BCI/I-Ching2.0 & MagickalMemories

[MagickalMemories]

You know guys, in an effort to keep this as impartial as possible, I've tried to stay out of it.
The thread is half reference to me, so I thought it best to just lurk, keep my thoughts to myself & remain neutral (in voice).

I don't feel that I can anymore. There's just too much being said here about BCI that could be a serious detriment to him. I think I should speak up.

As for our d**k waving contest, I think time served is time served. The worst we did was threadjack and get on people's nerves (including each other). We followed the "suspension/limited use" rules for just shy of 2 weeks. Even a screwed up BTR thread that doesn't follow the directions only gets a month IIRC (which is about the 2nd worst offense you can commit on BTown). Our "sentence" was half that and, per Lin, we both endured it without giving him trouble... Okay, well, I changed my icon to something "appropriate," but it was only in fun and I told Lin about it before hand, so he knew that...

Most of the threadjacking that goes on here is ignored outright as harmless until it really goes out of hand. Even then, it's usually just a "cut it out."

I really do think the arguing/flaming/threadjacking punishment has been served. Those of you who have actually gotten to know me over the years (and not just judged me based on a few posts) know I'm generally very moderate and honest. If I'm saying this (and what's to follow), it's because I believe it.

It's no secret that BCI & I don't like each other. I think he's too rude & he thinks I stick my nose into everyone's business. Maybe we're both right... Maybe not.

I was the one who caught the dual-ID usage & reported it. The thread is still there. Go look at it.
I was absolutely fed up with him at the time and I enjoyed that I caught him. I knew what it meant. Per the rules, he was getting a Permanent Vacation.

Looking back at it now, most of my opinions haven't changed.
With NO FLAMES INTENDED, I still don't like him for all the same reasons. I don't know WHY he is the way he is. I just know he is, and that i don't like it.
So what? There are a lot of people I don't like.
BFD!

When BCI first returned after a hiatus, we hit it off poorly from the get go. It eventually died down for a week or so, and I thought it was over.

I posted an ad for a bit I needed. He responded with a GREAT offer. I saw this as an olive branch of sorts, so I took it.
Turns out, I was wrong. It seems to me that our "relationship" never changed.
So be it.

I'll tell you what I DO know about BCI.
Regardless of his personality, he's a very good trader. You don't get that far in your rating without being a good trader. If you look ONLY at his BCI rating (not even including the I-Ching 2.0), you'll still see that.

While I don't feel that his intent is to come here and offer something positive to the BTown community, so much as it is to come here and trade, I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily. He's a good trader and people like that are assets to the BTown community. People with high ratings completing trades make the rest of us look good. It shows the people they trade with (especially the "Noob's" and less experienced traders) what kind of people are out here. It shows the kind of trade ethics we're shooting for and gives them something to aspire to. BCI's rating is something to respect and aspire to.

I don't know what should be done to BCI. At one time, I'd have screamed "BAN HIM" from the rooftops. heck. i practically did.

Not anymore.

What he did was a very bad thing. Granted.

I think that banning him would be a bad call.

I'm not offering these as actual suggestions, but things I'd rather see before a ban...

Delete I-Ching 2.0 & the associated ref's without transferring them to BCI (call it ITL abuse by deceit... or whatever).
Leave him on permanent warning re: account abuse (ONLY account abuse).

Either (or even both) of these is more appropriate than a ban for a member with over 200 positive ref's, regardless of whose feathers he has or hasn't ruffled in the past.

I hope my point comes across.
I didn't post to dog BCI.
I didn't come to praise him.
I just wanted to speak up as someone who was in the MIDDLE of the BS and changed his mind.

That's my opinion, for what it's worth.

Please, note, this isn't my own olive branch to him, per se. It's just me following my own morals and doing what I think is right, regardless of my personal opinions.


Eric

[GearHead]

.. but that opens up folks with say 10 rep asking for a halving in a similar situation.. -P

True, but then someone with a 10 rep would more likely have gotten surreptiously banned, rather than having people say "whoah, he's been here for a while and done a lot, so maybe we should do something different" as is BCI's case.

I think a simple nuking of the extra account should be sufficient (all things considered), as long as his ears have been dutifully burning since he got called on using it as a 3rd party in an argument.

[edit]Whoa Eric, you just said a mouthful!

