PDA

View Full Version : To Protect and Defend



AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 02:37 AM
"I,AJBIGJ, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

I, AJBIGJ, having been appointed an officer in the Navy of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Some may not know this, that both are applicable, except I used my actual name rather than my MTF username. I tend to reserve these distinctions because I wish to remain mostly anonymous and I wish for viewers to treat my opinions as nothing more than one individual's opinion. I have given more than a decade and a half to such service, while I don't think a competition is in order, I think this contribution is worthy of some degree of consideration.

That being said, first and foremost of both of these oaths is to support and defend the Constitution. First and foremost of these Constitutional Bill of Rights is free speech. I am beginning to see that certain individuals respect neither the former nor the latter. These are technically restraints on an established system of governing free citizens, yet they will not be ignored when private entities attempt to censor the execution of such rights in a respectful yet candid manner. While it is the right of individuals to take control of their (individual) property, as in a website. It is also within the rights of free citizens to speak freely and candidly when they perceive an injustice.

In the end, free market corrections will become the deciding factor. Has your products and services become so intolerable, so constraining of the average consumer that they choose to seek other venues to express their opinions openly? Are the assertions so grievous in nature that they need to be cut out like a cancer, or are they valid opinions, that can be assessed and discussed by a genuinely critically thinking individual? I appreciate the right of the host to ensure that conversations remain civilized to an extent and fairly maturely discussed. Yet I have to wonder what their purposes are when censorship extends to every contribution of those who occasionally push the boundaries of decency and terms of service, regardless of the individual content in the content they've contributed.

I await the response, or the associated ban and deletion, whichever is appropriate in this circumstance...

RS6405
08-31-2013, 02:52 AM
I reiterate AJBIGJ's statements and await the response, or the associated ban and deletion, whichever is appropriate in this circumstance...

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 03:21 AM
"I,AJBIGJ, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

I, AJBIGJ, having been appointed an officer in the Navy of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Some may not know this, that both are applicable, except I used my actual name rather than my MTF username. I tend to reserve these distinctions because I wish to remain mostly anonymous and I wish for viewers to treat my opinions as nothing more than one individual's opinion. I have given more than a decade and a half to such service, while I don't think a competition is in order, I think this contribution is worthy of some degree of consideration.

That being said, first and foremost of both of these oaths is to support and defend the Constitution. First and foremost of these Constitutional Bill of Rights is free speech. I am beginning to see that certain individuals respect neither the former nor the latter. These are technically restraints on an established system of governing free citizens, yet they will not be ignored when private entities attempt to censor the execution of such rights in a respectful yet candid manner. While it is the right of individuals to take control of their (individual) property, as in a website. It is also within the rights of free citizens to speak freely and candidly when they perceive an injustice.

In the end, free market corrections will become the deciding factor. Has your products and services become so intolerable, so constraining of the average consumer that they choose to seek other venues to express their opinions openly? Are the assertions so grievous in nature that they need to be cut out like a cancer, or are they valid opinions, that can be assessed and discussed by a genuinely critically thinking individual? I appreciate the right of the host to ensure that conversations remain civilized to an extent and fairly maturely discussed. Yet I have to wonder what their purposes are when censorship extends to every contribution of those who occasionally push the boundaries of decency and terms of service, regardless of the individual content in the content they've contributed.

I await the response, or the associated ban and deletion, whichever is appropriate in this circumstance...

I would possibly be a supporter of your declaration if you explained exactly what and against whom you perceive an injustice has been committed.

Your reference to the enlistment oath for armed service members indicates that you perceive someone's constitutional rights have been violated.

Why be so serpentine about it?

Spell it out in plain language and you'll possibly have the support of many of us here.

I don't know who you are talking about and can only guess at this point.

It is incumbent upon you to make your message clear if you want to be taken seriously. If you are ready to be banned over this, why hide behind the enlistment oath and innuendo?

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 03:25 AM
Challenge accepted, in plain English, I think this haphazard ban train we've been seeing is caustic to this forum which we all enjoy (or we wouldn't be here). I think if it continues, this forum will be a ghost town.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 03:28 AM
Is this a Tak thing?

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 03:36 AM
Is this a Tak thing?

It's a censorship thing, when an entire poster's comments, whether they be in violation or not, get deleted, there's something truly unusual going on here.

RS6405
08-31-2013, 03:38 AM
No it's a MTF thing

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 03:49 AM
It's a censorship thing, when an entire poster's comments, whether they be in violation or not, get deleted, there's something truly unusual going on here.

Why won't you say who you are talking about?

I honestly don't know.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 03:53 AM
looks like a few people now, the mere mentioning of there Userid's is apparently ban-worthy these days.

RS6405
08-31-2013, 03:53 AM
Does the who matter as to the censorship?

RFScott
08-31-2013, 03:54 AM
looks like a few people now, the mere mentioning of there Userid's is apparently ban-worthy these days.

I'm with AA on this one. Can we stop with all the cryptic messages and cite some specific examples please?

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:04 AM
I'm with AA on this one. Can we stop with all the cryptic messages and cite some specific examples please?

You've been a MTF member since about a year ago, have you noticed that any fairly consistent posters are suddenly no longer contributing to the MTF's over the last, say half year? Maybe because they are no longer allowed to? Not to mention that all evidence that they ever existed has been completely erased?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 04:11 AM
Does the who matter as to the censorship?

Yes, because perhaps they deserved it.

The OP in this particular thread was a very strong and dramatic declaration; however, it was also very ambiguous.

