Hannah is given membership back.

[jacky]

heres the formal announcement, that Hannah is allowed back on the website.

I havnt talked to her personally since Brony lifted the ban on her membership.

Brony let me know from fairly early in this issue, that it was He that finally decided to ban her.

I respect his judgements usually...enough so, that I have stayed out of the enforcement end of opiophile for quite some time. pretty much, the whole time.
the reason I question this judgement in the end,...is that Hannah was finally able to contact me, and bring up this issue. so I started looking into it.
and asking opinions, from members that Hannah claimed would support her.
well, it wasnt total supportive comments I found....but I also had the opinions shared that some people felt she was singled out, and treated a bit differently than some other members might be treated.

now that the website has been in my sole ownership for the last 8 months, I have decided that I need to get more involved in the membership bans. I have tried to stay out of the dirty/work end of the website, for the last 5 years I have owned opiophile, and tried to influence its direction however meaninglessly its actually panned out.
so now, I am trying to make a new rule, that I will review any member that gets banned by a moderator or admin, and if I dont think the ban is fair, or if I feel like its a violation that can be excused, or at least tolerated until it happens next time...we will reverse that decision.
I will also abide to listen to others opinions, if I have a personal decision to ban someone for whatever reason, and will surely consider passing on banning someone, if enough people that are involved in the conversation are supportive of reversing a ban on a membership.

I am putting her on a two week probation. during this time, if any member wants to provide evidence on the website content, that they feel constitutes Hannahs membership being revoked, feel free to submit it here, or contact me personally. I have recieved alot of opinions about Hannah, and her resulting ban.
but I have not seen alot of evidence...though its possible I have overlooked something.
I skimmed her threads/posts until around page 5-6 ...where I found I could not access anymore pages...until today..where I finally accessed pages 6-7. a brief skim....but nothing sticks out to me that cries of a rule violation that seems that serious.

annoying...I could say I can see something there. disturbing....sure, to a degree...but, also my compassionate side feels that people that are self destructive, might be moved by compassion more than antagonism...or merely turning the TV off.

I tell you what I find disturbing...is the website that someone posted about Hannah. I just see it as being mean spirited...and a waste of someone personal energy. I guess some have pointed out, that it might very well have been her own making...who to believe, once again. we are really in the dark on the internet compared to communicating in person.
I hope no one decides to cut up my past, and share it with the world in such a way.
I know Hannah could avoid all this...by editing her posts in the future. and my opinion is, that most, if not all the members at this website, should not post their personal photos of themselves...at least on the main forum threads....in their profile....I can see that....I even shy away from personal photos in the avatar box...though I dont think a rule is in order to stop such posts...I think it might be a decision that is later regretted by some.

I scanned through some of her posts/threads.
what I found disturbed me to a point. a few members claimed to me that she wasnt an opiate user, or didnt have any posts concerning opiates, and that she wasnt an asset to the community.
I found numerous posts that she had medications for pain, and posts concerning her opinions of the effects of oxycodone, methadone, and percocets.
I agree that she is not a cutting edge researcher, pushing the envelope of common knowledge....
but my hope is that she might push the Hannah envelope of common opiate knowledge by being here.

Roxi pointed out to me, that this (purportedly not being an opiate user) was not the major reason that Hannah was kicked out.
and she was partly right I think...but still, I need further information.
maybe I am wrong...but I think that popular opinion, and drive to satisfy, or possibly shut up disturbed members, also might have lent some power to the decision.

I feel that her self destructive or violent outbursts may have been antagonized by a few members possibly?
I also feel that people should be given a break once in awhile.

with the cutting photos, man. that is graphic.
it makes me think of further confusion about what is, and what isnt acceptable.
and possible future arguments.
for example...what about the peircing, flaying, body modification, scarification, pyrolation, and supension community?
there is not a far gap to bridge, between what we might call a cutter, and what we might call, a hip, suspension body modification practitioner....or a straight up modernprimitive Fakir....
sadhu holy men to some insanely disturbing modifications to their own bodies.....something that I would hardly think would warrant someone getting kicked off of the website for.
it helps that people hanging themselves are doing it for a religious experience...I mean people that hang from hooks, not nooses.....but I imagine in the chaos of cutting, a pattern to control and sustain ones life might be a more immediate goal for the person committing the act.
I have known alot of girls especially in the 80's and 90's, that went through cutting phases.
some of those girls...took to body modification and tattoos, piercings pretty strong, and seemed almost like a progression of their earlier and more self destructive actions on their body....from lack of control, experimentation, fear, loathing, ritualistic and relief seeking actions of cutting........to creative, ritualistic, artistic types of body modifications and self acceptance.
others...managed to kill themselves finally at some point. one or two of them through an unintended overdose.