[Stanislav]

Well, I agree with Eric to a certain extent. It would be a shame to ban him due to the effort he has put into the trading community here. However, a slap on the wrist isn't enough. When you go against 90% of peoples morals by "backdooring" yourself as a third party...sounds shady.

Nuke the extra account and probation for (?) months. Realizing that any infraction of the rules in even the slightest way leads to banishment.

"Community" service is hard to do on a forum such as this, so even though a good idea, nothing to really do without getting the extra watchmen status.

[Linrandir]

Just a fast addition here before I butt out again.

The nuking of the I-Ching 2.0 account is a given. Regardless of whatever else happens, that account has gone away.

Thanks for all the feedback so far!

[maple]

I think this incident should be approached even handedly, whether the offender has a 300+ reference record, or is a virgin trader.
The last thing you want to do is to make people think that the higher your trade reference # is, the more you can get away with.
If you break the rules, no matter who you are, you should have to pay the same as anybody else.
In this case, I can feel for a person if they get spammed because of a bad trade or because a person just felt like being a jerk. If the admins allowed a 2nd account to be created, then the trader should have asked for their references to be transfered and the old account deleted -or- stop using the 2nd account once the 1st account was cleaned up and things were squared away.
As that wasn't done, I think the person should be punished according to the 2 account rule.
I know, as a noob trader, that if I did something similar, the punishment would be swift and people would blow it off as some "stupid noob trying to break the rulez". If anything, I think "veteran" traders should be held more accountable for their actions, as they can not claim to not know the rules of the board.
I agree with the folks who said it would be dissapointing to see a good trader banned, but on the other hand, he should know better and comes off (IMO) as a bad trader because he can't follow the rather simple rules of the forums.
Just my 2 cents, for what it is worth...... which is about 1 cent.
-mat

[CypherIsGod]

The only problem here, Lin, is that you know someone will pull up this thread when they do the same thing. Even if they are just using it to troll for arguments in the discussion boards, or whatever, it is still a second account. The rules forbid it. It is almost like setting a precedent. Obviously if you do something other than ban BCI, then people will expect the same treatment. Luckily, this site is not a democracy. You make the rules and if the next guy comes along and gets banned instead of zeroed out refs (or whatever you come up with) then that's just how it is. There are times, when you are in an especially good mood, that you would give someone more than one chance to correct their mistake in the Bad Trader Forum. It's happened. I don't think that the people that got the immediate one month vacation complained because somebody else got a break. They realize it is not a computer program, but a person that enforces these rules. Sometimes things are not always done the same way 100% of the time.
Anyway, setting his refs back to zero is almost just as bad as a full ban, especially when it was up in the 200s already.
And if someone complains about not getting the same treatment, well they should have been the first to do something like this and have 200+ feedback.

Then again, just so I can present the other side of the argument and totally invalidate my paragraph above.... A rule is a rule....

[Rhaalidor]

First, I'd like to commend Eric for trying to give some sensibilty to this situation. I've never dealt with you here, but I appreciate the effort given to trying to tone the situation down.

I've dealt with Stephen (BCI) on a number of occasions. As far as I see, he was the Bartertown Watchman 3 years before the program existed. He helped me with a bad trade here, in 2003. I remember him from Eldar Online a couple of years before that. I traded with him once, and I can say that he is a fair trader. I knew of his return, and the reason for his new ID. I do know that even in 2005 when Stephen created BCI, he had made several attempts to have his IDs and ITL ratings combined. As far as I can see, Stephen first used his old account on 12/31/07, after the account lay dormant since 2005.

I'm not an IT professional (I make plastic parts for a living) so I don't know how to quote from another thread. What directly follows is a quote from Stephen's post on 1/1/08:

I posted under my other account for two reasons. 1: to get your attention. Lo and behold success. 2: to use you to get the administrations attention, almost certainly a success, as they haven't been forthcoming in replying to any of my requests regarding the consolidation of both accounts and ITL's. The four items which predate the current "multiple account rule" and have always been public knowledge. If Rhaalidor remembers, why don't you?

It looks, to me, as though Mr. Kolostyak has given his reasons for posting under a prior account. I am the Rhaalidor in mention. I contacted him then, in 2005, to welcome him back to Bartertown, as I felt he was a very worthy member. While the whole site was chasing down Jason Ticknor, Stephen Kolostyak was helping to point out singly bad trades, but bad trades all the same. As I said before, BCI was a Watchman before the Watch was conceived. Do you remember TealAP? What about Larry Hynes?