If you aren't willing to say who you are sticking up for, then in my opinion you are being extremely silly.

Trust me, I know a lot about being silly, just go read some of my old posts because I do it all the time on purpose, usually as an attempt at humor.

Why you and AJBIGJ are being silly in this particular thread escapes me.

How do you expect to gain anyone's support by being so illusive?

RFScott
08-31-2013, 04:13 AM
You've been a MTF member since about a year ago, have you noticed that any fairly consistent posters are suddenly no longer contributing to the MTF's over the last, say half year? Maybe because they are no longer allowed to? Not to mention that all evidence that they ever existed has been completely erased?

I have noticed a few people who have been banned, and the ones that I do know of earned those bans by violating the TOS and/or ignoring the warnings of the mods. I have also seen no evidence that all traces of their existence has been erased, as conducting a simple forum search will reveal some of their old threads and posts (although in the case of Joe Bonham you would have to search for "banned.")

I did just notice that RC was banned recently, and I must confess that I do not know the circumstances surrounding that event.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:17 AM
I have noticed a few people who have been banned, and the ones that I do know of earned those bans by violating the TOS and/or ignoring the warnings of the mods. I have also seen no evidence that all traces of their existence has been erased, as conducting a simple forum search will reveal some of their old threads and posts (although in the case of Joe Bonham you would have to search for "banned.")

I did just notice that RC was banned recently, and I must confess that I do not know the circumstances surrounding that event.

I will state the connections you've made are non-accidental, and non-coincidental. Does it not bother you that people seem to be disappearing this quickly, and occasionally for no apparent reason we can discern, maybe other than they disturb the status quo?

imnohero
08-31-2013, 04:19 AM
To be fair, Tak/GF deleted his own posts. A couple others followed suit.

The consistent posters over the last year, were the same half dozen people that pitched a hissy fit when FA showed up in March and either left or got banned. As to the "ban train", from what I can see, it's the same 3 or 4 people getting banned time after time as they create alternate accounts with the sole intention of creating havoc. Plus the "one offs" like creaminess that showed up after 3 years just to be unbelievably offensive and vulgar.

The vocal people that don't like the moderation and can remain civil are still here, you, RS, TJ, Rusty, and a couple others. And as far as I can tell, aren't facing any push back for being vocal.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 04:20 AM
I will state the connections you've made are non-accidental, and non-coincidental. Does it not bother you that people seem to be disappearing this quickly, and occasionally for no apparent reason we can discern, maybe other than they disturb the status quo?

So it is a Tak and RC thing?

RFScott
08-31-2013, 04:25 AM
I will state the connections you've made are non-accidental, and non-coincidental. Does it not bother you that people seem to be disappearing this quickly, and occasionally for no apparent reason we can discern, maybe other than they disturb the status quo?

Well I know GF seemed to go out in a blaze of glory on his last day, a few of those posts being blatantly against the TOS. Joe Bonham was well....Joe, and he continued to make posts that were either offensive (as judged by the mods) or against the TOS, after being repeatedly warned. Warnings were also issued about alt accounts too, so that may account for some of the attrition in posters.

Again, I do not know the circumstances around RC's banishment. It seemed like he was necro-posting awhile back, but that is really the only thing I can think of. As far as I know, no one has asked about what happened to him either.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:26 AM
So it is a Tak and RC thing?

Yes and more, unfortunately with the possibility of "aliases" also being a consideration, it's a challenge to determine who is worth mentioning, and who would be redundant. Anyway, I don't mind the ban-hammer, this new ban-sledge that seems to have been introduced recently, it definitely makes a fellow wonder.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 04:32 AM
Yes and more, unfortunately with the possibility of "aliases" also being a consideration, it's a challenge to determine who is worth mentioning, and who would be redundant. Anyway, I don't mind the ban-hammer, this new ban-sledge that seems to have been introduced recently, it definitely makes a fellow wonder.

I'm not trying to be contrary with you but I haven't noticed anything I consider unjust.

Admittedly, I'm no fan of Tak & RC but as far as the Mods wielding an indiscriminate sledge hammer as you put it; I just don't see it.

Bunch
08-31-2013, 04:32 AM
I'm currently a member of 5 message boards, the longest I've been a member dates back to 2006 and never received an infraction in any. This is simple folks, follow the guidelines set up by the the particular board and you are good, you don't and you will be shown the door. I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand for some folks.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:33 AM
Well I know GF seemed to go out in a blaze of glory on his last day, a few of those posts being blatantly against the TOS. Joe Bonham was well....Joe, and he continued to make posts that were either offensive (as judged by the mods) or against the TOS, after being repeatedly warned. Warnings were also issued about alt accounts too, so that may account for some of the attrition in posters.

Again, I do not know the circumstances around RC's banishment. It seemed like he was necro-posting awhile back, but that is really the only thing I can think of. As far as I know, no one has asked about what happened to him either.

I can say through the magic of a PM it is fairly complex. However i do see this as a self-inflicted wound created by a desire to "fix" things. RC, if my SA is accurate, was quite vocal about the current environment. I am making it a point to toe the line carefully without crossing it, to make it as difficult as possible to apply the same judgment on an individual without being blatant in the pursuit.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:41 AM
I'm not trying to be contrary with you but I haven't noticed anything I consider unjust.

Admittedly, I'm no fan of Tak & RC but as far as the Mods wielding an indiscriminate sledge hammer as you put it; I just don't see it.