heres a clip from our user agreement
"by agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are sexually-orientated, hateful, or otherwise threatening in nature."

well, there are definitely sexuallly orientated posts on this website. by many members. probably some, including me.
I dont want to suggest people ignore our rules here...but I also know, that our rules are somewhat vauge in areas....I dont want this to turn into a place...where enforcing the rules becomes a contradictory, and time limiting focus of the admins and mods work here.
if I was to run back through posts, and start editing out all the sexual orientated posts...we would have a cut up to hell website. this is not a reason to let Hannah back at all.....just illustrating the point, that some rules here tend to be ignored, and not strongly enforced, more or less than others are. understandable I hope

if I was to edit out all the relations of peoples self destructive drug using scenarios...we wouldnt have a website possibly. or at least, we wouldnt have an honest website. a censored website.
though I realised quickly that censorship is a tool that we have to use, I want to use it to stop the remarks of intended violence, rascist slurs, demeaning talk, self destruction more than the posts of people relating their past experiences.

concerning personal safety...people who commit actions of a self destructive nature...it might come down to some differences of degrees here.
its possible that anyone shooting heroin that isnt fully cooked, or properly metered...might be acting in a self destructive manner.
people glorifying the drug lifestyle...might help perpetuate a self destructive path etc etc.
how far should we go, to limit self destructive planning?
should we only encourage the horror stories, and outright ban any golden or salad days reverie?
no, we need both. we need full spectrum opiophile if at all possible.
full disclosure, as far as to the line of incrimination.

some of my decision to bring Hannah back, is due to having to make a timely decision, and then eventually, stop paying time into the matter, once I feel I have tried to listen to both sides, or many sides.....there has to be a point where the action is committed to.
I have asked members for a few weeks, to share specific evidence with me...and I have not come up with alot.
I am not saying that there isnt more. But there has got to be an easier way for me to deal with that, than by reading every damn post or thread she is involved in....
that is the reason for the probation.

Hannah, this is directed to you..............., and any other applicable member.
please, do not threaten your health and show the resulting photographs on this website please....and please do not make statements regarding hurting yourself other people.
of course, you could talk about your experiences dealing with mental or physical pain, and I am not going to have a strict code of opiate only content here at the website, but discussing your future plans for cutting, killing, hurting, is not appreciated by some members here at all...and by many, less than you would/might apparently think.
I know alot of people might make an offhand statements that they are going to kill so and so, for doing this or that, and we usually take that to be in jest.
by not making those statements/threats at all, no matter how likely it is that they will be undertaken, we will not have to spend time, deciding the intent of such a post.
Your probation is not a period of punishment...it is a period of time I am trying to grace the other members with, to fully divulge their discontent if there is any more. and to provice solid evidence of actions you may have taken, that have not been substantial in my opinion yet, from what I have seen.
Try and look at the probationary period, as a step back into the community, in the right direction.

I did tell Hannah that I thought some members had done her wrong....or at least, had less than knowledgeable opinions on the full extent of her actions (which I could admittedly, still be ignorant of).
but I do not want that to be taken that I place all or even much of the blame directly on Brony....I think he made a decision, that was motivated mainly by others discontent. I know that Brony's decision was made because Hannah herself engaged in fanning the flames.

I encourage you Hannah...to stop fanning the flames yourself...as we all know it takes two to Tango.

Brony and the other mods and admins, are in a bit of a position here, that they are expected to protect and serve the website, and up until now, their decisions were mostly their own affair, bans/suspensions/infractions, were actions they were fully given power over.
only in the last few weeks... did I finally see it time for a need of a final OK from me, a review of each individual case, the owner..to be set in stone.
not because there are so many situations that cause controversy..but because I want to guard against that. and having to let members back after months of decisions being settled.
It has been long enough, that I have kept my nose out of the jurisdiction that I am eminently responsible for.
so I dont want any member, that has been given their membership back, to ever, ever, point a finger at the mod or admin that was or might have been part of their initial banning. I have to rely on these people, our admins and mods, to do alot of work at this website. a website that WOULD NOT be around for long without the hard work of the small community of mods and admins, and the generous donations that are made by them. a good portion of opiophile is directly supported by me, and these people, and I cannot risk dissent...by pulling the rug out from underneath their judgements more than I feel obligated to.