Eric (Magickal Memories) has basically said that enough is enough. Personally, I think that this thing should be over. Time served for everyone involved.

BTW, Eric, join the Watch, or please take it to PM. Thanks.

Cheers,

W. Wayne Gray

[Anglacon]

I've tried to stay out of it.


Eric

I think that is a physical impossibility for you...

As for BCI / I Ching...
I hate to say it, but I see no reason to ban him whatsoever. Yes, he used 2 accounts, but he has been trying to get the admins to rectify that situation, to no avail. Do not get me wrong, I do not hold the admins responsible, as they have lives too, but how long was he waiting?
A Week? A month? 3 months? When would it be ok for him to just give up that it will be fixed?
So he uses his two accounts to draw attention to the fact that it has not been fixed. The smartest thing to do? Of course not. Did he do it in the wrong place? Yes. But Ban him for it? Come on! He did not use it to artificially inflate his feedback, or to scam anyone. He used it to prove a point and argue with someone else.
Bannable? I would say no.
Punishable? I would say "Take a week off and think about what you did!"

Just my .02

[Morlock-Bloodletter]

Anglacon-that may be BUT just because it wasn't fixed doesn't give one the ability to then use the second account in any fashion. Because he let us know about it shows that he knew it was something that is against one of the rules. He then decided to go ahead and use that second account anyway.

More real life legal example, I have YOUR credit card. I do not have permission to use it as it is YOUR name and credit. I told you several months ago that you should inactivate it but you didn't. So I go ahead and use your credit card anyway since it was never inactivated even though I know that it is against the law to use your "id". I would still get charged and convicted of idenity theft for using your card.

This is similar (though not nearly as severe) as what happened here.

The part that really stings about this is that he decided to use it in the third person to bolster his own ego in the aforementioned "D*ck waving contest". He was attempting to defraud those of you that did not know he had two accounts into thinking that I-ching and BCI were separate people in that discussion. The act has a similar intent as those who we created the rule for. While it never actually hurt or attempted to hurt anyone (other than himself) it was still committed with the same premeditation as one who would defraud those in the community.

He knew the consequences as that was the reason why he notified the admin of the second account.
He decided to willfully and knowingly ignore that thereby thumbing his nose at the Admin.
He did not use the second account to "let us know it had not been fixed", that was merely the excuse he used once he was called on it. If he intended to use the account in this fashion he would've stated it directly in the original post. Instead he posted, in the third person, in a blatant attempt at ego stroking for his BCI account. So the excuse that he posted using the I-ching account to "let us know it still hasn't been fixed" doesn't fly with me or any of the other mods or Admin. So that point is completely moot.

As to the claim that he was using the I-ching account to "prove his point", again that doesn't fly. You want to prove your point, then do so with rational thought and legible response. You don't go using an alter ego to "prove" the point of the other. That's nothing more than ego stroking, which is mildly malicious in respect to the others that were possibly disagreeing with him. (meaning instead of responding to one person, now there is the appearance that there are two, or more, people to respond to).
If you make a thread and 14 people reply posting against your opinion/response, does that not make more of an impact than one person?
If those 14 people are the SAME person but with alternate user names is that not a mildly malicious attempt at the defamation of your character?

Again, I did also take the stance that banning wouldn't be appropriate for this unique instance of having two accounts. The only reason(s) why I took that stance are

1-he did inform the admin of the second account to prevent it from becoming a problem later.
2-he has been an asset to the community up until this latest issue.

However, one must look at all the information related to this, not just the part that shows the excuses.

[WillFightForFood]

The only problem here, Lin, is that you know someone will pull up this thread when they do the same thing. Even if they are just using it to troll for arguments in the discussion boards, or whatever, it is still a second account. The rules forbid it. It is almost like setting a precedent. Obviously if you do something other than ban BCI, then people will expect the same treatment.

--------------------------

Then again, just so I can present the other side of the argument and totally invalidate my paragraph above.... A rule is a rule....