I've literally had an individual who took on an alias, who the mods suspected to be "Tak" and actually wasn't, not only get banned, but had their "Quotes" (which by the way were nothing resembling "trollish") removed from my own posts. Having people banned is not new, erasing any proof of their ever existing is definitely new, and not a thing which I would personally endorse. If it was an old Smarg "God hates gays" statement I might think otherwise, but the direction I see this heading is nothing positive.

Bunch
08-31-2013, 04:42 AM
I can say through the magic of a PM it is fairly complex. However i do see this as a self-inflicted wound created by a desire to "fix" things. RC, if my SA is accurate, was quite vocal about the current environment. I am making it a point to toe the line carefully without crossing it, to make it as difficult as possible to apply the same judgment on an individual without being blatant in the pursuit.

But who's crossing who's line? Is not the responsibility of the FA to make sure that members abide by the rules. The FA is there to step in when someone doesn't. The responsibility of the member is to follow the rules of the board, thats the line, at least the way I see it. I choose not to cross the line and my reward for it is to be allowed to post here. If I cross the line set up by the FA then my reward is not being allowed to post.

imnohero
08-31-2013, 04:45 AM
You're referring to the Drake/Tak/JB incident. Really, one guy, that's done by his own admission nothing but cause trouble for the last two months? That's what has you all riled up?

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:46 AM
But who's crossing who's line? Is not the responsibility of the FA to make sure that members abide by the rules. The FA is there to step in when someone doesn't. The responsibility of the member is to follow the rules of the board, thats the line, at least the way I see it. I choose not to cross the line and my reward for it is to be allowed to post here. If I cross the line set up by the FA then my reward is not being allowed to post.

Again, I am no opponent of the ban-hammer applied judiciously, but the ban-sledge, where entire conversations, mostly nothing near in violation of the TOS are erased, that creates a big problem for me. Oh by the way, historically, this individual would be in fairly close agreement with your posts here, and were often in direct opposition to mine.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:47 AM
If it was one guy it would be no big deal, in fact it was at least two, maybe more, it is the trend itself that is disturbing.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 04:47 AM
I can say through the magic of a PM it is fairly complex. However i do see this as a self-inflicted wound created by a desire to "fix" things. RC, if my SA is accurate, was quite vocal about the current environment. I am making it a point to toe the line carefully without crossing it, to make it as difficult as possible to apply the same judgment on an individual without being blatant in the pursuit.

I think I get the gist of your beef now that you mention the PM network.

Sorry AJBIGJ, I can't support your claim in the OP.

I'm respectfully bowing out of this thread.

I do hope you can reconcile your differences with the mod squad because I do enjoy your posts.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:50 AM
I think I get the gist of your beef now that you mention the PM network.

Sorry AJBIGJ, I can't support your claim in the OP.

I'm respectfully bowing out of this thread.

I do hope you can reconcile your differences with the mod squad because I do enjoy your posts.

As I've mentioned to someone in one of those PMs history will be the ultimate judge, as in whether or not I have been doing the right thing. We will both know soon enough on that end, if you see more from me in the future, history will have looked favorably on me.

imnohero
08-31-2013, 04:51 AM
What trend? One or two people using, by my count, 8-10 accounts to be disruptive and repeatedly violate the rules get banned and their posts deleted. That's what I call effect moderation, not censorship.

Interceptor
08-31-2013, 04:56 AM
Again, I am no opponent of the ban-hammer applied judiciously, but the ban-sledge, where entire conversations, mostly nothing near in violation of the TOS are erased, that creates a big problem for me. Oh by the way, historically, this individual would be in fairly close agreement with your posts here, and were often in direct opposition to mine.

Those type of actions are not uncommon in message boards. I seen it happen time and time again. A person gets banned and out with his account and everything related to it. I had kind of a similar arguement with a mod at another message board and I understood the point he was making as to why that type of action is taken.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:58 AM
What trend? One or two people using, by my count, 8-10 accounts to be disruptive and repeatedly violate the rules get banned and their posts deleted. That's what I call effect moderation, not censorship.

Personally, I expect people in violation of the TOS to get suspended, banned, whatever, as a normal thing. You can't operate by the rules, ok then, there you go. When you try to erase an individual's existence, regardless of how grievous they "f'ed up", that is what really brings things to my attention. This isn't just one or two, this is at least half a dozen by my own count, by simply observing, and I would mention I haven't been an active participant in these forums for almost half a year prior to recently. This for me is a problem, even when they vehemently disagree with me on certain issues,

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 05:06 AM
Those type of actions are not uncommon in message boards. I seen it happen time and time again. A person gets banned and out with his account and everything related to it. I had kind of a similar arguement with a mod at another message board and I understood the point he was making as to why that type of action is taken.

Got that, it's not unusual, but is it right? The US Navy has been operating in many capacities the way it has almost 240 years, as has been most of the Armed Branches of Service, it doesn't make it always right in every capacity. The Bottom line, these are free thinking individuals, who, at least every so often, offer a genuine opinion. Plus, by the way, they have literally kept these forums alive when virtually no one felt it was worth resuscitating. If you wish to haphazardly discard it over an, as far as I can tell, minor push over the TOS, followed by a frustrated response when they were continually censored, it is your choice, it is your right. In the end, will the consumer favor your decision or will they be turned off by it? I've said this so much that I've made it cliche, but I'll repeat it anyways, history will be the judge here.

imnohero
08-31-2013, 05:15 AM
OK. Well, I've been an active participant for a number of years. And I've paid careful attention for the last year or so as the forum was taken over by 10-12 people that "ran off" anyone they didn't like, and dragged it into a morass of vulgar idiocy.