I want my new, deeper involvement, in the policing of the websites policys, to make it more likely that we will NOT have to deal with a situation like this again.
I dont want to find out about a situation months or weeks later, and have to reverse a trusted community members decision like this.
I think a time limit needs to be put on this.
lets say that any member that gets the boot, and it hasnt been Ok'd by me, has one month to contact me at my gmail, and complain.
as the decision to boot Hannah, was made so long ago, it was almost entirely under "Billi the tyrants" style of rule. it was right during the transition of the websites ownership going from Billi and I,...to just old I.
Billi handled things the way he did for a reason. He guided this website for along time. and during much of that, I was more involved with the websites running that some people might think....I just kept my nose out of the bans and boots.
the reason I bring this up, is, that Brony was probably just saving Billi the time of doing the same damn thing.
people think Billi left the website back then....but that is not completely the case. he still has power here, and is still welcome to give someone the boot if he sees fit, he still has an open membership.
so Brony might have just saved Hannah from the cruel and decisive quickness of "Billi the tyrant"

two weeks from now, will be the 23rd I believe.
case is closed on the "deep" past after that.
of course, Hannah will be subject to the same rules, and hopefully the same grace of tolerance that I feel our community SHOULD embody.

I know in the past month or so, a member was excused from knowingly soliciting on the website forum. we recieved plenty of emails that this same person, was also soliciting peoples private emails, and other areas, off of the opiophile website.
I want to draw the line, at our jurisdiction for enforcing our rules, to within that of opiophiles domain.
the main reason being, I dont want to police the internet much past my liabilities, and I dont want popular opinions of peoples lives way from opiophile to have a stake in their memberships here.
for one reason, I dont know who to trust, in the sense, that we have had a few bad eggs, even within the opiophile "elite"......I cant make many sound judgements, based on popular, or even unpopular opinion.

so when the said member, was kicked out for soliciting apparently, outside of opiophile, I felt it better to bring them back, until they commit more smooth moves.

I am trying to avoid ex members who have donated money, trying to perpetrate fraud claims against us.
recently, apparently...a group of "high ranking" ex opiophile members decided to storm congress, and give them accurate and painful accounts of the depth of our corruption here.
ha ha ha ha.

here is the final sentence in our user agreement

"The owners of Opiophile.org reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason. The owners of Opiophile.org reserve the right to terminate your membership at any time, for any reason."

while an admin or moderator, might not exactly be an owner, consider that I generally follow their suggestions.
that is, I the owner, dont have to actually be fair at all, or even consult the user agreement for a rule violation to base a ban on membership, or editing posts/threads.
this makes me feel alot better, considering that some people might try and use the fact that they donated money to opiophile, as a way to point out they are getting ripped off, by not get a full use of their membership.

its a matter of what I see fit, and what the other members/mods/admins might want to try and influence me with, whether it be hard evidence, or opinions.

I really want to try and be fair...but to be honest, being fair can take ALOT of our time here.
I really want to spend my time, getting to know my mods and admins better, making relevant posts on opiate/opioid pharmacology or chemistry....I want to dig up novel information...write about my personal experiences, and my personal research.....not fucking dick around with managerial dutys all the time.

I want to personally apologize to Brony, because he tried his best, and made the decision he saw fit.
I dont want to ever have to do this again, dig back in the past, question people that are more devoted to the website than many of other members.

I would like to thank Roxi stardust for having the tact to bring things to my attention that I overlooked, and for standing up for her fellow opiophiles.

and I would like to end this issue, here in a few weeks if its at all possible.
so far now, I think I have spent over 6 hours attending to this issue alone.
that constitutes a decent portion of this months worth of attention I have committed here.

if we have to do this type of thing much, it will rip this website apart, and take up so much time, that we will all be sick and tired of it.

please, only serious remarks to this thread please, and no flame wars as well.

Nick....a long time member here, summed it up pretty good...
he stated more or less, that if you dont like Hannah, or her statements or style, just try and steer clear.
there is plenty of room for us, and the walls are no so thin here between forum threads you know?

thanks to all who tried to help me with opinions, facts, and suggestions.

[jacky]

anyone still concerned?
probation is still on for Hannah..
so if you have any further complaints, or have anything you want me to look at, lets get it taken care of in the next week.

thanks!