"Where is Cacique Caribe?" Topic

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

Yes, that's exactly whats going on.
Take a poll and see what people think about it.

Or are you afraid of the results?

We are not children here, Bill. It's time you revisited your policy.

I'm not sure what you want to take a poll about. Of course, TMP has the right to discuss forum problems with the members involved. And, of course, people need to obey forum rules in order to participate on our forums.

So, where's the poll question?

Do the sock puppets get to be polled as well?

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

Absolutely. It has steadily become a lesser place due to a long list of account closures of which Dan is just the latest.

Yes, that's exactly whats going on.

+2 to nevinsrip.

Absolutely. It has steadily become a lesser place due to a long list of account closures of which Dan is just the latest.

You forget to count the people who stay because the forum is well moderated, as well as those who are attracted by a well-moderated forum.

And remember that Dan left of his own free will.

where's the poll question?

Fine, I'll spell it out for you.

Are you in favor of the current policy of having to contact Gwen, in order to continue posting on TMP, if you have violated the rules?

Yes
No

Simple enough, Bill.

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.

It's not enforced fairly at all as people have alluded to in this thread.

There aren't special forum rules for people who have special wargaming knowledge.

Bill, with all due respect, that statement shows that you haven't understood what we've been saying. No one said that….ever. What we said is that TMP is poorer for his absence. And he is a the latest in a long line of good contributors to go.

And remember that Dan left of his own free will.

Not really. Instead of being DH'd as would be normal, his account was locked. He could have it unlocked if he explained himself to your confessor. That is not the same as voluntarily leaving. I hope you see that.

Frankly I've been in the DH a few times. I've never had to do my "mea culpas" to Gwen. So it seems there are "special rules" for some.

If this policy is "to encourage the others", it's not very effective.
At least with the DH, their crime is there for all to see.
With the new "talk with Gwen" method, the offender simply becomes a non-person. He disappears and nobody knows why.
Orwellian.
Star Chamber.
Trial "in camera", take your pick.

So. We lose Dan and his great terrain ideas.
We lose Supercilious Maximus with his vast knowledge of AWI minutae that are so important to wargamers.
We lose Otto and his amusing crankiness.
We lose Hafen von Whatever, an all around good guy.
I don't really care if they are/were prickly about politics or dissing England. I miss and enjoyed their presence.
And there are probably a lot more that I read but am not aware of their absence.

And if they offendeth me, why that's why we have Ignore and Stifle. I'm probably on a few Stifle and Ignore lists myself. I'm ok with that. I probably lost one or two over posting about the Grand Ole Opry at Carnegie Hall. . Ricky Skaggs is awesome there.

Do the sock puppets get to be polled as well?

Ordinarily, my socks don't vote.
But if it's REALLY IMPORTANT…. no. Not even then. I'm lazy.

With the old policy (DH) you knew where people were. You could see what their "crime" was.

Now? They just disappear into the night. Just like in Argentina from 1976 to 1983. Desaparecidos. No notice,no word just gone. Poof! And just like that they were gone. No reason or word; a non person.

Oh! Wasn't there a poll question that said once a year some e who was banners return? What ever happened to that?

Winston Smith:
So. We lose Dan and his great terrain ideas.
We lose Supercilious Maximus with his vast knowledge of AWI minutae that are so important to wargamers.
We lose Otto and his amusing crankiness.
We lose Hafen von Whatever, an all around good guy.

…We lose Jemima Fawr with his willingness to share an encyclopedic knowledge of WW2. Although, I've recently discovered that he is active over on LAF, and I've been spending a lot more time over there.

Not really. Instead of being DH'd as would be normal, his account was locked. He could have it unlocked if he explained himself to your confessor. That is not the same as voluntarily leaving. I hope you see that.

As I've explained before, Dawghousing is only effective to a point. Some people are perfectly happy to spend a few days in the Dawghouse, then they resume their bad forum behavior. Being put in the Dawghouse doesn't teach anyone why their forum behavior is unacceptable.

Dan had a simple choice: respond to Editor Gwen's question, or not have his account unlocked. He made his decision.