I would like you to consider the idea that recent events are not necessarily what they appear, nor what you've apparently been told in PM. I would also suggest that removing a forum account is not equivalent "erasing an individual's existence."

Interceptor
08-31-2013, 05:20 AM
Got that, it's not unusual, but is it right? The US Navy has been operating in many capacities the way it has almost 240 years, as has been most of the Armed Branches of Service, it doesn't make it always right in every capacity. The Bottom line, these are free thinking individuals, who, at least every so often, offer a genuine opinion. Plus, by the way, they have literally kept these forums alive when virtually no one felt it was worth resuscitating. If you wish to haphazardly discard it over an, as far as I can tell, minor push over the TOS, followed by a frustrated response when they were continually censored, it is your choice, it is your right. In the end, will the consumer favor your decision or will they be turned off by it? I've said this so much that I've made it cliche, but I'll repeat it anyways, history will be the judge here.

I agree that history will be the judge here.

And thank you for your feedback, your type of feedback is constructive in nature. We don't think or assume that we have all the answer and we work day in and day out to provide you guys with the best environment possible. We are trying to strike a balance here and hopefully with your help and others we can get there.

Vrake
08-31-2013, 05:38 AM
Personally, I expect people in violation of the TOS to get suspended, banned, whatever, as a normal thing. You can't operate by the rules, ok then, there you go. When you try to erase an individual's existence, regardless of how grievous they "f'ed up", that is what really brings things to my attention. This isn't just one or two, this is at least half a dozen by my own count, by simply observing, and I would mention I haven't been an active participant in these forums for almost half a year prior to recently. This for me is a problem, even when they vehemently disagree with me on certain issues,

AJ the only thing I can think of is the Mods are trying to get ahead of the necro-posts by a whole slew of "new" members. It does seem to be the flavor of the day right now. Kind of a board reset if you will. Can't say I agree on some because its nice to see some of the same complaints from 5 years ago.

I hate to be a fence sitter but right now I am. Initially I thought the permabans were to much. Yet if someone is given repeated warnings and bans then still tests the boundaries so be it. MTF house their rules.

Used to be members would catch a ban of a few days learn their lesson and come back. Now it's go out in a blaze of glory saying they will NEVER be back. They sneak back in and get caught and perma-banned, those actions do not go to far with the claims they have repented.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 05:49 AM
I'm bowing back in to say that history is a lousy judge when compared to Judge Jeanie Pirro.

I almost like her as much as Lilly!

3297

Vrake
08-31-2013, 05:50 AM
Crap hit return to early... Damm thumbs and IPad.

To finish I doubt permabans are given for one post unless its a newbie troll. There are warnings given first letting the members future posts determine their own fate.

I would love to see some banned members back don't get me wrong. However their alleged actions post ban does not give the Admins much reason to give them a chance.

My 3 1/2 cents

Bourne
08-31-2013, 12:00 PM
AJ,

What's your complaint specifically? Who is it about? What have you been told? If you want a response, I'll gladly provide it. We may disagree, but you wouldn't be banned for asking. That's preposterous - No one here has been banned for simply asking or mentioning something about our choices, banned members, etc.

I do not know what you've been told, but here are the facts:

No one was banned, even PYB at first, for simply stating a dissenting opinion, you can even still read his posts too.
People are always warned first to tone down their language, or otherwise alter their behavior.
People are banned when they escalate things, and usually that content is gone before most members see the final offending posts.
We tried censoring folks, rather than delete their posts, if they violated our rules for a period of about 3 weeks. This was not received well at all and was stopped:
http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1596639-Moderation-Nation
RC is bored here without Tak. Whatever he is saying about censorship and this or that offense against American Freedom and all that is most likely more feigning and victimization of the kind that got Tak banned.
JB's case was extreme. He was temporarily banned for cursing at FA and reposting atheist hate messages and images. When he was temp-banned he created an alt and used every 4 letter word under the sun against FA. As a result, he was permanently banned, and his name scrubbed, but his content is still here - albeit intentionally hard to find as most of it is hateful.
Any alt account is subject to deletion. Any alt of a banned member is subject to deletion, as well.

Some of you may have had recent content removed after the hack. You may have seen the error warnings from one of our databases if you visited the forum this week. We had to empty that database after the hack to be safe. It's possible, though I doubt it, that some content was emptied with it. If any of you are missing threads/posts, I apologize, the measure was necessary in order to restore the forums.

sandsjames
08-31-2013, 01:26 PM
I've been in several work centers (before I retired!!!!!) and it never failed that new leadership would come in and try to lower the boom on everyone to make an impact, even when the shops were running just fine before they got there.

If something is "offensive" people don't have to view the threads. If someone doesn't like an individuals posts, they can ignore that person. If people can't handle "bad language" they should thicken their skin. This is not a church. This is not a daycare. This is a forum that was MUCH more interesting a couple months ago. I think the mods are taking themselves WAY too seriously here.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 01:26 PM
AJ,

What's your complaint specifically? Who is it about? What have you been told? If you want a response, I'll gladly provide it. We may disagree, but you wouldn't be banned for asking. That's preposterous - No one here has been banned for simply asking or mentioning something about our choices, banned members, etc.

