"About John the OFM" Topic

I do not normally talk about membership issues, but since I'm told John is making claims on social media, I should say my part. John's TMP account was temporarily Locked with Bill's approval because he was harassing another member, and I explained to him in several emails that he needed to obey forum rules, that if he did not like someone he could Stifle them. John refused, so I told him I had to permanently Lock his account. He is saying that we are begging him to return, but nobody at TMP has ever asked him to come back, he can come back if he agrees to obey the forum rules. Have a nice day!

There are two things I don't like about TMP.

I don't care or want to know about the personal lives of the people who run the forum. I don't know anything about the lives of the people who run Facebook, or MeWe, or any other social media. It's none of my business.

I don't want to know about what happens behind the scenes to other members who may have locked accounts or other disputes. Again, it's none of my business.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

She was just setting the record straight, Mike. Sometimes, we have to do that.

+1 Mike. I agree completely.

Oh fudge, not again. Can't we all just get along?

If we could just all get along, there would be no rules.

Not acaring about others lives outside the forum is fine. I do have to say this was posted on the TMP Talk board and the title is "About John the OFM". What were people expecting when the clicked on the link?

I actually expected something about he can't make his membership and needs help. But that is still personal life related. No one was clickbaited here.

What Bunkermeister said. I don't use 'social media'
and would not bother to read anything there which the
OFM – or anyone else – posted. Unless TMP is regarded
as 'social media' (Heaven forbid…)

I presume that the Editor actually went and looked at
what ever was posted rather than merely relying on
'I'm told…'

What does OFM stand for?

IIRC: Old Fart Meister. He's not that old, being about
10 years younger than my 8 decades…

Thank You for the info..

People actually do that? It is just a hobby.

"About John the OFM". What were people expecting when the clicked on the link?"

I clicked on the link because I thought that it might have to do with a health update. I thought that he may have suffered a heart attack or something of that nature and so was concerned about the well-being of one of our frequent contributors.

As for Bunkermeister's points, I partially agree and partially disagree. I agree with him in that there is no need for an editor to update us concerning an ongoing dispute with a member of TMP. I avoid social media because I don't want to open myself up to extra stress in my life by being exposed to more conflicts. That said, I don't mind receiving updates concerning other updates concerning the lives of our editors, such as if they are having to deal with an earthquake or an illness (as long as they are OK with sharing that information). After all TMP is a community of people, and sometimes, if nothing else, it gives us a chance to offer them our sympathy and moral support.

By the way, I love the updates that Bunkermeister sends us concerning his latest projects.

Well, I didn't miss him at all. And there ya go!

Kevin C: +1

I clicked on the link because I thought that it might have to do with a health update.

So … something about his personal life.

Dear Editor Gwen;
That is untrue. John isn't on "social media", unless you count Frothers. He's not on FB, Twitter, etc. He's only on one other forum besides Frothers and the Moderator doesn't allow us to bring in our dirty laundry from TMP.

He hasn't said anything about you begging to be asked to come back. In fact, he really doesn't have much of an interest.

What got him riled up, was on the Am Rev board, when Dear Editor slagged him and Kevin, but left docmb go scott free on that whole topic about slavery. He didn't mind getting the can and Kevin the cooler, but thought doc should have gotten something as well.

Whatever your EXACT emails to him were are between you and John.

But I've been friends with him for a decade or so and part of his game group. Outside of mentioning he was locked out, he has hardly said a peep about this whole thing.

This is what, the fifth time, he's been locked out?

You don't need to explain anything. Nor do you need to play false about it either.

He's John the OFM. Just leave him be.

Oh, and have a nice day as well.

Eric

What got him riled up, was on the Am Rev board, when Dear Editor slagged him and Kevin, but left docmb go scott free on that whole topic about slavery. He didn't mind getting the can and Kevin the cooler, but thought doc should have gotten something as well.

And that's the problem. He insists on the right to harass people, contrary to forum rules. Gwen tried to help him, but he kept dodging his responsibility to obey forum rules. John doesn't own the TMP American Revolution board, and he does not get to decide who can post there or not.

He hasn't said anything about you begging to be asked to come back.

Let me quote from what was forwarded to me:

He had the power to ban you John. Over and over, and still you go crawling back. Over and over.

Err…
You're a bit mistaken.
Each time I've "come back", it's because Bill has begged ME to.

As Gwen said, simply not true.

This whole thing is a turn off to this site.

On the plus side: Right now the good still outweighs the bad though!

Btw, I clicked because I thought it was a health issue too.

Editor Gwen brought it up to counter what was being falsely said on social media.

She explained it succinctly and truthfully. She did not talk to him about any other issue.

So if you hear that John is saying some other story, keep it mind that he could have walked away from confronting another forum member, he could have Stifled that person, he could have listened to the advice Editor Gwen was giving him, but he did not.

I know that a lot of you felt that we were wrong to let John have another chance on TMP this last time. Well, we try to let people have second chances. (And in John's case, 3rd and 4th and 5th!) But the forum rules are the rules.

Just don't
I don't want to know.
None of my business

Well, let's spin this around.

Let's say that someone on social media is saying something bad about you. Maybe about your business. Or profession. Or your family. Etc.

And you want to set the record straight.

Should I tell you: Please don't say anything, I don't want to know, it's none of my business?

Well, yes. Because you are now involving me in your dispute. Until you posted this, I had _no_idea_ about this issue. In fact, now I still only have your side of it. And I still don't care.

You deal with it with him.