It's unlikely that anyone else would be given the same treatment unless they had a similar situation (i.e. Accounts preceeding the institution of the no multiple accounts rule, repeated attempts to get mods to merge profiles, etc.). This is unlikely to happen, so worrying about a precedent is not a problem. Moreover, this could be avoided by Lin making a blanket post that anyone in a similar situation needs to speak up now (and have their accounts merged) or be banned later. Lin could also nuke the threads discussing this whole issue.

Second, this speaks to a larger issue, if you look at it from the perspective of our justice system, we take mitigating circumstances into account all of the time. Would you punish a man the same for stealing bread to feed his family or stealing bread to feed some ducks at the local pond? Probably not. Most justice systems around the world look at intent and outcome in terms of fashioning a proper judgement. BCI's intent was not to defraud when he created and used the second account, and his outcome was nothing more than a pissing contest with MM.

Anyway, shouldn't the one who was most aggrieved (MM) be the one whose input matters most here.

[Starspawn]

I think I understood this thread in a different way to most others who have replied.

IMO the issue is what to do with both of them, and relates to how they acted in the forum. And if we want them here.

I havent been here long, but my impression of the forum here is that a lot of people generally mouth of a lot against each other.
Also it seems, as this is more of a self regulating kind of forum rather than somewhere to post your opinions, that the forum is not closely moderated.
Thus inviting and opening up to the impression that; Here, you can act like a moron.

And now, people have acted like morons.
Do we want them here? Do we even care how they act?
This place is for trade anyway, most wont try to use the forum for anything else...

What I would like, is that any forum Im on has strict rules both on how to act and even spelling etc. And that this is actually enforced.

I like the idea of alternative enforcement Linrandir proposed.
It would be nice to see how it could work.

But as a general rule I would just week-kick or ban people anytime they acted like idiots/disrespected admins/abused the forum.

They got their week, see if they act like idiots again.
If they do, ban them, and good riddance to unstable people.
And the 14 year olds trying to trade without brains, writing leet and being annoying (Yes, Im a grumpy older man..)

And when someone else does the same thing, react to them sooner rather than later.
Quick posts from admins saying, cut that out! Keeps others from jumping on the same vibe.

All just my opinion though.

[Linrandir]

Ladies and Gents (since it's tricky to assume gender online),

Thanks for your input. I'm locking the thread and will post a decision here within the next 48 hours.

[Linrandir]

After due consideration of everything that everyone has said, public and private, my decision.

On the first matter of MagickalMemories and BCI/I-Ching's consistent arguments, I find the notion of time served to be appropriate. They both respected my request for two weeks, which would have been the level of suspension levied anyway. That's done.

On the second matter of BCI/I-Ching's use of the second account to bolster his argument with MagickalMemories, I find no justification provided. In my private conversation with BCI/I-Ching I have found him to be unwilling to even consider the notion that he might be in the wrong. Instead, he feels the need to take potshots about irrelevant posts of mine when he realizes that his case is lost. As I stated to him previously, I decline to engage him in a war of words.

BCI/Iching-2.0: I wish you well, sir. Elsewhere. You have until 0830 hours on 19 January 2008 to complete your business on the site. After that, you are no longer welcome on this website. Your accounts will be deactivated and an appropriate reference left on the ITL.
For those who need it spelled out, BCI/I-Ching is banned from Bartertown permanently.


NOW THEN. For the Future Reference of everyone else, I highly recommend the following:
Read rule #0 and rule #6. Make use of them. Be patient. I really think a lot of the unpleasantness could have been avoided if these two rules had been followed. I could be wrong, but I prefer to be optimistic about people's good nature.

[Linrandir]

By request and in keeping with the now-official Lin policy of administrative transparency, the conversation between myself and BCI that led to his banning.

The first PM was received shortly after I opened this thread asking for community input.

I read your recent thread about me and Eric Wessels. You're funny.

I'd like to show you something before I say anything else. Do you remember these two?
http://www.bartertown.com/ref/index.php ... son+seaman
http://www.bartertown.com/ref/index.php ... nyc.rr.com

They were banned, what happened?

As for your message: Fulfill my request and combine my ITL and user-accounts. Oh wait, that's impossible now as you've apparently deleted my original account if I'm to believe what you've just posted.

What else? Start maintaining a public impartiality. If this needs explained, quit.

If you're going to ban me, you had better ban Mr. Wessels as well.

And lastly, answer my questions as to why you feel so inclined as to dare to speak for me as I've given you no such permission.

