JoePa has been fired!

[cbcmariners77]

I don't like this idiotic poll either and I have know idea how it ended up on my thread! I asked a moderator about removing it but nothing happened. Why?

Because, though it be a misrepresentation of your good name and should therefore be considered a passive form of libel (without actual malice), all that is required of the moderator is to do the bare legal minimum :).

(That was completely meant as a joke.)

[Carl62]

Because, though it be a misrepresentation of your good name and should therefore be considered a passive form of libel (without actual malice), all that is required of the moderator is to do the bare legal minimum :).

(That was completely meant as a joke.)

No comment.

[Dravin]

I don't like this idiotic poll either and I have know idea how it ended up on my thread! I asked a moderator about removing it but nothing happened. Why?

It is probably the result of a thread merger (as sometimes happens when two active threads on the same topic exist). As far as moderation your best bet is to ask the moderator you requested it of via PM. Though it may be because there isn't a way to just remove the poll, a quick look at the commands doesn't show anything.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Dravin

[Carl62]

It is probably the result of a thread merger (as sometimes happens when two active threads on the same topic exist). As far as moderation your best bet is to ask the moderator you requested it of via PM. Though it may be because there isn't a way to just remove the poll, a quick look at the commands doesn't show anything.

So how did this thread "merger" happen? So somebody's allowed to just go into your thread and mess with it?! And this is allowed to happen with no repercussions? As far as PM'ing the moderator, I think I already did that! So what's the point in asking again...and again if they didn't do anything the first time? Doesn't make sense.

[Dravin]

So how did this thread "merger" happen?

A moderator did it, it's a command in the board software. It combines two threads and puts the posts in chronological order. I think in this case Vort had a poll in his thread so when they merged the poll came too and since polls display at the top of a thread it popped to the top.

So somebody's allowed to just go into your thread and mess with it?!

Yes, it's called moderation. If you have an issue with it then I recommend you keep in mind rule #6. If you don't know who actually moderated the thread then reporting using the contact us link or reporting your post and putting a general address in the reason field would be a good way to go about bringing up concerns in private.

As far as PM'ing the moderator, I think I already did that! So what's the point in asking again...and again if they didn't do anything the first time? Doesn't make sense.

You PMed them to ask why the poll wasn't removed? Such wasn't clear from your post.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Dravin

[sister_in_faith]

I read the grand jury thing... it's sickening.

This is what happens when people mind their own business.

[Canuck Mormon]

Wow, such hatred for a man, who very few, if any, of us actually know. He did what he was supposed to do, report it to his superiors. He can't go to the police because if it proven false the school could have been sued.

My wife, who is a teacher, said that there was nothing else he could do. He reported what he had heard and expected management to handle the situation. She can't go to the police if there is a suspicion of abuse, she HAS to inform her admin team and let them deal with it. Teachers aren't trained to handle these types of situations, but the administration is. The only thing more he could have done was to keep asking about the investigation, but I doubt he would have been told anything about it.

Lay off the guy for doing what he was supposed to do.

[Dravin]

Wow, such hatred for a man, who very few, if any, of us actually know. He did what he was supposed to do, report it to his superiors. He can't go to the police because if it proven false the school could have been sued.

My wife, who is a teacher, said that there was nothing else he could do. He reported what he had heard and expected management to handle the situation. She can't go to the police if there is a suspicion of abuse, she HAS to inform her admin team and let them deal with it. Teachers aren't trained to handle these types of situations, but the administration is. The only thing more he could have done was to keep asking about the investigation, but I doubt he would have been told anything about it.

Lay off the guy for doing what he was supposed to do.

I suspect a lot of folks here are of a darn the torpedoes mindset that doesn't particularly care about legal trouble for him or the school. Also there is a hindsight effect going on. People have a hard time looking back at a situation without carrying knowledge from the present. You see it a lot in armchair strategists discussing WW2, "General Bob should have attacked the right flank because it was weak, his blunder cost the lives of countless men!" all while forgetting that General Bob didn't know the right flank was weak.

So you get a double whammy of:

1) Who cares if the school got sued: child in danger!

2) He shouldn't have trusted the administration to do their job because look how they bungled it.

Thing is, if he had reported it, the administration did it's thing, and the cops were called and Sandusky was arrested back then I doubt people (or as many) would be lambasting Paterno for being a weasel that only did the minimum. The difference in his actions between the two scenarios? None.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Dravin

[sister_in_faith]

Teachers aren't trained to handle these types of situations, but the administration is.