I do not know what you've been told, but here are the facts:

No one was banned, even PYB at first, for simply stating a dissenting opinion, you can even still read his posts too.
People are always warned first to tone down their language, or otherwise alter their behavior.
People are banned when they escalate things, and usually that content is gone before most members see the final offending posts.
We tried censoring folks, rather than delete their posts, if they violated our rules for a period of about 3 weeks. This was not received well at all and was stopped:
http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1596639-Moderation-Nation
RC is bored here without Tak. Whatever he is saying about censorship and this or that offense against American Freedom and all that is most likely more feigning and victimization of the kind that got Tak banned.
JB's case was extreme. He was temporarily banned for cursing at FA and reposting atheist hate messages and images. When he was temp-banned he created an alt and used every 4 letter word under the sun against FA. As a result, he was permanently banned, and his name scrubbed, but his content is still here - albeit intentionally hard to find as most of it is hateful.
Any alt account is subject to deletion. Any alt of a banned member is subject to deletion, as well.

Some of you may have had recent content removed after the hack. You may have seen the error warnings from one of our databases if you visited the forum this week. We had to empty that database after the hack to be safe. It's possible, though I doubt it, that some content was emptied with it. If any of you are missing threads/posts, I apologize, the measure was necessary in order to restore the forums.

I will offer my own situational awareness here is a little bit sub par, especially about the individual situations. For me it was a very disturbing trend to see that when I left, this place was barely hanging on for dear life, and when I returned it was as if certain posters, who often kept the conversations lively for the most part, were completely erased of all traces. I think a lot of the pushing of boundaries which led to these perma-bans were probably due to comments made in frustration with you personally, let's face it, your collective actions did seem fairly heavy-handed for a short while. I now know (or believe I do) one side of the JB story, who despite MANY ideological differences, was someone I considered a genuine friend (at least to the extent online, anonymous, relationships can be). I think a lot of his specifically egregious activities were likely made due to a combination of frustration at being cut off so frequently mixed with a degree of sarcasm as well. Was it immature, sure, a little bit probably. To be fair he is one of the younger posters to make contributions. I do know he was quite capable of being level-headed. I will also submit I have no idea what kind of discussions were held by private messages.

The problem I see, if there is one specifically to be identified, is now your average poster probably shares a little or a lot of my confusion regarding the specific elements involved. When you used to ban individuals but the remainder of their non-offensive contributions were left intact a curious individual could at the very least trace back to when and what caused things to occur. That ability to at least speculate somewhat more about the situation leading to it helps us to know what specifically led to the misbehavior/response. Since now many of us, especially those who weren't present during the specific activities when it occurred, see long time posters suddenly vanish entirely. It leads us to feel a bit more threatened, or wonder if the mods exercise on vendettas against individuals, and not just mere violations of the TOS, but to wonder if we now need to walk on eggshells quite a bit more about what we post. This conversation is healthy I think for both our purposes. My mere continued existence after directly challenging these decisions likely has a few individuals convinced they do not have to self-censor to the level they may have felt previously if they truly wish to survive. I would say RJ's continued existence helps that as well, he was getting into and out of bans fairly frequently for a certain period of time.

I do think, after this amount of time, it may be worth considering lifting some of those perma-bans, even if that means forcing those individuals to take on different aliases, declare themselves to the FAs, with the explicit statement of the type of activities that led to their individual bans previously. Most of them, for a significant period of time, kept conversations very lively and interesting for us the consumer. Regardless of how justified their bans were at the time, they will continue to be missed.

I will say this much, this isn't an issue with the TOS specifically being ambiguous, they're pretty clear and fairly intuitive. What is a problem for many of us is the type of conversation that falls into the gray area. I don't envy you your job of having to make judgment calls about pulling the trigger and sending people off to banned camp.

RS6405
08-31-2013, 01:53 PM
Bourne

I believe the point of John Drake's PM is that while JB came in under alt names, doing what JB does, the Mods jumped on him for being Tak.

Then you sent a PM warning to RC about helping Tak and JB circumvent their bans. I understand the basis of the Tak accusation; however, I cannot fathom the connection to JB other than he is an other perm Ban thwarting your ruling. Yet, you blamed him for JB's actions.

Then you sent another warning to RC warning that he is not allowed to bring up the Tak issue or even post in Tak made threads that would resurrect his presence here on MTF. You also told RC to warn all Tak's friends aka "cohorts" that disruptive behavior would not be tolerated. I fall into the category of being Tak's friend and interacting with him behind the scenes. I have called you and the mods out for such heavy handed judgements. I even PM'd you on the issue.

While I have no intent in disrupting the entire boards, I have no problem being a pain in your ass on this issue. Especially since the same behavior that triggered my Moderation on Moderation thread seems to be continuing to this date. You may not like my opinions, but I still feel that you and the Mods are continuing to be heavy handed. Since you are the last word here on the issue, all I can do is voice my opinion. If that leads to being banned so be it.

Also for the record, while I would love for you to lift the ban on certain members, I know you will not. However, there are other members like Kelly, Road/PT God etc. should have their membership reinstated. I believe their bans were a result of breaking one of your "rules", yet, neither did so to be disruptive. Further, it appears that Kelly was not even around to get the warning until right before the ban when the notice was burried in the thread lists. Yet, you were inflexable on that issue.

sandsjames
08-31-2013, 01:56 PM
Bourne

I believe the point of John Drake's PM is that while JB came in under alt names, doing what JB does, the Mods jumped on him for being Tak.

Then you sent a PM warning to RC about helping Tak and JB circumvent their bans. I understand the basis of the Tak accusation; however, I cannot fathom the connection to JB other than he is an other perm Ban thwarting your ruling. Yet, you blamed him for JB's actions.

