A few thank you's revisited

[ksbearski]

Mr. Steel God, et. al.-

With all due respect to the leadership of the club and the mods of the CM forum, where does one ask for clarification of the rules of engagement? I agree with Mad Russian that the best debate is the debate held in public, civilly and that is the essence of free speech, at least as I understand it in the good ol' US of A. It was readily apparent from the previous thread that open, honest discussion of a topic is the expectation, but evidently is not necessarily the rule here.

It has become apparent in the last few years that the RoE as written has changed somewhat, or, more accurately, the way that the mods have interpreted it has changed, but those "changes" have not been clearly delineated. For example, at no point in the rules does it categorically state that members can be banned for the contents of posts on other club sites or in private forums, but it appears that in the last month or so, that is exactly what has happened to some of the members. If a person can be banned for expressing an opinion regarding blitz members, blitz leaders or blitz business on another site or in another club's forums, shouldn't that be clearly stated in the rules for everyone to see? Common sense dictates that one does not bite the hand that feeds one, but perhaps if it was clearly stated that griping somewhere else could lead to you being on the outside looking in, then that problem would go away.

Also, it is not clearly stated that a person can be banned for the contents of a private message. I understand that we are all adults and that we should engage in civil social discourse even in cases where the parties disagree, but sometimes emotions get the best of us and we might display anger in a PM. So, if that happens and that's a possible banning offense, shouldn't it be clearly stated in the rules?

The reason that I bring this up is that I have been a participant of and been witness to the great soap opera of the last two to three years. It seems to me that a great number of the issues that have cropped up could have been avoided if the rules (read "leadership expectations of behavior") were clearly stated up front. So I would suggest to the leadership that a thread in the general discussion forum be set aside for clarification of the RoE's and also a thread where grievances can be filed. Additionally, I would suggest that the RoE's be modified so that we all understand the level of behavior that is required to keep from being banned.

I am not trying to be controversial or inflammatory or disrespectful, but I suspect that if many of the recently banned were aware that they could be banned for the contents of PM's or for expressing their displeasure with blitz forum operations on other sites, then perhaps we would not have seen the tragedy we have witnessed for the last year or so.

Finally, with due respect to Mr POS's remonstrations to the contrary, I interpreted his initial posts in the "few thank you's" thread as derogatory towards other clubs and to the mods of other clubs and if the rules were being equitably enforced, he should have been suspended or banned. However, to his credit, when warned that he was treading on thin ice, he did comply with the directive of the assistant commander.

I like the new look of the site, it's obvious that you have a good, solid team on the job.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to post.

Regards,

Barry
aka ksbearski

[Mike Abberton]

To me, it seems like it would be impossible to list every possible reason why someone could be reprimanded, have their message board privileges revoked, or even be banned from the club. The more you try to list these types of things out, the more people will question punishments or even deliberately tread the fine edge just to provoke a reaction.

Keeping the rules simple allows better flexibility to address new or unusual circumstances, although it might, admitedly cause some confusion on what is allowed or not. The second part of a good system is a graded system of punishments. The first step is a relatively minor punishment, e.g. a warning on the MB that a post or thread is getting inappropriate. The second step is a loss of posting privileges for a certain time period. The third step is outright banning from the club. If someone gets all the way to step 3, there is obviously a disconnect between them and the club rules/management and it is probably just as well to part ways.

The recent thread with POS is an example of getting to step 1, and the situation resolved itself. What is the big issue there? :conf:

As far as favortism, I don't really remember a situation that anyone else has reprimanded, lost posting privileges or been banned because they badmouthed another website here. So why would POS be banned for doing so? The recent bannings were about those members insulting members here on another website (and at least some of the banned members had definitely already been through steps 1 and 2). Whether you agree with their bannings, the situations are different so they shouldn't be compared.

[PoorOldSpike]

Look, perhaps I should have mentioned this before, but Bootie gave me permission to make that original "thank you's" post mentioning the naughty clubs, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it, okay?..:)

[Mad Russian]

Look, perhaps I should have mentioned this before, but Bootie gave me permission to make that original "thank you's" post mentioning the naughty clubs, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it, okay?..:)

Well, that certainly explains why he was AWOL when you posted it and SG had to intervene. Of course he's not going to find something offensive he pre-approved!

