"Where is Cacique Caribe?" Topic

I liked sparring with Dan on the Science Board and always enjoyed his input. What happened to his membership?

During idle moments, I also wondered what had become of such a prolific poster.

By the by, what is an "arsch". I'm guessing something not good.

my question is redundant since the post it referred to has been deleted

DBDD

Darrell, since I quickly had second thoughts about being unnecessarily rude, please delete your own reference to it.

I'd love to know as well. He always seemed a nice fellow.

In "1984" he would be referred to as an unperson!

Dan is a perfect example of someone whose account is suspended and told to have a conversation with Gwen.
He joins the ranks of Otto, Supercilious Maximus and so on.
They think they did nothing wrong and so are banned until they do the mandatory Maoist mea culpa.
I miss them all, the big galoots.

I was in the same boat. In my case, I don't think I did anything wrong either. I'm back and I have no idea why. I didn't ask.

I don't like the whole idea of the "talk with Gwen". It's too much like going to Confession and making an Act of Contrition.
I much prefer the 3 day or 5 day or even 10 day DH.
If someone is not going to admit they were wrong (I never did, by the way. Neither recently or back in 2011) we lose a valued contributor.

I miss Dan's often whacky contributions. He brought up some good stuff.
I miss Otto and his crankiness.
I miss Supercilious Maximus and his vast knowledge on the AWI board. He is the closest TMP had to a genuine scholar.
I miss Haden von Sch….. Whatever. . He's a good guy.

This place is too much like the NFL. It's not the instigator who gets the hook. It's the guy who reacts to the insult who gets punished. And it's often political. There are correct and incorrect opinions to have on TMP.

To be an entertaining contributor seems to require a bit of eccentricity. You can't be forced into the Procrustean Bed of conformity.
For a long time, unfortunately, that has seemed to be the case.
TMP requires conformity to its persona and does not tolerate dissent. You bite your tongue (figuratively speaking; or typing finger) and don't say what you want.

It's rather Orwellian.

While TMP tolerates dissent, we find that some people (for whatever reason) fall into a cycle of behavior where they become chronic complainers. As a business, it is not in our interest to allow chronic complainers to use our own forums to spread negativity.

When this happens, we flag the account and have one of our staff editors talk with the person to explain why we object to their forum behavior, and see if matters can be resolved.

In the case of Cacique Caribe, we thought the situation had been resolved, but when he resumed his problematic behavior, Editor Gwen again tried to communicate with him.

Cacique Caribe did not respond to her email, and has not returned to TMP. His choice.

I don't miss the subtle or not so subtle goading and insults of a political bent that constantly came from these guys. You could count on an aside from them that only had the purpose of irritating those of opposite views.

Maoist mea culpa.

The Maoists don't do mea culpa; that's a Roman thing. The Maoists do self-criticism.

Mao himself adopted Stalin's view of self-criticism.

CC was guilty of thoughtcrime.

Everyone on this page is Tango. Tango is everyone.

No it wasn't thought crime but intentional rudeness.

I wont comment on CCs behavior. It did not bother me.

The whole talk with Gwen or Bill' other assistant thought police I find irksome.

The whole talk with Gwen or Bill' other assistant thought police I find irksome.

Tossing someone in the Dawghouse doesn't always fix the problem. A talk with a real human being often works wonders.

CC was guilty of thoughtcrime.

Compare it to this:

Imagine there's a regular down at your local friendly gaming store who has a habit, while in the store, of complaining to other patrons about how the store is operated.

How long do you think the store's owner will tolerate such behavior? Don't you think someone from the store would eventually have a talk with the rude customer about his behavior? If the customer continues his behavior, don't you think he would be asked to leave the store?

Indeed, we should all keep our affairs in order against that day when the Gwen will toll for us.

Bill---a good comparison. Such speech/behavior would never be done in person.

IMO, the internet and social media culture has bred a false sense of non-accountability. You can say anything you want and, since you are anonymous, you are shielded from having to be responsible. That sense grows the more it's used, so more outrageous, hurtful stuff is said/written in a vicious cycle. Eventually, the conduct gets called out, and the person is DH or outright banned. That person then complains, usually loudly about the Nazis/Commies in charge, etc.

Comparisons to 1984 are made, people wonder where civility went, and we usually end up closer to the gutter than when we started. That's my 2 centavos.

Such speech/behavior would never be done in person.

Also, we cannot see "through the screen" to see who the person is and what they are going through.

I remember, years ago, we had a poster who would rant about how some people were favorites, and he was an outsider on TMP. He eventually admitted that he was posting when drunk!

There have been several cases of people pretending to be innocent members of TMP who just happened to be bringing problems to everyone's attention… who actually turned out to be ex-members, asked previously to leave TMP, deliberately coming back to stir things up.

For some people, it may be their medications or health situation, marriage difficulties, mental health issues, or many other factors we cannot see that cause them to behave poorly on the forums.