Then you sent another warning to RC warning that he is not allowed to bring up the Tak issue or even post in Tak made threads that would resurrect his presence here on MTF. You also told RC to warn all Tak's friends aka "cohorts" that disruptive behavior would not be tolerated. I fall into the category of being Tak's friend and interacting with him behind the scenes. I have called you and the mods out for such heavy handed judgements. I even PM'd you on the issue.

While I have no intent in disrupting the entire boards, I have no problem being a pain in your ass on this issue. Especially since the same behavior that triggered my Moderation on Moderation thread seems to be continuing to this date. You may not like my opinions, but I still feel that you and the Mods are continuing to be heavy handed. Since you are the last word here on the issue, all I can do is voice my opinion. If that leads to being banned so be it.

Also for the record, while I would love for you to lift the ban on certain members, I know you will not. However, there are other members like Kelly, Road/PT God etc. should have their membership reinstated. I believe their bans were a result of breaking one of your "rules", yet, neither did so to be disruptive. Further, it appears that Kelly was not even around to get the warning until right before the ban when the notice was burried in the thread lists. Yet, you were inflexable on that issue.

I didn't realize that Kelly was banned. What the hell was that for?

RFScott
08-31-2013, 02:00 PM
I didn't realize that Kelly was banned. What the hell was that for?

Kellyinavon? I thought there was some issue with an alt account that was not divulged before that deadline came to pass or something. I don't know for sure, just what I "think" I remember. I also don't remember the warnings being buried in the thread list, it was stickied pretty much everywhere.

RS6405
08-31-2013, 02:03 PM
Difference of opinion. What I saw was a post by him then less than an hour he was banned.

efmbman
08-31-2013, 02:09 PM
Difference of opinion. What I saw was a post by him then less than an hour he was banned.

That may have been unrelated. I think I remember seeing that Kelly was a result of the alt-outing.

sandsjames
08-31-2013, 02:11 PM
Did that alt outing ever tell us who PT God was?

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 02:13 PM
Did that alt outing ever tell us who PT God was?

It was pretty clear that ROAD, PTGOD, and (I forget what the other account was) were all one dude. During the rep wars, after SRG's discovery, the flurry of dings came in threes.

Joker76 was the other dude, probably should have cut myself off a bit earlier last night.

RFScott
08-31-2013, 02:13 PM
Difference of opinion. What I saw was a post by him then less than an hour he was banned.


All but one came forward:
@KellyinAvon aka @El Kabong

http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1596492-When-does-the-great-alt-account-outing-begin&highlight=kellyinavon

sandsjames
08-31-2013, 02:17 PM
It was pretty clear that ROAD, PTGOD, and (I forget what the other account was) were all one dude. During the rep wars, after SRG's discovery, the flurry of dings came in threes.

Wow...how did I miss all that? Kind of a let down that it was ROAD. I had high hopes that it was someone interesting.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 02:19 PM
Wow...how did I miss all that? Kind of a let down that it was ROAD. I had high hopes that it was someone interesting.

Probably didn't get the ding flurries I did in the same manner, all three accounts would ding one random post of mine in a period of under ten minutes.

RFScott
08-31-2013, 02:22 PM
Probably didn't get the ding flurries I did in the same manner, all three accounts would ding one random post of mine in a period of under ten minutes.

I think ROAD also came out and declared that he was PT GOD in a thread, but I am unable to dig it up.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 02:35 PM
Bourne

I believe the point of John Drake's PM is that while JB came in under alt names, doing what JB does, the Mods jumped on him for being Tak.

Then you sent a PM warning to RC about helping Tak and JB circumvent their bans. I understand the basis of the Tak accusation; however, I cannot fathom the connection to JB other than he is an other perm Ban thwarting your ruling. Yet, you blamed him for JB's actions.

Then you sent another warning to RC warning that he is not allowed to bring up the Tak issue or even post in Tak made threads that would resurrect his presence here on MTF. You also told RC to warn all Tak's friends aka "cohorts" that disruptive behavior would not be tolerated. I fall into the category of being Tak's friend and interacting with him behind the scenes. I have called you and the mods out for such heavy handed judgements. I even PM'd you on the issue.

While I have no intent in disrupting the entire boards, I have no problem being a pain in your ass on this issue. Especially since the same behavior that triggered my Moderation on Moderation thread seems to be continuing to this date. You may not like my opinions, but I still feel that you and the Mods are continuing to be heavy handed. Since you are the last word here on the issue, all I can do is voice my opinion. If that leads to being banned so be it.

Also for the record, while I would love for you to lift the ban on certain members, I know you will not. However, there are other members like Kelly, Road/PT God etc. should have their membership reinstated. I believe their bans were a result of breaking one of your "rules", yet, neither did so to be disruptive. Further, it appears that Kelly was not even around to get the warning until right before the ban when the notice was burried in the thread lists. Yet, you were inflexable on that issue.

Much more clearly stated than my own hangover induced blathering. +1

Bourne
08-31-2013, 04:21 PM
I appreciate the genuine and non-insult-ridden discourse here.

FYI - Road/PTGOD is back, but I will leave it to him or her to reveal their new identity to you if s/he chooses.

RS, you do disagree, and make your point, but notice you are still here and others trying to make the same points are not. You've approached the topic judiciously and speak sensibly about it, versus vitriol, shouting, cursing and gamesmanship. I think that illustrates our moderation method - it's not the message, but the delivery, the packaging of that message.

RJ is another member here who was able to repackage his views, and hold back on the insults and remains in good standing here. He is one of the more outspoken members, yet has probably received only one warning in the time since the march shake up.