He was considerate enough to quote back my message in this next reply.

Going through point by point...

I read your recent thread about me and Eric Wessels. You're funny.

I see this is going to be a confrontational discussion, so I'll make this clear: I have better things to do with my time than trade barbed witticisms. I'm not going to engage in a war of words with you, and your being rude will not sway me to your point of view. That said, let us continue.

I'd like to show you something before I say anything else. Do you remember these two?
http://www.bartertown.com/ref/index.php ... son+seaman
http://www.bartertown.com/ref/index.php ... nyc.rr.com

They were banned, what happened?

This has no bearing on the situation at hand. We're not talking about other people, we're talking about two entirely separate situations from the one mentioned above. It's flawed logic to try and merge them all.

For clarity, the two matters we're talking about which concern you are, in chronological order:
1. The escalating war of words between yourself and Eric in which you've been warned for violating rule #6 twice in rapid succession (reference below).
2. The re-use of a "secondary" account which the admin staff had previously been made aware of. Please note that it is NOT the existence of I-Ching & BCI in concurrence, but the continued use of the I-Ching account in your arguments with Eric. It is irrelevant when it was created, or what kind of specious logic was used to justify its continued use. The fact remains that it WAS used in a manner not in compliance with BT rules. I note that you also missed the part in the multiple accounts rule where it says "reinstated retroactively, etc." but that's not directly relevant here.

Providing specifics for matter #1, I recall delivering a public formal warning to you regarding violations of rule #6 here:
viewtopic.php?t=56230
and here (though it's a bit hidden in the text):
viewtopic.php?t=56479

I find the "time served" argument valid, and I appreciate your respecting my stipulation.

As for your message: Fulfill my request and combine my ITL and user-accounts. Oh wait, that's impossible now as you've apparently deleted my original account if I'm to believe what you've just posted.

Why don't you cool down the sarcasm? There are all kinds of snippy witticisms I could make that would serve to escalate this further, but I'm not going to. It's counterproductive and, like I said, I've got better things to do with my time than trade insults over a computer.

Getting back to the point, if you had taken the time to ASK ME (Rule #0, remember?) I would have said this:

Hi Stephen,
ITL references are tied to the user's email address, not their Bartertown accounts. ITL references can be searched using email, last name, and a couple other ways I can't think of at the moment. The I-Ching account is separated from its ITL references; the only way in which they're connected is via the email address you're required to provide for your BT account. That gives the SQL and PHP something to connect the two when you post stuff on the forums. Or so Adam tells me, he's the programming guru. SQL bounces off my head.
The I-ching account is deactivated, not deleted. All that means is that you can't log into it and the information is retained in the BT databases so that it can't be re-used elsewhere. We almost never delete accounts for just that reason (ref: Jason Ticknor, for example).
Regarding the delay in combining the ITL references, per your request. Adam informed me over six weeks ago that due to a severe work crisis (which he's asked me to not disclose publicly as it would be unappreciated by his employers) he would be unavailable until further notice except in case of dire site emergency. I've been mentioning that to people who make ITL requests, and I thought I said something to you about it. However, since I can't seem to find either a public notice or a forum post to that effect, I apologize for not informing you that it would be a while before your request was completed.

See how much easier that would have been?

What else? Start maintaining a public impartiality. If this needs explained, quit.

Again, it'd be plenty easy to take your bait and engage in argument. Again, I decline.

If you're going to ban me, you had better ban Mr. Wessels as well.

This is an interesting statement. Ignoring the inflammatory tone, flawed logic, and retaliatory sentiment, for what reason would I ban Eric? The two events are connected only by your use of the I-Ching account to bolster your argument with him.

And lastly, answer my questions as to why you feel so inclined as to dare to speak for me as I've given you no such permission.

I'm not speaking for you. I wouldn't want to. If I were to say that I said what I did to "get your attention," then hey, I guess it worked. If you think that sounds asinine, need I remind you that you used the same "getting your attention" line to justify the use of the I-ching account?

What I did was remind you that, like me, you have an obligation to uphold the reputation of your particular public service organization. For example, every Marine I know is livid about that SOB who murdered the pregnant servicewoman and then set her body on fire.