Seriously? Is this true? I am astonished that they don't require that teachers are trained on this kind of stuff.

[Canuck Mormon]

Teachers aren't trained to handle these types of situations, but the administration is.

Seriously? Is this true? I am astonished that they don't require that teachers are trained on this kind of stuff.

They are trained to go to Admin. That's the extent of it. They are not to call the police, they are not to confront the person, they are not to do anything (unless witnessing it themselves) except to take the matter to admin.

My wife had a student who was exhibiting some odd behaviour. This student was smearing her own feces on the bathroom stalls. They have been told that this is an example of someone who MIGHT have been abused. She passed the information along to the admin, social services was called, and she was never told anything else.

Does it suck? You bet. But it is also there to protect the teachers and the school, and the innocent from legal action.

[Dravin]

Seriously? Is this true? I am astonished that they don't require that teachers are trained on this kind of stuff.

To handle an investigation into the validity of abuse claims and the legal ramifications and procedures that goes along with it? It doesn't surprise me, you can't train everyone in everything or you end up in a place where you are training your engineers how to balance the books. The line between recognizing and reporting abuse versus handling claims of abuse with its attendant internal and legal procedures (probably with a lawyer involved at some point) seems like a reasonable place to hand things over to administration (who is trained in how to handle such).

Edited November 15, 2011 by Dravin

[slamjet]

I would agree with Can and Drav except for one glaring factor: by the reading of the grand jury transcript, JP was convinced and agreed with Schultz, had at least two meetings about it, and then still allowed Sandusky to have an office with responsibilities. Besides that, JP was not a teacher, he was the administrator of the football program. And as an administrator, he had more responsibility for reporting and follow through.

Did he do the minimum? Arguably yes, but him as an administrator, I disagree.

Besides that, he carefully cultured an image of morality, family man, honesty and honor that smacks right up against what his actions really were and are. The head coach set's the tone for the program. His tone did not match up with his actions. If he was really the man that matched his image, then he would have first, followed up on the report; second, releaved this man of his job title and all duties with it. Let Sandusky sue, the truth would have come out when it should have. Third, he should have reported it do the director AND to the police.

In the end, what did the university do, told Sandusky to not bring any youth onto the campus, a policy that Curley (athletic director) admitted was unenforceable.

Because what he preached did not match what he did, and he, as the head and administrator of the football program kept a person he seriously suspected in the position he was in, there was no choice but to let him go.

I would say to read the grand jury transcript, but it's gory on details of what Sandusky did. So if you don't want that junk floating in your head, feel free to skip it. But if you read it, I believe you would change your mind about what level of responsibility he truly had. He was knee deep in it, but he took the face-saving way out. In the end, it caught up with him.

[beefche]

I would agree with Can and Drav except for one glaring factor: by the reading of the grand jury transcript, JP was convinced and agreed with Schultz, had at least two meetings about it, and then still allowed Sandusky to have an office with responsibilities. Besides that, JP was not a teacher, he was the administrator of the football program. And as an administrator, he had more responsibility for reporting and follow through.

Where did you read that? I didn't see it in the report. Paterno met with the graduate student at his home, then met the next day with the AD and VP. I don't see anything in the report that Paterno met again with the AD or VP about this nor do I see that Paterno had any say in the decision that Curley and Schultz made.

He heard a report of a heinous act and reported it. For all he knew, the matter was reported and investigated and the allegation was found to not be credible. Although you assume the worst that someone in his standing has compromised his morals to get where he is, I assume most people are good and strive to do the right thing, unless proven otherwise. I'm not seeing from this grand jury report that Paterno did anything he shouldn't have. It's a hard decision to make a grave accusation against someone when one hasn't witnessed anything personally.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I'd vote for the second option if it didn't call him a martyr.

[lafrenieredianne1]

This. I think JP did what most employees would do, and just followed the chain of command.

At my school, we are told to always report to the Principle/Supt. and let them handle it from there.

I have a lot of respect for JP, and I feel for the guy. This has to be just sickening to him, to go down like this, after all the good he has done for the youth at that school.

God bless Joe P.

God bless the child who was raped and may all involved in any way be given the maximum sentence by law! Sick, sick and warped people in this wicked world! If I even suspected an atrocity like this was taking place in the place I work I would be like a dog after a bone and would not rest till this matter was brought to light.....shame on them that turned a blind eye to this as they will meet their maker on judgement day. Repentance is their only way out of this mess; the Atonement is for all who are willing to approach the Lord with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.