The mods and I are not in agreement on this and I will catch flak, but I will reconsider the permanent bans in light of the major shakedown that occurred. Ultimately, the bans are not about the people, but the rules. If these users can agree to follow every word in the rule book, they might be allowed to stay, but they'll be under strict supervision. if they break rules again, punishment would be swift and eternal.

RC will still have a 30 day ban for his clownery.

Don't mistake this reconsideration of bans for any kind of lenience in enforcing our rules. We are trying to create peace while still providing an engaging service. If ANYONE starts to prevent us in that mission, they're gone.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:27 PM
I appreciate the genuine and non-insult-ridden discourse here.

FYI - Road/PTGOD is back, but I will leave it to him or her to reveal their new identity to you if s/he chooses.

RS, you do disagree, and make your point, but notice you are still here and others trying to make the same points are not. You've approached the topic judiciously and speak sensibly about it, versus vitriol, shouting, cursing and gamesmanship. I think that illustrates our moderation method - it's not the message, but the delivery, the packaging of that message.

RJ is another member here who was able to repackage his views, and hold back on the insults and remains in good standing here. He is one of the more outspoken members, yet has probably received only one warning in the time since the march shake up.

The mods and I are not in agreement on this and I will catch flak, but I will reconsider the permanent bans in light of the major shakedown that occurred. Ultimately, the bans are not about the people, but the rules. If these users can agree to follow every word in the rule book, they might be allowed to stay, but they'll be under strict supervision. if they break rules again, punishment would be swift and eternal.

RC will still have a 30 day ban for his clownery.

Don't mistake this reconsideration of bans for any kind of lenience in enforcing our rules. We are trying to create peace while still providing an engaging service. If ANYONE starts to prevent us in that mission, they're gone.

I cannot express enough how much your candor in this matter is appreciated.

RS6405
08-31-2013, 05:53 PM
Bourne, I truly appreciate your response and was left speechless (& grateful) for lifting the ban on members.

I understand your reasoning in making RC wait the 30 before returning to the forum.

Yet, the lawyer in me, (as well as others) would love some clarification as to the scope of the pardon for banned members who could be returning.

Okie
09-01-2013, 01:54 PM
I've avoided the big Drama Llama so far, but I feel compelled to comment on my perception of rules enforcement at MTF. I haven't been around much in the last 6 months, so I'll confine my observations to this thread.
...but I will reconsider the permanent bans in light of the major shakedown that occurred. Ultimately, the bans are not about the people, but the rules. If these users can agree to follow every word in the rule book, they might be allowed to stay, but they'll be under strict supervision. Why? If you reverse the "perma" ban, he will have basically the same punishment as a 30-day ban for something deemed much more egregious. The difference is that the 30-day guy served his time without complaint or creating an alias (also a banning offense as I recall). What makes this guy so special? The guy who can't get his act together gets a nice request from a mod to cease and desist and consideration of ban reversal?


if they break rules again, punishment would be swift and eternal.
"Eternal" like the Bible defines it, or "eternal" like this current perma-ban that is already under consideration for reversal?


Don't mistake this reconsideration of bans for any kind of lenience in enforcing our rules. Then please tell me what it is, because that's precisely what it appears to be.

As to AJBIGJ's suggestion that perma-banned folks get to come back under an alias...why? Not that I want an alias (I don't), but it seems everybody had 12. Now they can't have one but the banned folks can?!? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I apologize if my tone comes across as confrontational. I'm really not trying to be. I guess I'm just frustrated that it's been the same here for years. This whole thing reminds me of Alice telling smarg for the 69 * 10^548th time to be good or she'll ban him forever....and he didn't...and neither did she.

As long as the rules are clear and the punishments fairly and consistently applied, I think you'll get buy-in. Otherwise, I predict frustration and resentment.

Okie
09-01-2013, 02:12 PM
One clarification-I don't know what caused Tak's perma-ban. I am assuming above that it's more egregious than the 30-day ban fodder solely because it resulted in a "perma-ban."

sandsjames
09-01-2013, 03:02 PM
I've avoided the big Drama Llama so far, but I feel compelled to comment on my perception of rules enforcement at MTF. I haven't been around much in the last 6 months, so I'll confine my observations to this thread. Why? If you reverse the "perma" ban, he will have basically the same punishment as a 30-day ban for something deemed much more egregious. The difference is that the 30-day guy served his time without complaint or creating an alias (also a banning offense as I recall). What makes this guy so special? The guy who can't get his act together gets a nice request from a mod to cease and desist and consideration of ban reversal?


"Eternal" like the Bible defines it, or "eternal" like this current perma-ban that is already under consideration for reversal?

Then please tell me what it is, because that's precisely what it appears to be.

As to AJBIGJ's suggestion that perma-banned folks get to come back under an alias...why? Not that I want an alias (I don't), but it seems everybody had 12. Now they can't have one but the banned folks can?!? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I apologize if my tone comes across as confrontational. I'm really not trying to be. I guess I'm just frustrated that it's been the same here for years. This whole thing reminds me of Alice telling smarg for the 69 * 10^548th time to be good or she'll ban him forever....and he didn't...and neither did she.

As long as the rules are clear and the punishments fairly and consistently applied, I think you'll get buy-in. Otherwise, I predict frustration and resentment.

There you go...lower the boom...

imnohero
09-01-2013, 03:11 PM
There you go...lower the boom...

