"Where is Cacique Caribe?" Topic

we'd all know what to avoid doing.

Thoughtful, reasonable people can figure out how to behave on a public forum without the aid of a catalog of negative examples.

Thoughtful, reasonable people can figure out how to behave on a public forum without the aid of a catalog of negative examples.

You'd think so. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find that in the case of Cacique Caribe.

TMP link

He did say "reasonable people"

Aethelflaeda, your constant harping against Cacique (especially when he cannot defend himself) says, I think, far more about you than about him.

Mike… if it was a joke… it was a bad one…

If not… Gone Fishing is right…

Amicalement
Armand

Aethelflaeda, your constant attacks on CC are quite telling, as Gone Fishing states. And you missed the point of my comment.

No I got it, I just don't agree with it. You paint caribe as unjustly punished for an unclearly stated transgression. I see his expulsion as the culmination from a preponderance of bad form for which the final straw remains a private matter between him and the sysop. You demand transparency, while it's pretty clear to me that reasonable people already know what the rules of civil discourse and general hospitality require.

Caribe was chronically rude, he wasn't a Smokey Roan, but he took great joy in creating a less inviting environment for many about things that have nothing to do with minis or gaming. He displayed contempt for polite etiquette and I find it interesting that so many of his defenders often do the same. Your demands for transparency/new adjudication process appear to me as just attempt to misdirect and create justifications for rudeness, politically motivated snideness, and thus the creation of an exclusive zone, rather than an inclusive one, as some sorta special club for curmudgeons . On Winston's list, is it just a coincidence that all of the curmudgeons found there, happen to be openly anti-liberal and voice their opinions as often as they can get away with it?

Alas, you don't live in a world wherever only your opinions count…….

Alas, I m not the one whining about not being able to utter opinions, rudely. Sit on a bar stool across from me and I'll give my own and take all your rudely presented opinions you care to. Just not in my living room, or in the clubhouse of TMP.

When I made bones about gun discussions for the sake of just guns, bill corrected me and I stopped. Some of you on the other side of the aisle haven't the wisdom to stop but whine on and on about how unfair it is to be punished for being rude and divisive.

Alas, I m not the one whining about not being able to utter opinions, rudely.

Who is doing that?

Sit on a bar stool across from me and I'll give my own and take all your rudely presented opinions you care to.

Bit of a broad brush there, isn't it?

Some of you on the other side of the aisle haven't the wisdom to stop but whine on and on about how unfair it is to be punished for being rude and divisive.

I'm on neither side of any aisle. And a careful reread of my arguments will show that I'm not going on "about how unfair it is to be punished for being rude and divisive". That is not the issue.

You seek to obscure the issue. The gist of what you wrote is that you want to paint Bill as some sort of dictatorial big brother stifling your freedom of expression with his arcane procedures. References to Orwell and star chambers aren't whining?

Well something I've seen and experienced here, but is not unusual throughout the net. Is the lack of civility, vitriolic, derisive, mean-spirited, etc., comments. That really have no place in any conversation between "adults(?)". Of course one of the reasons is one can say anything to anyone else on the net [or over the phone] that would, e.g. get their , etc., kicked across the room if face-to-face, etc.

Really what does anyone have to prove ? They are smarter, more evolved, s, intellectuals, etc., etc. ? We are on a site that revolves around grown(?) men [and some women] playing with toys. So what is the point ?

Is it really that important to argue about uniform colors, or weapons used, etc. ?

And even on topics about current events etc. An opinion is just that. No real power in it, AFAIK. E.g. If I say all Somali pirates, ISIS, etc., should be shot on site. So What ? I'm not going to get my AR-15 get on plane and go terrorist hunting. I'm far too old and too large for that …

I think well developed, mature adults would agree to disagree and move on. YES ?

Not all of us are "grown" here…a lot of teenagers here.

Pithy Political statements and asides made, invite rebuttal. Political arguments grow heated and at the end of the day we have two communities who can't stand the sight of the other. Those who make the first transgression by uttering the initial aside are in my eyes choosing to create the division intentionally.

When I am at a con and I hear a racist or political joke I know what they are signaling. Even your use of the term is a signal.

The gist of what you wrote is that you want to paint Bill as some sort of dictatorial big brother stifling your freedom of expression with his arcane procedures.

No that's not what I wrote. The gist is the arbitrary choosing of DHing on the one hand, and having to say your mea culpas to a confessor, on the other. One is transparent, for all the membership to see. The latter is hidden, with no explanation on what happened and why.

The arbitrariness lies in the individual cases. I have been in the DH a few times and never had to talk to any Editor, others have reported the opposite. The DH is fine….keep it, with no hidden alternatives.

References to Orwell and star chambers aren't whining?