PS: So why did I click on the post? Because I thought he might be sick, or worse dead. He and I have argued in the past, but I have a soft spot for the old

Well, according to his friend, he's not on social media as most think of it, but I think the quote you shared is from Frothers.

How do you know that was the OFM who said that? There's no verification on that site to confirm user identity is there? Maybe some Frother is trying to wind either you, or John, or both, up.

Until you posted this, I had _no_idea_ about this issue. In fact, now I still only have your side of it.

So, what you seem to be saying is that if TMP wants to present its side of the story, we have to first determine that we are only talking to people who are already aware of what's on social media? That seems an impossible bar to meet.

…he's not on social media as most think of it…

Social media is defined as "…web-based communication tools that enable people to interact with each other by sharing and consuming information." That would include forums.

How do you know that was the OFM who said that?

He has since emailed me and said much the same thing. He also copied the email to someone else who will no doubt post it on social media shortly.

Appearently, he will be begging to come back in awhile and then the cycle will rerun. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

OFM = Official Federal Munchkin?

OFM = Ornery Feral Munchkin?

Feel free to provide your own conjecture below, if you so choose.

I used to enjoy John's posts; however, his posts have changed over the past few months and not for the better.

Most companies don't respond to public complaints by disgruntled customers. All it does is draw attention to the dispute.
As others have said I only checked because I thought he may have had a major negative event in his life such as a life threatening illness.
His dispute with the Editors is none of my business. If he rants on another site about it, ignore him. People will consider the source who happen to read it but most of us will never know about it.

Thanks Keven C. New blog posting every day.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Most companies don't respond to public complaints by disgruntled customers.

I believe current best practice is "responding quickly and appropriately to negative social comments" "promptly and publicly"

I would have never even heard of this had it not been presented here. Ever hear of the Streisand effect?

I'm no fan of John's, but this really didn't need airing here.

John's hardly a social media influencer. The reach of this incident has now gone much further than it would have if you didn't post it here.

I'm no fan of John's, but this really didn't need airing here.

John's hardly a social media influencer. The reach of this incident has now gone much further than it would have if you didn't post it here.

Actually, Editor Gwen never mentioned John's actual complaint. She just mentioned her side of the story.

The trouble with mentioning your side of the story when virtually nobody knows about the story is that suddenly everyone does. Having seen absolutely nothing about it whatsoever (since the OFM doesn't "do" social media – or if he does its a well kept secret) it has now cropped up on a number of wargaming forums and sites. As others have said, this is a thread that was probably left best unpulled

If someone brought the issue up on this site, then you would have the obligation to present all the facts. Since nobody did bring the issue up on TMP then you probably should have dealt with it without dragging the members here into the dispute. Think carefully before you bring up things that nobody even knows about. Sometimes we react with anger and emotion before we think something through. Just my opinion. I still love this site.

No one is holding a weapon to anyone's head so as always, if you're not interested, don't read.

The trouble with mentioning your side of the story when virtually nobody knows about the story is that suddenly everyone does.

There's such a thing as being proactive. Can't assume that because you're ignorant, everyone else is.

Since nobody did bring the issue up on TMP then you probably should have dealt with it without dragging the members here into the dispute.

Who got 'dragged in'? Gwen simply stated the facts.

That other site seems to be about half a dozen immature juveniles who delight in vulgarity, bickering and pretending to be other people (including our editor). Not sure I'd call it social media – technically maybe, not literally, lol.
Don't think I'd trust anything from it, or even bring any attention to it.

I am reminded of MacBeth, Act 5, Scene 5, lines 19 to 28 …

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

And let's try to live in greater harmony now.

Give him time, he'll be back eventually… ;-)

If we could just all get along, there would be no rules.

And there'd be no (historical) wargaming….

We're just not a "getting along" type of animal.

Lol … cheers!

We are much more than animals, 20thmaine, you pig!

And seriously, I hope John returns soon.

I think John is a part of the history of TMP. He has not been shy over the years. I would like to see him return. He can be controversial, but he has some perspectives I have found interesting and he can be funny and a lively thread topic creator.

It sounds like he has a choice to unlock by agreeing to follow the rules once again. I hope he agrees and sticks with it, If this works out, it would be a plus IMO.

He's come back as a sock puppet once already.

Well this does not bode well for following rules.

Just a déjà vu rinse and repeat of the previous four or five times we saw this show. It's good to know there are still consistencies we can count on in life.

John tells me he is never coming back, and that I was a fool to let him back the last time.

He also tells me that he will create as many sock puppet accounts as he wants, and defies me to find them all.

(Yes, I realize these statements cannot be reconciled.)

I really don't care about sock puppet accounts in this context. Obviously, if you're using a sock puppet account, then you can't be YOU, and that's the real punishment, isn't it? You have to obey forum rules, or you'll get tossed out again (and again). If you return to your favorite subjects, everyone will know it's you, and you'll be kicked out again. So what's the point? Don't kid yourself that anyone on staff here is fixated on finding and exposing your sock puppet accounts, because that would be a waste of our time. Yes, we might flush you out, but it's not because any staffer is putting real effort into doing so.

Is the game worth the candle, John?

John who?

"About John the OFM". What were people expecting when the clicked on the link?"

I also clicked on it because I thought there was a health issue and was concern. Sometimes you don't know exactly what the actual topic is until you click on it.

The root cause of this is not John. It is allowing topics which have nothing to do with gaming. Someone trolled the slavery topic on a gaming board and John got swept up. The person makes some absurd point, it makes you angry and there you go.