Does LJ Abuse ever give anyone a straight answer?
It looks like the answer is no.
Yellow-finch was suspended for two entries. LJ Abuse told her "In these entries, you referenced LiveJournal user vanimaestel. While this reference was not by name, inference was recognized to be about them"
She replied "Please quote those entries so I can understand what you think was a reference to vanimaestel."
LJ Abuse told her "Thank you for your reply. In both of these entries you make reference to your "batshit insanse stalker" which starts a thread about "Melee" who is LiveJournal user vanimaestel."
She replied "Where were there any comments about "Meele," and who made them? As I told you before, the "batshit insane stalker" I was referring to is a woman named Kim. If others thought I was referring to Meele, I am unaware of it and am not at fault for it."
Denise Paolucci, Manager of the LiveJournal Abuse Team, responded "It is the determination of LiveJournal.com that you violated the Notice of No Contact"
Yellow-finch replied "You still have not answered my question regarding my suspension. I'll repeat it for you: "Where were there any comments about 'Meele,' and who made them?" So far, you have told me that you assumed the post I made was about Melanie based on comments left by others. You have yet to tell me which comments caused you to make this assumption. I am asking you to provide a list of the public comments to the two posts in question along with my replies, and then I'd like you to tell me which ones lead you to believe that my posts were about Melanie. Furthermore, when my last account (cdaae13) was suspended, Michelle told me 'We must emphasise, however, that your account was not suspended -- nor will other accounts be suspended -- because another person left a comment about the user vanimaestel.'"
Her request was closed without reply.
If LiveJournal Abuse infers something from what other people reply to a post, why is it so hard for them to provide the user with copies of these replies?
As Yellow-finch puts it, "I have reason to doubt that "Each suspension is carefully reviewed by at least two team members before processing." In the past week alone, your team has mistakenly suspended three accounts: alleykitten for believing it was my account alleykitten_, cdaae for believing it was my account (I used to be cdaae13), and finchy2 for thinking it belonged to cdaae, the logic of which completely escapes me. If Corey had even bothered to check the e-mail addresses associated with all three of those accounts, none of the mistaken suspensions would have taken place. That is unprofessional, careless behavior that I highly doubt was reviewed by anyone. And if it was reviewed by another person, and *two* people from your team failed to check the e-mail addresses, then I am even more disappointed.
"It seems to me that you would rather sternly repeat yourself over and over than respond to the points I'm making in my contacts with your team, because then you might actually have to admit that you've made another grievous error in suspending my accounts, and you've made too many mistakes this past week to want to admit to another one."
These suspensions were made on the basis of reports by a user with more than 20 accounts suspended for breaking a notice of no contact. LJ Abuse trusts this user, infamous for her harassment of other users and of a Broadway musicals actor, when she infers that something is about her, evidenced by their inability to provide the comments that supposedly supported this inference.
I have to ask again, do you trust LJ Abuse?
Tags: lj abuse, livejournal, denise paolucci, six apart, blogging