Now, since you did make this public, let me refute your accusation regarding myself by responding publicly.
I do not 'hate' Zicada. In fact I do not 'hate' anyone. Personally, I do not even dislike Zicada. Why? Because he's done nothing to me personally. He has never been anything but helpful to me.
This is not to say I have not seen and heard incidents of him being less than civil to others. I am not in the main chat channel very often and it is my understanding that most of the bad behavior occurs there. However I have witnessed the demeaning, marginalizing, sarcastic tone he often uses in the forums (and in one chat log someone sent me) and for the record I disapprove of it, just as I disapprove of the same tone from other key people in this community. I have never made any secret of my feelings on this matter, I simply do not make a stink about it anymore as I have mostly removed myself from most ALFA activities and from championing other people's causes in ALFA.
If anyone finds themselves feeling badgered and demeaned in such a situation, I encourage you to save the log and send it to the LA along with a formal complaint. That is the way such things should be handled and I certainly won't get in a snit over someone being treated poorly if they aren't willing to be proactive on their own behalf.
Now, in terms of myself being on Zic's list I will say that there is one incident which bothered me enough to make an inquiry about. However, I did not spread gossip about it. I spoke to a couple people close to me about it and then made an inquiry direct to the LA about it. I do not consider my looking into the incident "personal" against Zic in any way. I don't care if it was Zic or my very own Jayde, I would have been just as shocked and would have made the same inquiry as it relates to the arbitrary enforcement of rules on which our community is built (and I'm a LN kinda gal
).Quite simply, Zicada received an infra strike back in June. It is listed under "Record of Infra and PA Censure" in the PA department forum:
This was his first strike. Then, on August 30th, in this thread, the following was posted:zicada (Infra, June 25 2008)
I saw this last post about a month after it was posted, and remembered the former 1st strike. Looking back I confirmed it.zicada is hereby receiving a warning strike for improper conduct and inappropriate remarks towards a member in private conversation.
As biased party, zicada had ceded the decision to LA (paazin).
A warning is a warning. It is used as a way of letting a member know that they are out of bounds and affording them a little leeway in which they can realize their error and correct the behavior.
Once you receive a strike, you have already been warned. The next time you behave in a censurable manner, you get another strike.
Third strike gets you banned
Second strike makes you ineligible to run for admin position again.
Zicada had already received a first strike. He should have received a second strike, but didn't. Thus my inquiry.
The decision not to give Zicada a second strike was made because Admin did not want to risk him being unable to continue in the role of Infra Admin, because they feel they have no one else to do the job.
Regardless of whether their fears are valid or not (I say they are not but what do I know) the point is you don't get to make rules and then arbitrarily enforce them according to your whim or what someone can offer you. If you do, then you call into question the validity of all past and future decisions made based on those rules. It's a double-standard, and its hypocrisy. Period.
Since I received my response from the admin on this matter I made the decision not to publish the information, mainly because, well, I just don't really give a damn anymore. The only reason I'm writing this here is because Zicada essentially called me out and I am addressing his concern in the same manner he brought it up - publicly. My issue on this matter was not with Zicada, it was with an admin decision.