Wasn't there a poll question that said once a year some e who was banners return? What ever happened to that?

Only poll requests from active members become actual polls.

With the old policy (DH) you knew where people were. You could see what their "crime" was.

We already have another topic discussing this. If the issue is still being resolved, I would prefer to respect the privacy of the member.

So. We lose Dan and his great terrain ideas.

Better to lose Dan, than to have him drive off other members with his negativity. (See link Bowman posted.)

Hi Bill, I see you've ignored my poll question.

Why?

Hi Bill, I see you've ignored my poll question.

Why?

A number of reasons.

First, why single out Editor Gwen? Would it be different if it was another staffer?

Second, you make it sound as if any rules violation gets handled this way. As I have already explained, we go this route when we think the Dawghouse will not solve the problem.

For those reasons, I would not run your proposed poll.

OK I wholeheartedly agree with this one. I merely mentioned Gwen because, at present, she holds the position. No other reason. I've changed that.

Second Point OK fine then change the language to

Are you in favor of the current policy of requiring members to contact a TMP REPRESENTATIVE, in order to continue on TMP, when the Editor thinks the Dawghouse will not solve the problem?

How's that, Bill? I used your own words.

In the spirit of civility, perhaps you might consider this?

I've seen on other web sites that there is a place for "Strikes". Evidently, if you gather enough strikes, you get bounced. But it's visible for all to see, especially the violator. It's out in the open so you know where you stand.
I think that this may be a good way to curb behavior, without having people resent being treated like school children.

One: For those who accumulate strikes, perhaps it will force these members to pause and think before posting. This alone could cut down on misbehavior. If your close to the edge, then you need to watch what you write. Simple.

TWO And this is a big one for me. If you accumulate enough strikes to get booted, well then you deserved it. There can be no more of these type discussions. You, Mr. Editor, are in the clear. It's no longer up for discussion. You're out, you own it. You knew where you stood.

I would also advise that you, Bill, are the sole judge of who get strikes) and who doesn't. It is, after all, your site and that needs to be respected.

I would suggest 3 strikes and you're on the edge. One more and your out. I think 3 warnings are more than sufficient.

A short explanation to the offender might be included, as you do with the Dawghouse.
Perhaps an appeal can be lodged with a TMP designate, if you are to busy to handle that end.

Points should fall off after a designated time. Maybe 90 days or 180 days or a year. Whatever length of time seems reasonable to you.
Or, you could clear them off when you renew.

I think that this makes a lot more sense.

You already have the means to keep track of Good Traders, Ignores and Stifles, so adding a STRIKES box is within your capability. Get rid of one of the others if you have to.

Give it some thought.

+1 nevinsrip

Very well said, Nevinsrip. Bill, would you consider this? Its being implemented would be a vast improvement over the current situation.

Great suggestion.

I talk to Dan and some of the others mentioned here frequently online. Almost daily … they are generally doing fine. Of course Dan, Otto, and a few others I'd like to see come back.

+ 2 Nevinsrip…

We are all big people … we can say … old … that means we know / understand what we should do right or wrong in TMP … in the last case .. we have to pay the consequences ….

That said … it is also true that at this point in our lives … having to "talk" with an Editor apologizing for our bad behavior and ensuring that we would behave well … is humiliating … I understand perfectly to those who prefer to leave TMP and migrate elsewhere … I would …

One thing is to "suffer" a punishment (daughouse for a certain time) and another to give explanations / apologize / ensure that we will be "good" at our age … we are not children.

Bill is the owner of the site and the only one who has the power to decide about it … we must accept it because it is logical … of course, like any "Commander" … he also has the power to forgive and be magnanimous with some "rebels" … as he did with John for example …

I wish one day he decided to do a "Special Admisty" for those ex fellow members that we defend here with very good arguments …it would talk a lot in his favor if he did …

Of course we should also see if the "rebels" want to return … I know that most of them would not …

Sad … but it is what there is…

We only have to have faith…

Amicalement
Armand

having to "talk" with an Editor apologizing for our bad behavior and ensuring that we would behave well … is humiliating …

What absolute nonsense. Complete garbage, Tango.