It also explains why the last thread was locked before I could respond to Booties personal remarks to me.

Thanks to you for at least being honest POS.

Good Hunting.

MR

[wigam]

Mr. Steel God, et. al.-

With all due respect to the leadership of the club and the mods of the CM forum, where does one ask for clarification of the rules of engagement? I agree with Mad Russian that the best debate is the debate held in public, civilly and that is the essence of free speech, at least as I understand it in the good ol' US of A. It was readily apparent from the previous thread that open, honest discussion of a topic is the expectation, but evidently is not necessarily the rule here.

Greetings Barry. I do believe we have never crossed paths. :)
I agree with you that maybe some clarification is needed to explain the rules. For me they seem clear cut but if they are not understood by anyone I am more than happy to have them explained further. So no worries there. :)

It has become apparent in the last few years that the RoE as written has changed somewhat, or, more accurately, the way that the mods have interpreted it has changed, but those "changes" have not been clearly delineated. For example, at no point in the rules does it categorically state that members can be banned for the contents of posts on other club sites or in private forums, but it appears that in the last month or so, that is exactly what has happened to some of the members. If a person can be banned for expressing an opinion regarding blitz members, blitz leaders or blitz business on another site or in another club's forums, shouldn't that be clearly stated in the rules for everyone to see? Common sense dictates that one does not bite the hand that feeds one, but perhaps if it was clearly stated that griping somewhere else could lead to you being on the outside looking in, then that problem would go away.

I don't think the ROE's have changd at all, they way they are interpreted may have with each different moderator that comes along, so that maybe different.

And as for the gripping somewhere else it was more than that. What they were say was personaltowards the staff and other members. If they had kept it at griping at the way things were run, yeah fine but personal attacks are different.

Also, it is not clearly stated that a person can be banned for the contents of a private message. I understand that we are all adults and that we should engage in civil social discourse even in cases where the parties disagree, but sometimes emotions get the best of us and we might display anger in a PM. So, if that happens and that's a possible banning offense, shouldn't it be clearly stated in the rules?

The rules on suspensions and dismaisals are set out in the ROE's section. It dosn't sate that if you do this or that you will be warned or dimissed, I don't think it has too. Its up to the mods on what is what and I feel we have done a fair job so far.

The reason that I bring this up is that I have been a participant of and been witness to the great soap opera of the last two to three years. It seems to me that a great number of the issues that have cropped up could have been avoided if the rules (read "leadership expectations of behavior") were clearly stated up front. So I would suggest to the leadership that a thread in the general discussion forum be set aside for clarification of the RoE's and also a thread where grievances can be filed. Additionally, I would suggest that the RoE's be modified so that we all understand the level of behavior that is required to keep from being banned.

I don't see that we need to spell out every infraction that might get someone suspended and dismissed. I have to be honest and say I can't see that happening, but feel free to contact me at any time to discuss any issue. I am more than happy to talk via PM or email and if you have a problem with any thing we discuss for you to make it public. I just see any issues that need discussion better completed if between the two involved not getting side tracked via the forum.

I am not trying to be controversial or inflammatory or disrespectful, but I suspect that if many of the recently banned were aware that they could be banned for the contents of PM's or for expressing their displeasure with blitz forum operations on other sites, then perhaps we would not have seen the tragedy we have witnessed for the last year or so.

I don't see this as contarversal or disrepectful at all. I am happy to discuss any matter with any member in a civil manner such as this. The PM's were with a mod before mine and Bootie's time. As far as I am aware there has been none of that in our time. And for the record I think they (the banned) were aware that they knew what there continued behaviour was going to get. I could be wrong but they had plenty of lifelines thrown to them!!

Finally, with due respect to Mr POS's remonstrations to the contrary, I interpreted his initial posts in the "few thank you's" thread as derogatory towards other clubs and to the mods of other clubs and if the rules were being equitably enforced, he should have been suspended or banned. However, to his credit, when warned that he was treading on thin ice, he did comply with the directive of the assistant commander.

I respect that you may have seen it that way but Bootie nd myself did not and as such the intial post was not disrepectful in my opinion. And yes he did toe the line when warned

I like the new look of the site, it's obvious that you have a good, solid team on the job.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to post.