Only if you use a whiney tone, otherwise they are allusions. You'll have to ask Winston why he alluded to Orwell. Seems apt to me.

Oh and didn't you refer to Orwell yourself above? I didn't see that as whining either.

On Winston's list, is it just a coincidence that all of the curmudgeons found there, happen to be openly anti-liberal and voice their opinions as often as they can get away with it?

I change my mind. You convinced me. Take them all out and shoot them.

I don't think anyone could accuse Bowman of being a conservative. He's a madcap environmentalist wacko who believes in Climate Change! Fetch the smelling salts, Martha!
He's defending Dan because he likes him and enjoys the repartee. He also thinks he's a valued contributor. Or was.

I mentioned Otto. He despises me. I don't like him either. And I won't say why, because he's not here to defend himself. Yet, I enjoyed his posts. That's why I mentioned him. He is fun to read.

As for Super Max, good Lord. He's the most knowledgeable expert on the American Revolution we have here. Had. I have several of his books.
Do I suspect that he might have been a Thatcherite? Is that a sin? I'm a Reaganite!

Back to Dan. Cacique Caribe. He's an eccentric. He's obsessed with certain aspects of wargame. Doh. I'm currently painting over 90 Queens Rangers. Next in line are 60 British "pimp hat" Light Infantry. Now that I've found the perfect "goose green" shade of paint, I'm going to do the 5th Foot. Yes. So I'm an obsessed eccentric too. I identify with him.
Do I think he's a bit nuts politically? No comment. But he's a gamer and a valued contributor.

And there are others.

I simply find it sad that Bill doesn't tolerate them. His definition of acceptable forum behavior is getting narrower and narrower. It's becoming a Procrustean Bed. And yes. He is biased, despite his denials. So is everyone else.

Orwell? Look at my nom de TMP. Then get back to me. It could just as easily have been "N S Rubashov".

On Winston's list, is it just a coincidence that all of the curmudgeons found there, happen to be openly anti-liberal and voice their opinions as often as they can get away with it?

"And another thing…" as Cleitus said to Alexander…

TMP is often accused to be a hotbed if right wing nut jobs. If so, how is it that "anti-liberals" get locked out?
As I've said, Bill is probably 60:40 biased. That's about where I would probably be rated too.

As for voicing opinions, if that's not allowed, what's the point of going to a forum?

Aethelflaeda, your constant harping against Cacique (especially when he cannot defend himself) says, I think, far more about you than about him.

+1 Gone Fishing

The gist is the arbitrary choosing of DHing on the one hand, and having to say your mea culpas to a confessor, on the other.

I don't understand why all the smelling salts about talking to a TMP staff member. It's just talking to a human being. It's not going to confession. (She's not even Catholic!)

In Dan's case, Editor Gwen just asked him to explain what he meant by a forum post. Gosh, how authoritarian! No wonder Dan folded his tent and ran off!

I simply find it sad that Bill doesn't tolerate them.

I find it sad that it is beneath them to talk to a TMP staff member. Could have been sorted out in five minutes.

I wanted to be done with this, but your last entry warrants a response:

I don't understand why all the smelling salts about talking to a TMP staff member. It's just talking to a human being. It's not going to confession. (She's not even Catholic!)

No one cares about Gwen's religion. However, the metaphor of confession is totally apt. You must perform an act of contrition in order to receive the benediction of unlocking your account.

In Dan's case, Editor Gwen just asked him to explain what he meant by a forum post. Gosh, how authoritarian! No wonder Dan folded his tent and ran off! evil grin

Bill, that is just not true.

Dan shared with me his email from Gwen and I have his permission to reproduce it here. This is the thread in question:

TMP link

In that, Dan wrote the following innocuous comment:

"In tandem, and sometimes when someone isn't really violating a specific forum rule."

I don't see that as insulting, rude, confrontational, political, provocative, or divisive. To which Gwen responded:

> Dear Cacique Caribe,
>
>
> Your account has been temporarily locked so that I can talk to you about your recent post. You wrote, "In tandem, and sometimes when someone isn't really violating a specific forum rule." Could you explain further?
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> Editor Gwen
> The Miniatures Page
>

Dan decided that he didn't have to respond to her and his locked account remains. I'll say that if I said something equally innocuous and got that response from someone from TMP, I would consider leaving also.

Don't pretend that his locked account resulted from his refusal to spend 5 minutes with Gwen, when in reality it was the other way around. He didn't fold up his tent and run away.

Not all of us are "grown" here…a lot of teenagers here.

True but I'd think many/most are s … Of course physical age is not always an indicator of maturity, etc., …

"…the party's over, and now it is time to call it a day."

As I said earlier in this thread(120 posts and rising, WOW!) TMP has become a smaller place with a lot knowledge/inspiration being lost/blocked because some members/sjw's/centerists wear their feelings on their sleeves.

