A few thank you's revisited

[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