Regards,

Barry
aka ksbearski

Good to talk to you and look forwad to your contrabutions. :) And glad you like the new look Blitz.

Marcus

[Copper]

I pretty much concur with Wigam... and still stick to my initial assessment that POS' post was within the boundaries.

[Mad Russian]

Are we changing club rules then?

Can PM's be made public or not?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Copper]

Ok... Ive had my morning coffee, medication and am now in better fettle to respond to ksbearski.

With all due respect to the leadership of the club and the mods of the CM forum, where does one ask for clarification of the rules of engagement? I agree with Mad Russian that the best debate is the debate held in public, civilly and that is the essence of free speech, at least as I understand it in the good ol' US of A. It was readily apparent from the previous thread that open, honest discussion of a topic is the expectation, but evidently is not necessarily the rule here.

I too agree with Mad Russian that the best debates are held in public as long as it is kept civil. That is sometimes hard to do as Mad Russian so nobley demonstrated in the thread you are pertaining too. Im guilty as well as I bit back and as a moderator here I shouldnt have. I never stated I was holier than holy but some of the comments from MR were not about discussing Blitz rules etc... they were blatant digs at me and Wigam.

It has become apparent in the last few years that the RoE as written has changed somewhat, or, more accurately, the way that the mods have interpreted it has changed, but those "changes" have not been clearly delineated.

That goes with the fact that the rules are a rough guide line to which the mods try and adhere to. Different mods have different ideas of what is acceptable and what isnt.

For example, at no point in the rules does it categorically state that members can be banned for the contents of posts on other club sites or in private forums, but it appears that in the last month or so, that is exactly what has happened to some of the members.

Indeed that is what has happened. The rules are a guide line but sometimes you need to act outwith the rules or there simply was not the need to write down rules for every eventuality.

If a person can be banned for expressing an opinion regarding blitz members, blitz leaders or blitz business on another site or in another club's forums, shouldn't that be clearly stated in the rules for everyone to see?

Well no not really. I mean, we are all adults here.... we have the nous to know when we are doing something that could be conceived as right or wrong. When the rules were drawn up it wasnt envisaged that anyone would stoop to the level of basically waging a campaign against one or two individiuals on another forum. But when that group of people start taking personal digs at a member, saying horrible things about his family and his home it was time to act. They knew what they were saying could prove hurtful... did they attempt to stop.... no. Were they warned... in most of the cases yes they were. Did they continue... yes.

Common sense dictates that one does not bite the hand that feeds one, but perhaps if it was clearly stated that griping somewhere else could lead to you being on the outside looking in, then that problem would go away.

Yes I agree.. and these folk were warned but carried on regardless.

Also, it is not clearly stated that a person can be banned for the contents of a private message. I understand that we are all adults and that we should engage in civil social discourse even in cases where the parties disagree, but sometimes emotions get the best of us and we might display anger in a PM. So, if that happens and that's a possible banning offense, shouldn't it be clearly stated in the rules?

In this case I agree. I believe PM's should be private and this has obviously not been the case in the past. I dont believe you should be banned for the contents of a PM but it would take one hell of a PM to force the hand of the leadership here to ban you. Im aware that has happened in the past but to be honest the PM was just the culmination of a lot of whinging and crying and that the PM proved to be the straw that broke the camels back. So to state in the rules that you can be banned for what is said in a PM is misleading as in the case you mention the PM was not the catalyst for the banning.

The reason that I bring this up is that I have been a participant of and been witness to the great soap opera of the last two to three years. It seems to me that a great number of the issues that have cropped up could have been avoided if the rules (read "leadership expectations of behavior") were clearly stated up front.

You believe we should tell people how to behave?

Surely people around here are adult enough to know what is right and what is wrong. For the majority of people who have been banned warnings or personal pleas to cut it out have been sent... acknowledged and dismissed before the perpetrators carry on their course.

If they cant take a personal notification that what they are doing is deemed wrong then what difference will it make if its posted in the rules?

So I would suggest to the leadership that a thread in the general discussion forum be set aside for clarification of the RoE's and also a thread where grievances can be filed.