We both took the same oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States (at least, I'm assuming National Guard takes that oath. My apologies if I assume incorrectly). Over the course of my career I've had occasion to work with outstanding officers of the Armed Forces. They have, to a person, been professional, polite, and able to articulate their disagreements without resorting to insults or other such behavior. Sometimes, as with us, they don't like the rules they're presented with but them's the breaks of being part of the organization - be it Army, NG, DoS, or otherwise. One can always resign.

Finally: FM 22-100 paragraph B-7. Shoot, I could cite the entire manual (especially the parts about officers setting a standard of behavior for subordinates and following the rules), but I'm sure you either have a copy or have access to one.

All that said, I hope I've clarified the matters at hand.

Enjoy the snow!

This is the information I have:
I requested, I was not acknowledged.
Requests were made of me though the information was public.
Can you deny these statements?

Snow would be nice if I had the time.
You wrote in the current thread: "The nuking of the I-Ching 2.0 account is a given. Regardless of whatever else happens, that account has gone away."

That's in the past tense.

I was aware that the account could still be in the system prior to my previous message after checking my ITL. Database driven forum + experience using the search feature = best guess as to the likely structure of the database itself. user-names/real-names are stored on a table independently of the actual feedback's given in the ITL.
...which would make sense given how the PHPBBS is designed. Whatever, not important. I didn't apply to be a moderator in the past for kicks.

The rest? No comment. I don't have time. If you want to believe I'm rude, your prerogative.

On a side note: Acetone? Skin irritant whose visible effects are not entirely dissimilar from those experienced by dish washers (people, not machines). Swim in it for a few hours and then you have a big problem.

Pretty clear at this point. My decision was posted publicly after this.
For reference purposes regarding the public service organization comment above, I work at the US Department of State. I have a fancy generic job title but really...Lin employs Leet Library Ninja Skillz to do lots of research on Dar Interwebs.

And lastly...You may recall my mentioning several times (It's in the FAQ as well) that any email sent to Adam regarding non-programming matters would be forwarded to me for handling. I get this email in my box:

From: stephen kolostyak [mailto:smkolostyak@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 5:45 PM
To: atobia@cox.net
Subject: Bartertown's yours.

Adam.

I'd like to thank you for your contribution to the gaming community. Bartertown was an excellent resource I happened across many years ago while looking for a miniature released by Alderac Entertainment Group. That's in the past.

I've been banned for doing nothing. Linrandir made this decision based on "specious", as they like the say, arguments. This snippet from the post they've made, where they've rendered their decision:
"On the second matter of BCI/I-Ching's use of the second account to bolster his argument with MagickalMemories, I find no justification provided. In my private conversation with BCI/I-Ching I have found him to be unwilling to even consider the notion that he might be in the wrong. Instead, he feels the need to take potshots about irrelevant posts of mine when he realizes that his case is lost. As I stated to him previously, I decline to engage him in a war of words."

That "argument bolstering" I'm accused of? Never happened. Here's the thread: viewtopic.php?t=56479
The "private conversation"? There was no conversation, and what did occur did not involve what is addressed here. That's another fine example of skewed information.

These are my requests.
1. Have Linrandir write a formal, public appology to all people they've sought fit to insult during the time they've been at Bartertown. Instill in them the fact that speaking for others is never appropriate and that skewing information or just making it up is equally as bad.
2. Get more moderators.
3. Get rid of Linrandir. If you need me to take their place until you find someone else you can speak with regularly, I'll subject myself to the abuses that Linrandir apparently faces every time they log in. Given my level of education and experience in I.T. (having owned and managed four of these forums myself in-house, I am sufficiently confident that I can adjust to your modifications reasonably quickly).
4. Keep my account from being trashed by your Admin. They couldn't fix a problem with a thread being recovered after they deleted it "accidentally" from the bad trader forum, there's no reason for me to believe that they'll be able to fix something like that. You? Maybe. Them? Never.

If you want to support your administrator and ignore the fact that they're completely out of touch on this one, so be it. If you end up in jail because of Bartertown, that's life.

have a nice day.

So there you have it, the entirety of the conversation that led to the ban. Adam and I had a brief discussion on how to handle the email, and decided that the best course of action was simply to refuse to engage BCI any further. It was clear that he was unwilling to cede in the slightest and frankly his demands were inappropriate.

I'm going to leave this thread locked, but I'm willing to entertain public discussion on my decision if someone wants to talk about it. (If a thread is opened, I'll edit this to include the link)