There are also people who have authority issues.

These are the people who proudly proclaim that they can say whatever they like on the internet; then, if we have to ask them to moderate their behavior, they become resentful or refuse to comply.

We had to lock someone's account last week because he said he wouldn't change his forum behavior and didn't care if "snowflakes" were offended by what he said. He alluded to having a career involving either law enforcement or the military.

Imagine there's a regular down at your local friendly gaming store who has a habit, while in the store, of complaining to other patrons about how the store is operated.

How long do you think the store's owner will tolerate such behavior? Don't you think someone from the store would eventually have a talk with the rude customer about his behavior? If the customer continues his behavior, don't you think he would be asked to leave the store?

I had several of those. Ones that would complain about why certain products weren't stocked by the store and how they would run the store differently always in front of a crowd. I say why don't you put your money where your mouth is and open a store and put me out of business. Guess what? They never did and by addressing it in public, they were exposed as all show and no go.
The other ones didn't like store policies. I tell them there were other stores and why didn't they hang out there? It would boil down to all their friends hung out here. I say none of your friends have any trouble with our store policies, except you. Perhaps you should think about that! It would never come up again.

Bill---a good comparison. Such speech/behavior would never be done in person.

Oh, it does in small niche retail all the time, as you can see above.

pzivh43: Nicely said!

I have been chastised by the management for making critical comments. I can see their point, but still think my comments were valid. It was a major business post mentioning a sale. It was a single graphic. No link to the website and the products on sale were well buried. To follow the ad, you either had to manually type the URL or go to the manufacturers directory.

I have only had one DH trip. This is at the cost of keeping my posts pretty vanilla and bland

I have been chastised by the management for making critical comments. I can see their point, but still think my comments were valid.

Which is exactly the situation with CC. And it's not like Bill's example of someone's "problematic behaviour" at the hobby store at all. Bill's example totally misses the positive contributions CC has made to this site.

This "he can't come back until he says his mea culpas to Gwen" reason for being removed from TMP frankly sucks. It's pretty heavy handed.

Anyone have contact info for Dan?

Positive contribution or not, he deliberately made efforts to be snide, rude and political for the purpose of making others feel unwelcome or comfortable. And was prolific about it.

Well, I wonder if you'd be so concerned with his "rude, etc." behavior if he was from the same political slant as you? Judging from your previous posts I'd have to say no.

No maoist here.
With maoists you t best do reeducation camp or vanish, for the People 's good.

This "he can't come back until he says his mea culpas to Gwen" reason for being removed from TMP frankly sucks. It's pretty heavy handed.

What do you have against Editor Gwen?

Gate Captain, there you would be wrong. Youre building a false equivalencies argument. It won't fly.

If there is any problem with Gwen as the source of adjudication it is that her command of American or British slang is some what limited and she sometimes doesn't quite always understand how the tone of a conversation has turned to nasty denigrations of a political nature.

I also wonder about the efficiency of email as the means of such conversation of appeal. Too easy for emails to get lost in spam folders or overlooked in the snowstorm of an inbox. I would think the message function on the site would be the better avenue.

What do you have against Editor Gwen?

I don't have anything against editor Gwen. I don't know her and have never needed to interact with her.

How did you get that from what I wrote and you highlighted? Please reread. My comment about how he is persona non grata and what he has to do to reverse the situation still stands.

…… he deliberately made efforts to be snide, rude and political for the purpose of making others feel unwelcome or comfortable. And was prolific about it.

That's your spin on it, and others do not agree with you. Here is the entry in question:

TMP link

There are clear cut rules against personal attacks (being snide and rude) and clear cut consequences in the DH. Lets be consistent with doling out punishment.

I do agree with your post directly above.

Anyone have contact info for Dan?

I have, but I can't get it to you and shouldn't post it here without Dan's permission. You can't be PM'd either.

I don't know if it was that specific entry that got him banned. But from his overall general behavior he was often rude and interjected politically snide asides. I don't miss him or his dog whistling.

As for his defenders, to risk an ad hominem argument, too many are equally guilty in my eyes of the same behavior. " Methinks they doth protest too loudly."

I don't know if it was that specific entry that got him banned.

It was.

But from his overall general behavior he was often rude and interjected politically snide asides.

Then punish him according to the published "rules of conduct".

TMP link

As for his defenders,……..

Pointing out that someone got his account locked out for a trivial offense that would best be dealt with by the DH (as it should be) is not protesting too loudly. It's pointing out the arbitrariness and heavy handedness in dealing with CC.

I've said my bit.

I don't know if it was that specific entry that got him banned.

It was.

Let me clarify.

The link from Bowman does indicate the topic for which Editor Gwen wanted to talk with Cacique Caribe.

However, it did not involve action such as "he was often rude [to other members] and interjected politically snide asides."