I dont see the need for that as we should all know what is right and what is wrong and if your not certain a warning in your post or a mail to you will soon set your ship sailing the true course again. No need to hammer everything down... when you do that you get people deliberatley walking the line seeing how far they can push it.

Regarding an open grievance forum... I ont think that is a particularly good idea. Airing of dirty laundry in public is never a nice spectacle and there are already rules in place for grievances.

Additionally, I would suggest that the RoE's be modified so that we all understand the level of behavior that is required to keep from being banned.

See my above comment about walking the line. If you fear you are going to get banned then you obviously know that you are doing something wrong. And if your not aware you will be given plenty of warnings that perhaps your not choosing the best path in relation to your tenure at The Blitz.

I am not trying to be controversial or inflammatory or disrespectful, but I suspect that if many of the recently banned were aware that they could be banned for the contents of PM's or for expressing their displeasure with blitz forum operations on other sites, then perhaps we would not have seen the tragedy we have witnessed for the last year or so.

You make it sound like the private message banning is the norm... it isnt... it is the exception. As regards to voicing displeasure with Blitz forum operations on other forums....hmmmm... did you actually read what was written by them? They werent complaining about Blitz forum operations they were attacking Blitz members in the nastiest of fashions and taking great pleasure in doing so. Warnings were handed out unheeded. They knew what was coming. The only tragedy in this is that they werent adult enough to get on with gaming and to leave petty rivalries aside.

Finally, with due respect to Mr POS's remonstrations to the contrary, I interpreted his initial posts in the "few thank you's" thread as derogatory towards other clubs and to the mods of other clubs and if the rules were being equitably enforced, he should have been suspended or banned.

Ok... I didnt. POS ran the post by me and I said go for it. I see no attack in his words.

If you did there is a grievance procedure in place. Why didnt you comment then?

And that goes for everyone... if you believe a post to be breaking the rules use the grievance procedure.

As for suspending or banning he would have actually only got his fingers slapped. If he persisted he would have had a tenure on the sidelines and if he still proceeded he would have got punted.

Now those that got banned recently all signed up for the petition knowing they would not receive warnings and if they stepped out of line in regards to POS and Randy baiting they would be immediatley banned. (This was agreed by them!) Despite going back on what the petition advised I appealed for them to quit it as they continued their personal battles with the 2 aforementioned, so instead of bannign straight of I gave them plenty of leeway to turn the page. In the end it never happened and SG finally called a day to it and banned them.

Im sorry but anyone trying to paint these guys as martyrs has the wrong end of the stick.... warnings were issued, warnings were ignored. IMO these forums should not need moderated to the extent they are as adults should know how to behave (the majority do) and if I have modded things inappropriatley then I apologise. Im only human and mistakes are made.

Thanks for reading.

[Copper]

Are we changing club rules then?

Can PM's be made public or not?

Good Hunting.

MR

I wouldnt think so... the majority of members are happy with the rules.

No idea.. perhaps you should PM SG and ask him.

[Steel God]

I think Shane and Marcus have answered this for the most part, but since it was directed to me specifically by name, I will add in a few comments of my own.

Mr. Steel God, et. al.-

With all due respect to the leadership of the club and the mods of the CM forum, where does one ask for clarification of the rules of engagement?

You can PM, or email your forum moderator. You can PM or email Randy or myself. You can post the question in the forum, or you can post the the question in the General Discussion forum, which is actually perfect for such questions, and in fact, where I have moved this thread to, since it's topic is only ancillary to the CM Community.

I agree with Mad Russian that the best debate is the debate held in public, civilly and that is the essence of free speech, at least as I understand it in the good ol' US of A. It was readily apparent from the previous thread that open, honest discussion of a topic is the expectation, but evidently is not necessarily the rule here.

Open, honest discussion is fine, as long as everyone is respectful. When that stops happening I would expect a thread to be locked, which is precisely what happened in the previous thread yo allude to.

It has become apparent in the last few years that the RoE as written has changed somewhat, or, more accurately, the way that the mods have interpreted it has changed, but those "changes" have not been clearly delineated.

Any changes to the RoE are documented in the appropriate section. There have been no significant changes to them, although several clarifications, each of which was the result of "rules lawyering" but individuals.

