Hey, do you have a second?
Fire away.
There is a post by a midwest judge on facebook tagging #floridajudges with the message "getting unfriended on facebook is great, it's like magic really, it's like the trash just takes itself out"
I've been nice and defended this person in public and private, but it's getting old and this is kind of the tipping point. As the social/actions guy, I'm going to try and be cool with official channels before I do something else.
I'm not familiar with the group. Most appropriate would to be asking its admins to address it.
It's on their public page
not the midwest group
Point me to it?
https://www.facebook.com/Comedy1031/photos/a.253537938101934.57701.246174815504913/621110028011388/?type=1&theater
On their wall
https://www.facebook.com/ashleytrash666?fref=ts
I don't see it.
She's been pretty clear that she's established her profile as very much a personal space and not a public one.
Ok
If we are fine with this, there's no recourse through official channels, then that's all I need to know
Because I want to be able to cite that when I reply.
She also understands that what she says can still have private repercussions.
Her RC talked with her about the general attitude and they came to an understanding.
But that didn't have any stipulation that she needs to stop being an abrasive ass.
Sure, again, when I reply it's key to me that should a thread be brought up by that RC we can point out the hypocrisy that's coming up in these official channels
I don't get it.
It's my firm belief that when I reply to this, it's going to be met with anger by her RC.
And most likely cause a "thread" in the RC list to be created
Despite the act being comparable.
As a lot of the official channels aren't really know (I don't know any outside of my RC for example) I wanted to do what I could to go through the official channels that are being so highlighted as of late.
Consider what you're responding to. She has made it clear she's intending everything on FB as a private thing between her and the folks she's choosing to interact with.
A private insult on her part, while shorty, is still private.
Shorty=shitty
Sure
Turner was investigated, can you tell me who started that thread?
Or instigated that investigation. I know he was because I was questioned.
That isn't complete yet. Andy directed that when it started. He identified a potential bullying situation and wanted to know more.
This is the cause of some concern for me. Turner had something instigated based on his facebook profile and post. The same thing, arguably much more inflammatory, and insulting to a bigger group of people is happening, but the recourse is functionally "you guys deal with it"
Who brought it to him, I don't know. Several folks could have.
When that investigation comes to an unjust conclusion, you can be upset.
It's unjust that the investigation has gone this far
And isn't complete yet
Seeking information is necessary.
The fact that we ARE investigating the same situation is problematic
Not if it's "Private"
Isn't that the line we're drawing here?
How can it be private for one person, or private by default and not for someone else?
We're also talking about people with very different roles.
The same social media
We have no code of conduct
My uniform never comes off, for instance.
You choose not to have it come off, we can't force it to stay on
For a RC the role is different than for some random L2.
Does the RC position have a specific code of conduct?
I don't know.
It may. They held a conference and I wasn't there. Lots of things came out of that.
But I don't know if that's a specific thing or not. The RCs should know.
Regardless just look at the level definitions.
That distinction tells you enough there.
Sure, the level definitions are fine, but it's still volunteer
Either judges are on or they're off. We can't functionally witch hunt one judge and have things that are considerably worse be fine for another
Level definitions are fine, but again, barring a code of conduct it doesn't seem like there's much we can do
When turner says something stupid it matters more than when Ashley does, yes?
Sure, but that doesn't remove his right to say something stupid
What dies "right" mean?
Well, a lot of what we do is shrouded in some unnecessary secrecy
So it's hard to know anymore
Presumably Turner would know if there were a code of conduct for RCs
Essentially, turner says something stupid and it reflects poorly on all of us far worse than if Ashley does. They are held to different standards because they have different roles.
I get that, but at the same time if we are not telling judges "You can only behave as X" then what's happened seems like at best an overreaction, at worst some pretty big hypocrisy that undermines faith in the program of people who know better
But I'm still not sure that anything turner said was private.
So if a judge says "this is private" then all bets are off?
Is that really where we want to go?
Because that will get blown up immediately
If it is actually said in private and the audience is appropriate for it, why not?
Because most people's definition of private doesn't mean "a basic click on a link takes me right to it"
But that's what we've decided is fine
Ashley has changed her FB to max the privacy. She has said directly that what she says there is not for anyone but the friends she intends it for, and she has posts that reflect it.
So only if the settings are changed?
I still haven't seen the thing that pissed you off, for instance.
Im not her friend so I can't see it.
No no, I'm asking you if it's only private, according to the program, if the settings are changed
I'm not going to write policy in a FB chat on my phone.
But that's what it's become now
There's a now arbitrary line
That may or may not exist
Set by whom?
No one, so maybe you will get in trouble, but maybe not
In fact, some people have, some people have not
I'm really not understanding this.
What did she say that triggered this? Who did she say it to?
Posted it and tagged #fljudge, and 46 others in the post
Where? Who did she say it to? All I see is a photo from a radio station. I don't see anything that links to her or fljudge
I understand.
I don't disbelieve you, I just don't understand the mechanics or audience or context. And that all matters in understanding if she's antagonizing you in a pattern of behavior after being asked to stop. Or I'd shes just being snarky and an ass with her friends.