For instance, Dan is currently doing/building a really fantastic VSF project that is inspiring those of us on his list. And several other "non-persons" have been posting really interesting/helpful information. All of these would have benefited those remaining on TMP who were interested in the periods.

And yes, there are some members whose views on certain "science" subjects I strongly and publicly disagree with, but, I never have and never will attack them in public on the list or thread.

So, for those members that get their shorts in a wad, time to grow up and put on your big gamer pants or go back into your parents basement.

Dave

Dan decided that he didn't have to respond to her and his locked account remains. I'll say that if I said something equally innocuous and got that response from someone from TMP, I would consider leaving also.

The email from Gwen proves my point entirely. You ignore the fact that Dan had a history of forum problems, had been locked out before, and had been readmitted when he promised to correct the problem – which he failed to do. Why doesn't Dan share all of the relevant emails?

Don't pretend that his locked account resulted from his refusal to spend 5 minutes with Gwen, when in reality it was the other way around.

Makes no sense. Gwen refused to spend 5 minutes with Dan? She's the one who emailed him. She's the one who reached out to him.

He didn't fold up his tent and run away.

Looks like it to me. As you say, he chose not to explain his behavior. If you ask me, he knew he violated his promise and knew he was guilty, that's why he was afraid to talk to Gwen.

Makes no sense. Gwen refused to spend 5 minutes with Dan? She's the one who emailed him. She's the one who reached out to him.

No.

The "other way around" means that he was locked out until he talked to Gwen. Not that he was locked out after he refused to talk to her. Cart before the horse.

As for the rest., I'll just say I disagree with your "spin". All his emails? He got one from Gwen, …….the one I produced.

You think you achieved excellent moderation in this affair? Fine. I think you impoverished TMP one small step again. We'll just disagree about this.

First, I don't understand the 'why' of this: that is, I've re-read Dan's comment several times (the cause of the temporary lock) and in my opinion I can't see anything wrong with it to the point where the temporary lock would be imposed.

Second, Dan chose NOT to communicate with Gwen.

He made a choice. His account remains locked. So, whatever his reasons, he chose not to engage and remain a member.

Did I find his contributions to the site important and engaging and humorous: yes. But there is nothing to be done at this point.

If I made a comment like that – that I thought under no circumstances was violating any TMP rules and my account was temporarily locked, I would certainly respond and explain my action / wording. For me, it would be important based on my perceived value of remaining a member.

The "other way around" means that he was locked out until he talked to Gwen. Not that he was locked out after he refused to talk to her. Cart before the horse.

He violated forum rules, so his account as locked until the issue was resolved.

All his emails? He got one from Gwen, …….the one I produced.

I am referring to the previous emails from when his account was locked the first time, and when he promised to change his forum behavior.

You think you achieved excellent moderation in this affair? Fine. I think you impoverished TMP one small step again. We'll just disagree about this.

I think we acted reasonably, and Dan acted unreasonably. So TMP loses one member, and retains many more, and attracts many more, because Dan is no longer misbehaving on the forums.

First, I don't understand the 'why' of this: that is, I've re-read Dan's comment several times (the cause of the temporary lock) and in my opinion I can't see anything wrong with it to the point where the temporary lock would be imposed.

Keep in mind that Dan's account was previously locked for his bad habit of whining all the time about how TMP was being run. Editor Gwen explained we would not put up with that behavior. Dan agreed to stop. And then…

Ok, understood.

Let's look at a sample situation. Someone – we'll call him Member X

Can we leave my family out of this please?

Thank you.

I will now get another refreshing beverage and delicious snack refill as I watch this argument go around in circles a few more times before the combatants exhaust themselves.

I'm betting this thread goes 250 posts easy.

Carry on!

Seems to be running out of steam!

It'll not reach 200 at this rate…

You can always catch Dan over on LAF usually posting in the VSF Adventures.

I wonder if he'll try the same thing there as he did here.

The LAF boards are well moderated and there are no tempting rabbit holes for him to dive down.

The LAF boards are well moderated

Which make it a pleasant place to visit.

And when he starts breaking the rules there, will they have as much patience with him as we did?

As far as I know, he's never broken the rules at LAF. If it ever happens, I guess we'll see.

As far as I know, he's never broken the rules at LAF.

Wait until he breaks the rules, then the moderators talk to him, then he starts to whine about the moderators there… history will repeat itself.

Wait until he breaks the rules, then the moderators talk to him, then he starts to whine about the moderators there… history will repeat itself.

Well I can't read Dan's mind, but it could be as simple as he took exception to your style of moderation.

Well I can't read Dan's mind, but it could be as simple as he took exception to your style of moderation.

He broke the rules, has nothing to do with moderation style.

If he starts behaving over there the way he did here, I suspect he'll be shown the door.