+1 Armand

I am appalled by all the snowflakes who find it 'humiliating' to speak to a TMP staff member if they violate forum rules.

Put your man-pants on!

Ah, and so the name calling begins. Armand is completely correct, of course – the current system is deeply unpopular, has been for some time, and its unfortunate legacy is the loss of many fine contributors to this website. Surely you know this. So why not give another a try? Nevinsrip's idea has real merit.

Nevinsrip's proposal would not replace the need for staff to talk to people about their forum behavior. And please note that members such as Winston and Tango would be long gone if we had such a rule.

I find it hard to believe that grown men are afraid to talk about their forum behavior problems with a TMP staff member. Tango, is it 'humiliating' when we have to explain to you AGAIN that you can't post links to pirated material online?

Let those "many fine contributors" who have ego issues go elsewhere, we do not need them here.

<<<<<Nevinsrip's proposal would not replace the need for staff to talk to people about their forum behavior.>>>>>

Here's a radical idea. How about having the forum staff talk to people about their forum behavior BEFORE locking their accounts?

They might be slightly less pissed off and therefore more open to suggestion.

Here's a radical idea. How about having the forum staff talk to people about their forum behavior BEFORE locking their accounts?

Because we're taking their forum privileges away for misbehavior. If that pisses someone off, then they have authority issues.

I don't care if they get pissed off because we won't tolerate their racism, or their personal attacks on other members, or whatever forum rule they think they can break.

How about dawghousing them first. That has the effect of taking away "forum privileges" and giving a bit of 'breathing space' while enabling the TMP staff to talk through the issue.

If a solution cannot be found THEN lock the account.

Seems to me this would ameliorate a lot of the animosity and bad feeling the current system is causing while still achieving the same moderation ends.

Ok, Bill. I tried.

I wonder who has the real "authority" issue?

How about dawghousing them first.

We use the Dawghouse when appropriate. In cases where we think a dialogue will be more useful, we use the Temporary Lock to talk to them.

I wonder who has the real "authority" issue?

Silly.

Let's look at a sample situation. Someone – we'll call him Member X – advocates the murder of suspected terrorists. TMP staff decides that is serious enough that the Dawghouse is not enough – we feel we need to talk to the person. So their account is Temporarily Locked, and they are sent an email initiating a discussion. They respond by angrily refusing to discuss anything. Who has the authority problem?

Bill … do not get mad … it's not our intention … at least mine … it's true that your position seems logical … conversing with an Editor for a bad performance … but we know that the result is not positive … how many cases have been "forgiven" … or have "reconsidered"? … I know only two … John and Cacique Caribe … there are many more? … good to know … if so … that would give us more courage to this "formality" …. all somehow we make mistakes here … what should be judged is if it is by mistake / ignorance / omission / stupidity … or by bad intention …

For that you do not need any "chat" with any Editor … reading exactly what each fellow member says … it's easy to conclude …

And about your comment that both John and I should have been expelled a long time ago … fully agree … although I also want to believe that we both have some other quality or attractiveness for the forum … (up there… maybe … we like you (smile)) … that allows our stay …

I repeat Bill … do not get angry … a dissent is always good if we follow the rules of education and urbanity …

It is clear that there is a group of ex fellow members that we miss … and a lot … we must accept it … there is no other option … but that does not mean that we do not raise our voice demanding their return … begging for a new opportunity for them … arguing in their favor … that is the duty of a good friend … yours … is to judge and declare res judicata …

Anyway … another beautiful day at TMP … at least we are alive! … that is not little (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Let's look at a sample situation. Someone – we'll call him Member X – advocates the murder of suspected terrorists. TMP staff decides that is serious enough that the Dawghouse is not enough ….

Now, that is a strange example.
Half the denizens (slight exaggeration) of the Ultramodern boards profess just that. Along with nuking the Middle East until it's a glowing parking lot.
Yet I've never seen anyone get the DH, let alone a locked account.
I guess it's just considered manly chest thumping.

how many cases have been "forgiven" … or have "reconsidered"? … I know only two … John and Cacique Caribe … there are many more?