I also wonder about the efficiency of email as the means of such conversation of appeal. Too easy for emails to get lost in spam folders or overlooked in the snowstorm of an inbox. I would think the message function on the site would be the better avenue.

Members with Locked accounts no longer have access to PMs. This is because we sometimes Lock accounts when people are spamming TMP or sending objectionable PMs to other members.

My comment about how he is persona non grata and what he has to do to reverse the situation still stands.

It's very simple. Cacique Caribe made a promise to Editor Gwen to correct his forum behavior. He did not keep his promise. Editor Gwen emailed him to talk about it. She never received a response.

If Cacique Caribe wants to come back, he needs to contact Editor Gwen and persuade her that he will conduct himself appropriately on the forum.

Let me clarify.

I'm glad you changed this as Dan shared all his communications with me.

If Cacique Caribe wants to come back, he needs to contact Editor Gwen and persuade her that he will conduct himself appropriately on the forum.

That's not what her email requests from him. I doubt he will respond and I don't blame him. I'm now done with this discussion.

I'm glad you changed this as Dan shared all his communications with me.

I just edited it to make it clearer.

That's not what her email requests from him.

That's because her first step was asking him what he meant. Are you going to split hairs about everything? Go back and read the topic you linked to, it is obvious that Dan (Cacique Caribe) is disrespecting Gwen and her work.

If there is any problem with Gwen as the source of adjudication it is that her command of American or British slang is some what limited and she sometimes doesn't quite always understand how the tone of a conversation has turned to nasty denigrations of a political nature.

You should not think that I am reading the forums all day, looking for problems. I do not have time for that. That is why I need all of you to use the Complaint Button to report problems. And if there is something I do not understand in English, there are others I can ask to help me.

I am fluent in English, but I can always ask my boss Bill if there is a word I do not understand. Do not be afraid of me, I am just doing my job as one of the assistant editors.

Have a nice day!

I doubt he will respond and I don't blame him.

I did get an email from him. He accused me of "unexpected viciousness" in this discussion. So I don't think he wants to come back.

He also said to "take very very care of yourself" – is that some kind of a threat?

"Anyone have contact info for Dan?…."

I do….

Amicalement
Armand

Bill, It's your site, your rules. As it has ever been. These are pointless discussions
Those who rail at "free speech rights" blithely ignore the fact that this is a private enterprise. Check your "rights" at the door, please.

However, it appears to me, that it is rather heavy handed of you to force "offenders" to humble themselves before your designated confessor.

You've lost several significant contributors, who provided intelligent and insightful information, all because they refuse to do so. Now they post their contributions on other sites.

So who is the loser, here?

Not any of them.
There are hundreds and hundreds of venues open to them to post their thoughts. They don't need TMP.

You?

I doubt that you worry about losing a few accounts.

No. It's us.

People who come to TMP looking for advice, help or information.
Now they have to go elsewhere to find it.

For example, I don't visit the AWI board much anymore.

You locked the account of one of the most knowledgeable persons on the planet. He remains available on Lead Adventure, Fife and Drum, the Outpost among several other
sites, so who did you hurt?
Him?
Hardly.

Personally, if you continue to shoot yourself in the foot often enough, eventually you'll run out of toes.

Your site, your rules.

I agree with nevinsrip 200%.
The person he is talking about responded to an anti-British attack, in kind. Somehow here on TMP, anti French attacks are prosecuted vigorously while anti British attacks are encouraged.
Again, it's like the NFL where the original attack goes unnoticed while the guy who retaliates draws the penalty.
NFL analogy 2: Ndamakong Suh had a fine game last night. Yet he has had a blinkered career, getting traded from team to team for unsportsmanlike penalties that hurt the team. In the past he took his vicious hits, the team got the penalty and he paid the fines. Large fines. But he's still playing. He's the type of player you hate when he's on the other team but love him when he's on yours.
NFL analogy 3: In the hayday of the despicable Dallas Cowboys, Michael Irving tells how coach Jimmy Johnson would cut a third string player who missed a tackle or dropped the ball in a game. Irving shows up hungover for a game and catches 3 touchdowns. Jimmy Johnson chuckles "That Michael. He's such a card!" My point? Some players are more valuable than others. I mentioned a few above. They make TMP more interesting to visit. Vanilla pudding is nice but I wouldn't want a steady diet of it.

Dear editor, I don't think Dan is threatening you at all.
Paul

Unfortunately, tmp has become a smaller place with his eviction.

And for those with thin skins, well that is what the "stifle button" is for.

"Holey Moley!"

However, it appears to me, that it is rather heavy handed of you to force "offenders" to humble themselves before your designated confessor.

But that's not what's going on at all, is it?

The point is that people have to obey forum rules to participate on TMP. Editor Gwen tries to help people see why their forum behavior is objectionable, and then asks them to promise to obey forum rules in the future.

There aren't special forum rules for people who have special wargaming knowledge. Even 'wargaming celebrities' need to follow forum rules. That's just being fair.