LOL. It needed to be lowered.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-01-2013, 09:09 PM
My opinion was starting to soften a little but Okie makes a stronger and more relevant argument than what has been presented in favor of lifting the bans.

Either way, if a banned person wants to get back in here so badly they can always change ISPs and start fresh, if they haven't done that already.

Bourne
09-04-2013, 06:27 AM
KellyinAvon - Reinstated
Tak - Reinstated
RobotChicken is reduced to 15 days, with 5 served.

Why:
Because this forum is about the people. Bans are about behavior.
It's possible for new behavior to replace the old.
But, no one can replace Kelly, Tak, or RC.

Is FA just soft?
No. Reasonable? Yes.

Does this mean you can do the same?
You can try, but we are fresh out of patience.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
09-04-2013, 01:45 PM
KellyinAvon - Reinstated
Tak - Reinstated
RobotChicken is reduced to 15 days, with 5 served.

Why:
Because this forum is about the people. Bans are about behavior.
It's possible for new behavior to replace the old.
But, no one can replace Kelly, Tak, or RC.

Is FA just soft?
No. Reasonable? Yes.

Does this mean you can do the same?
You can try, but we are fresh out of patience.

There will be more trouble with at least one of them in the future.

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 02:16 PM
I will go on the record stating, I will protect and defend free speech, but now that I've put myself out there, I refuse to protect the stupid from themselves. If any of the previous bans push the envelope now and find themselves right back where they were, the onus is on them!:focus

20+Years
09-04-2013, 03:09 PM
I think this was a good move on behalf of the admins. Lessons were learned, the users know the admins are now serious. Everyone will hold thier future here in thier own hands.

Welcome back guys!

Pullinteeth
09-04-2013, 04:03 PM
There will be more trouble with at least one of them in the future.

Of course there will but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed back. With very few exceptions, bans have run a couple days up to a week and 30 days for the worst offenses (I THINK VW might have gotten 30 or 60 days). The ABSOLUTE worst did get a prema ban but that was a unique situation. For those that "generally" follow the rules and just go off the rails every now and again, I think a good swat is enough-I seem to recall you have been struck with the ban hammer a time or three no?

TJMAC77SP
09-05-2013, 11:56 AM
That awkward moment when sarcasm doesn’t work in a text

I don't know....as I read it Marc Antony's eulogy of Julius Caesar was running through my head

Absinthe Anecdote
09-05-2013, 12:33 PM
I don't know....as I read it Marc Antony's eulogy of Julius Caesar was running through my head

I guess I have to go look that up now.

TJMAC77SP
09-05-2013, 02:12 PM
I guess I have to go look that up now.

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him...."

sandsjames
09-05-2013, 02:27 PM
Any chance we can get Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame now?

No chance. Now if he'd only done something like steroids/HGH then he'd be eligible. The fact that he's one of the best players in history can't be taken into consideration. Baseball has standards, you know?

TJMAC77SP
09-05-2013, 06:39 PM
No chance. Now if he'd only done something like steroids/HGH then he'd be eligible. The fact that he's one of the best players in history can't be taken into consideration. Baseball has standards, you know?

I have never quite understood the perceived magnitude of his violations. As I understand it, he gambled (a lot) on baseball games, to include games his team was in. I have never heard anyone even whisper that he in anyway attempted to influence the outcome of those games (except maybe to win said games). Was it determined that he bet against his team?

Given all that I don't understand the lifetime ban from baseball and the hall of fame. Particularly in light of the fact that now dozens of current and past players have been proven to have used long banned substances which DO (with very little legitimate argument to the contrary) effect the outcome of games and these players are merely being suspended. Many are sure to go into the Hall of Fame, at least one of which holds a major current record which will forever be tarnished.

I didn't follow Rose's career closely as he was never a Red Sox but I do respect his accomplishments but it seems he got the shaft and continues to receive egregious treatment with these latest developments

sandsjames
09-05-2013, 07:07 PM
I have never quite understood the perceived magnitude of his violations. As I understand it, he gambled (a lot) on baseball games, to include games his team was in. I have never heard anyone even whisper that he in anyway attempted to influence the outcome of those games (except maybe to win said games). Was it determined that he bet against his team?

Given all that I don't understand the lifetime ban from baseball and the hall of fame. Particularly in light of the fact that now dozens of current and past players have been proven to have used long banned substances which DO (with very little legitimate argument to the contrary) effect the outcome of games and these players are merely being suspended. Many are sure to go into the Hall of Fame, at least one of which holds a major current record which will forever be tarnished.

I didn't follow Rose's career closely as he was never a Red Sox but I do respect his accomplishments but it seems he got the shaft and continues to receive egregious treatment with these latest developments

I'd be curious to see the win/loss record in the alleged games he bet on. Now, if they were 2-25 in those games then it's a problem. But, if their record is similar to the rest of the "non-betting" games then it shouldn't be an issue.

sandsjames
09-05-2013, 07:09 PM
IMO, the Hall is tainted without Pete in it...and I won't visit it until he is. One of the greatest to ever play. He picked the wrong vice...drugs, alcohol, wife-beating, rape...he would've been in by now.

They will probably induct him after he dies...

Most likely, since it's a lifetime ban. It just amazes me that they went to that length. What about other players of that era who are in the Hall and knowingly cheated. Gaylord Perry had one of the best spit balls ever. People knew that he threw it, knew that it was illegal, yet it made his career and his success. I just don't understand where the Hall, and the voters, draw the line.

sandsjames
09-05-2013, 07:16 PM
At the risk of going all Corny on you:

Wow, that was all Corny...good info though.