A few thank you's revisited

[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.