Why would you know about it? The majority of cases are handled quietly. Dozens and dozens of members have had their accounts unlocked and issues resolved.

Now, that is a strange example.

Based on a case from last week, Winston. Much goes on that you do not realize…

All the whining about how unfair the system is ignores one very big thing…no be gets referred to the email question until they have chronicly proven themselves to be a pain the derrière for the sysop. due process is there, not that it is necessary since this is a privately run publication.

To many here seem to think that it's fine to spout off as they wishno matter how rudely and are complaining that losses which seems to me is not the real point. The real desire to make this place fit for the boors to run amok who share the same political creed that thinks that political correctness is some sort of liberal plot to keep them down…when it is the boorishness and very lack of regard for others that got them in trtrouble.

I think the problem with your first sentence Aethelflaeda is that no-one knows why people are locked. You say 'due process' is there – one of the hallmarks of a fair legal system is transparency. Everyone knows when and why someone is sanctioned – it avoids the knock in the middle of the night.

You also say it is a privately run publication – fair enough, but I know Bill has a better grasp of decency than to run things on a secret police basis – he normally bends over backwards to be fair and to appear fair.

This one thing seems to have blindsided him a bit – I can understand why – it must be very frustrating having people sniping away when we come here to read about wargaming.

But Bill I think you are better than being draconian.

So some combination of a public warning for the transparency and then talking to an editor would be an improvement. I thought the DH was and remains a great idea for cooling folk down. I can see you may want an intermediate sanction before just banning someone. So keep the talking to an editor thing, but combine it with a bit of transparency and graded justice.

I'm sure we'd all support you in that.

Based on a case from last week, Winston. Much goes on that you do not realize…

You are making exactly the point that many of the "dissenters" are making.
The DH is transparent. In fact, the DH also shows concrete examples of what is not allowed.

The new "discipline" method has Secret Star Chamber written all over it. Suddenly Citizen Q has become s non-person. He has disappeared. Nobody knows why. Nobody knows his offense. There is no example to be made to show what is not permitted. Just a vague feeling that Citizen Q hasn't posted in a while.

To quote Oliver Cromwell, "I Beseech You, in the Bowels of Christ, Think it Possible You May Be Mistaken".

+1 Winston, Nevinsrip & Tango.

There's no reason for anyone to know about an issue which is in the process of being resolved.

And most of these people you've never heard of.

I think you also need to consider that there is a conflict between the community's desire to know and the individual's right to privacy. Not everyone wants their indiscretions discussed publicly.

And if Citizen Q wants to go public about it, he usually knows exactly where to go to complain…

Tango you are "The MAN"!
Hangin' around posting your interesting tid-bits.Then you strike like a cobra with intellectual wit.
Good for you…..!

I will have a beer in your honor tonight sir!

BTW- Hurummph, to anything Nevinsrip and Winston have to say.

There's no reason for anyone to know about an issue which is in the process of being resolved.

Well one reason is we'd all know what to avoid doing.

We're not talking the obvious breaches of rules laid out in the FAQ section etc. Its the interpretations and borderline stuff that previously got a line in the DH about what had gone wrong and we knew where the line had wandered to.

Now nobody even knows there has been an infraction or why the person they have been having a discussion with has ceased posting.

" no one gets referred unless they …" well , gee. Seems I got sent to talk to an editor after ONE comment. I don't post much so it wasn't chronic anything. In fact I was punished for what the other guy said by mistake. And it took talking to Bill to get it straightened out. Seems to me you think it's fine to be "boorish " and throw slurs as long as your target can't defend himself. How typical of .

No need for political points – Bill has obviously locked the accounts of people of both ends of the political spectrum and none.
Not the place for politics.

LAFfer- Get bent…

YouTube link

Thanks for your kindly words my friend 7th Va Cavalry… (smile)

By the way… love your dog!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Well one reason is we'd all know what to avoid doing.

Read the TMP FAQ, it's all there. Or if you think something should be added, let me know. TMP link

Use of the description: Social justice warrior or SJW. It is always used as a slur.