Banning

[Glenn Saunders]

Steel God, Vice Commander, Lord High Muck-de-Muck;

Is this a decision, made in secrecy, by one person?

I can answer this one - NO.

While I will not comment on the case or the process or my feelings regarding the info I saw - I can tell you this was a decision made and an executive committe who considered input from by a number of people.

...so please cut the "Vice Commander, Lord High Muck-de-Muck" crap - I don't think this was a very easy decision for any of the parties involved.

Glenn

[alaric99x]

Lord high what!? Who promoted him?

I don't know anything about this situation, nor the people involved. What I do know is that the Vice Cdr, and all the other staff members, are tactful, intelligent and reasonable people. The statistics Steel God quoted above reflect appropriate restraint concerning the issue of banning.

[timshin42]

Thank you Glenn, for the feedback.

Until evidence is produced to the contrary, I remain convinced that this decision was irresponsible and damaging to the whole of the wargaming community.

As I am aware that such evidence will not be forthcoming, at this point I will consider the matter closed. You have your fixed opinion about the affair and the people involved in the decision; I have mine.

We have agreed to disagree.

[Steel God]

Is this a decision, made in secrecy, by one person?

Ultimately yes one person makes the decision, that would be Brian the Ladder Commander, but the decision he made was after some 150 email exchanges; involving over 6 of the PzC community's most involved and talented people. Such decisions are subject to an appeal process to me as Brian's boss. One of the parties has requested an appeal which is on going, the other party has opted to not request an appeal and has moved on.

I believe that you have made a grave error in judgment in banning someone who has been so very pro-Blitz, ever since I starting Club play with him over 2 years ago.

A members enthusiasm for the Club is not a determining factor in such cases, only the facts that are relevant to the case. If you have new information that could be contributed to this case please email it to Brian and I am sure he would be willing to look at it, but if it's only a character reference, well you can save your effort as we have plenty of those for both parties and it's evident they both have loyal friends and opponents.

It is your loss, and a disservice to the Blitz Club, to have done what you have done. I am disappointed and ashamed that such an unfair, unjust, blind unilateral decision has been madewithout any apparent concern for the consequences for the rest of us.

So now we can't register on the Blitz any games played with one of the finest players, not to mention finest friends, I have ever known. While you hide behind the anonymity of your policy of secrecy, akin to the Spanish Inquisition, I strongly resent any suggestion that Walter Model would ever do anything that would reflect dishonor upon the Blitz Club. He cares for it too much!.

I do what I do at the behest of the owners of this Club. I do the best I can with what I have to work with. I confess that I am but an imperfect tool for such a large task, but I am limited in my judgments by what I know and what is presented to me. If you find yourself abused by the policies and procedures of the Club, or my handling of them, you are free to complain to the owners, and if they find me lacking in any way I shall gladly, without any reservations, and with full apologies to any who require them, vacate this position and the Club immediately. The owners names are Jim Mays and mark Higgins you can contact them through the Chain of Command Section of the Club.

Please review the proven facts, not the biased allegations, and please reconsider your decision.

Once more, for the record, allegations are one thing, hard evidence and data are what the decisions are based on. That data was reviewed by people skilled enough to interpret it, and the decision rendered by Brian based solely on that evidence. Character references were considered only as potential mitigating facts and were not directly related to the verdicts. The verdict was reached after a week of deliberations, and were anything but easy. A request for appeal was submitted by one of the banned members and not the other. That is being worked through.

Paul

[Hawk Kriegsman]

From a point of view from someone outside this ladder I would think that a simple "He was banned for____________" would probably placate most people.

And yes I know it was stated for breaking the rules, but I think what is being asked for is what rule specifically. I believe that could be done.

In the past bannings (both permanent and temporary) did have a reason listed as to the banning.

Examples would be (paraphrasing here).

101 Paratrooper was permanently banned for cheating

Hawk was banned for a week for lack of civility on the CS board.

There are many more examples I could cite but it is not needed.

I guess the most perplexing issue for me is this statement:

But please, for the sake of everyone, do not assume that anyone has been up to nefarious deeds because they have been removed.

How does one get permanently removed from the club without commiting nefarious deeds?

That is of a concern to me.

Also to everyone else concerned; as one who has spent time in the offiecer's area I can tell you that no banning happens without considerable and lengthy debate.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Steel God]

I guess the most perplexing issue for me is this statement:

But please, for the sake of everyone, do not assume that anyone has been up to nefarious deeds because they have been removed.

How does one get permanently removed from the club without commiting nefarious deeds?

By believing that the ends justify the means. To use a literary analogy, by using the Ring of Power to defeat Sauron. Best of intentions, and really poor decision making.

[timshin42]

Paul,

Thank you for the feedback. Have a nice day.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

By believing that the ends justify the means. To use a literary analogy, by using the Ring of Power to defeat Sauron. Best of intentions, and really poor decision making.

I do understand the concept of using evil to defeat evil.

But this really makes no sense to me in term of computer gaming.

So we can add being banned for non-nefarious, well intentioned, poor decision making to the list of things we can't do? :eek1:

Whatever, no more from me on this one. :rolleyes:

Hawk

[FLG]

Maybe we should all take a deep breath and stand back.

I consider Krak a friend and have enjoyed the games I have played against him. Maybe one day I will ask him why he was banned.

But I have been around long enough to know the officers of the club are all well balanced people and certainly don't take such decisions lightly. Maybe we should just have a little faith in their judgement and integrity.

[Glenn Saunders]

Hold on now.

[quote=timshin42]

[quote]
You have your fixed opinion about the affair and the people involved in the decision[/quote]

This sounds like you think I have a fixed opinion about the the people being banned - and that is NOT the case at all - and I want to be very clear about that.

I have very strong and high opinions of Steel God and Brian the Ladder leader and I trust them to make decisions that are good for the club.

I also have a high opinion of one of the parties involved in the Banning - I've worked with them extensively over the summer on a WSF project. I vouched for my opinion of him and I call him a friend before and after the affair. I feel it is too bad he is banned but I have no opinion on the decision of the club.

As far as I know - I don't know the other person.

Anyway - I saw some stuff exchanged but I didn't see all the evidence nor do I care to review it and make my opnion decision - because it doesn't matter. It is not my place to question whether it was right or wrong.

Glenn