologized for it. You have to be careful about the demons that you chase, because when you catch them you might become them.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: I, for one, am happy to forgive glg ... just as soon as I am asked. His apology does not seem to include me, and I want to know why.

Understand something here ... I was banned with no notice and no reason given. Nothing. Just a "you're not welcome here anymore." I wasn't one of the so-called ####s who advocated child abuse. I spoke out strongly against it. But even if that were not the case, this is America. We don't censor people we disagree with.

In the end, glg's apology rings hollow. It essentially says, "I apologize to those I like ... the rest of you, such as those I banned, can go #### yourselves."

^this