A few thank you's revisited

[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