For example, at no point in the rules does it categorically state that members can be banned for the contents of posts on other club sites or in private forums, but it appears that in the last month or so, that is exactly what has happened to some of the members. If a person can be banned for expressing an opinion regarding blitz members, blitz leaders or blitz business on another site or in another club's forums, shouldn't that be clearly stated in the rules for everyone to see? Common sense dictates that one does not bite the hand that feeds one, but perhaps if it was clearly stated that griping somewhere else could lead to you being on the outside looking in, then that problem would go away.

Actually if you go to Rule 19 you will see the following:

We reserve the right to remove any member from the club for cause. Reasons for dismissal include, but are not limited to threats to others, cheating, or generally obnoxious behavior.

https://www.theblitz.club/rules_of_engag....php?id=19

Also, it is not clearly stated that a person can be banned for the contents of a private message. I understand that we are all adults and that we should engage in civil social discourse even in cases where the parties disagree, but sometimes emotions get the best of us and we might display anger in a PM. So, if that happens and that's a possible banning offense, shouldn't it be clearly stated in the rules?

I don't know where this idea of being banned for the content of PMs comes from. I have been through the moderation logs of the website and not once in the cause column of a banning does it say "banned for PM". Now if someone were using the PM system to be abusive, or obnoxious, maybe that is what you are referring to, but without further specifics, I don't know what you reference is. In such a case, the Rule cited above applies, but the short answer to this is that the PM system is part of the Club, and the Club Rules apply to it. It's not okay to be abusive in a PM anymore than it is in the forums.

The reason that I bring this up is that I have been a participant of and been witness to the great soap opera of the last two to three years. It seems to me that a great number of the issues that have cropped up could have been avoided if the rules (read "leadership expectations of behavior") were clearly stated up front. So I would suggest to the leadership that a thread in the general discussion forum be set aside for clarification of the RoE's and also a thread where grievances can be filed. Additionally, I would suggest that the RoE's be modified so that we all understand the level of behavior that is required to keep from being banned.

Well, in all fairness, your "participation" prior to this post consists of 3 posts in one thread back in 2006, wherein you were conducting what appeared to be a one man campaign to have a banned member reinstated. In fact in that very thread you said you were leaving us for greener pastures. A more cynical man than me would be suspicious, but fortunately for me, I'm not.

If there is something unclear in the RoE's by all means, bring it to our attention in any of the ways listed in the beginning of this post. We can not modify the rules if we don't know what is unclear. We wrote them and they seem pretty clear to us.

I am not trying to be controversial or inflammatory or disrespectful, but I suspect that if many of the recently banned were aware that they could be banned for the contents of PM's or for expressing their displeasure with blitz forum operations on other sites, then perhaps we would not have seen the tragedy we have witnessed for the last year or so.

I think it's pretty clear to most folks exactly what you're doing with this post.

As for the "recently banned", once again, I don't know where the notion of being banned for PMs comes from. If you care to go back and read the thread that was posted when the announcement was made, the reasons are stated therein. In short, they were unhappy here. Their unhappiness was never going to be remedied. Their perpetual unhappiness was having a negative impact on this forum, and that was having a negative impact on this site. Their removal has been a positive thing for the Club, the Forum, and although I haven't checked, I suspect for them as well. I doubt they are sitting around wasting any time complaining about it.

Finally, with due respect to Mr POS's remonstrations to the contrary, I interpreted his initial posts in the "few thank you's" thread as derogatory towards other clubs and to the mods of other clubs and if the rules were being equitably enforced, he should have been suspended or banned. However, to his credit, when warned that he was treading on thin ice, he did comply with the directive of the assistant commander.

And that's how it works, warning - suspension - ban. He violated, I warned, he complied. Case closed. Why should he be banned? I see where Mick says he cleared the post through Shane. Okay, when I saw it I didn't like it, and I over ruled Shane. Plain enough.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to post.

At the end of the day, the obligation is on the user to understand what the rules are if you want to be a member. The rules are made available, and are, in our opinions, quite clear. If you disagree, the rules even spell out ways in which you can get redress or clarification. But as in all other walks of life, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If someone runs afoul we believe we have ample opportunity for the offender to be warned and to self regulate. After that, you're on your own and accountable for your own actions.

Good Gaming;

Paul