Was HODAG banned ?

[mika]

Rob,

Thank you for your response. It is well thought out and consistent with how we, as a forum, have dealt with issues wrestled out with PMs in the past. I posted Marks e-mail as a way of letting you know that Mark was fine with the idea of releasing those PMs if you felt it appropriate.

Fellow members,

I hope we do not pile on one side or the other The process Mark has agreed to (by implication),Visian and Rob have described will play itself out over the next week. Rather letÔÇÖs have some frank discussions about how we run an election forum in this association in general. How is it working? What would we improve? Where do we want to take it? What about FlashÔÇÖs idea?

I hope none of the parties in the current issue leave. They all bring things to the forum that we would be diminished by the loss of their departure. For the rest of us, the question is where do we want to go from here?

 

[Visian]

What ever happened to the policy that directors and the executive are not allowed to moderate the forum? Has that policy gone into effect yet?

yes... for everything except the election forum.

 

[mika]

By reconcile you apparently mean grovel, and I don't expect we'll see Mark do that anytime soon. I know I wouldn't.

I donÔÇÖt see Hodag groveling at anytime in this process.

DeDe, Miss Lilly and Sam may be able to get Mark to grovel, but Hodag is another beast all together. I suspect he will more than hold his own in the upcoming conversations while seeking a space that can be common ground for all members. I donÔÇÖt see that as groveling at all.

You have to like a principled guy who is not afraid of tilting at windmills, even if you donÔÇÖt always agree with him. I donÔÇÖt have enough information at this time to make any judgment calls but IÔÇÖm thinking this will be an interesting tilt for all of us.

 

[tdomek]

I for one am pleased with the job the moderators have done so far. Freedom of expression is precious, indeed. But there are established guidelines for conduct on this forum. They are enforced by humans that are inherently subjective. We must have some trust in the integrity of our leaders and not try to micro-manage.

That said, if we ultimately do not like the choices these leaders make, we must express this displeasure in the ways that are available to us, ultimately with our votes for the candidates that share our views on the issues.

And there is no censorship happening here. This venue has been made unavailable to Hodag, but he is free to find another way to make himself heard. His own forum elsewhere, perhaps?

My .02

 

[oldhway]

Holy Cow, just dove into this thread and took the time to read it through. My favorite post was Doc's. Apparently he sees some entertainment value here.

Ladies and Gentlemen, how the club is run is important but the energy level being spent here might do a world of good on some lesser cause, say ending a war or fighting hunger or disease. Perhaps we should lighten up on this club that we participate in as a hobby and put the anger and deep philosophical thought into other pursuits?

Just a thought......

 

[MOTOR31]

Good morning,

I am not under any circumstances going to post any PM's between myself and Mark. If I were I would be taken well out of context unless I were to also post the series of PM's regarding the election forum on March 30th and the series of discussions on April 1.

The election forum quidelines are quite clear and I have done my best to err on the side of letting things wander around a bit and I will continue to try to do so.

We have a policy that any user who is banned must reconcile with the moderator who banned them. I think this is best for both parties as ultimately we do want to get along and prevent further misunderstanding by either the moderator and the user.

All parties involved are human and if you all want to pile on either side it will not speed up a good resolution.

Best,

I have to say that I find parts of this post to be rather coherant and agreeable. There is however another section that simply speaks volumes.

We have a policy that any user who is banned must reconcile with the moderator who banned them. I think this is best for both parties as ultimately we do want to get along and prevent further misunderstanding by either the moderator and the user.

On the face of it this isn't a bad idea at all. Given the nature of human beings it does tend to butt up against a bit of human nature, that of irreconcilable differences. There (IMO) really should be a review process to make the final determination and remove the potential tendency for the moderator to lose objectivity over the situation if their particular bull was gored.


All parties involved are human and if you all want to pile on either side it will not speed up a good resolution.

This kind of hints at the point I was making. It's very possible to take this as a bald faced threat that either you agree with the moderator or you won't see the "offending party" on the bbs again. Hence the need, again IMO, that we need an independant person review the situation and remove the moderator from being the only source of reinstating the "offending party".

The bbs can get rather heated and shouldn't be allowed to degenerate into chaos but the temptation to allow a personally involved moderator to make all the decisions is simply putting a lot of temptation onto their already angry frame of mind.

Finally as to the concept of leaving the organization is concerned. I think that's a final last resort. The first and best option is to retain your membership and simply vote the offending party out of office. I haven't looked to see if it's possible to do something like an impeachment but if it is possible, go for that route. Once you leave you lost ALL ability to influence the situation. So stick around, make your vote count and be a pain in the administrations side if need be. Leaving lets them win.

 

[PacWestGS]

It is my understanding that each moderator reviews his/her forum, but that a census amonst them is needed before action is taken. They (the mods) have a private channel to discuss these matters and make joint resolution affecting the membership. Although if something is so egregious that it violates rules and standards that action may be taken without notification of others.

Again that is my understanding.

 

[rob nye]

Oy.

Pleas allow me to try to clarify.

What you can't have is a person banned who answer shops, i.e. goes to the executive director, the president or someone else who they precieve is above the moderator so they can "win" and the moderator can "loose".

A banned user is welcome to contact the President, Execuitve Director and anyone else they choose to discuss their issue and what they precieve are abuses by the moderator, however the moderator who banned the user needs to be the moderator who restores their access.

It may be that the moderator is advised, directed, instructed to restore access by the President / Ed etc but I really don't think we would be able to recruit or retain good moderators if they knew that someone they ban today could simply call someone "higher up" and get reinstated.

The policy is in no way intended to prevent a user from contacting folks to discuss the issue nor was it designed to force them to grovel to the man behind the green curtain. The fact that they have to make peace with the person who they incited them to the point of action is not groveling, it is common courtsey and to some degree respect, unless of course the mod action was totally arbitrary at which point I would expect the offiers and staff to be aware.

Users don't get moderated without warning and I am quite sure that Hodag knew exactly what he was doing when he sent me the PM and said "go ahead and ban me" and then did exactly what he was asked not to do.

 

[rob nye]

It is my understanding that each moderator reviews his/her forum, but that a census amonst them is needed before action is taken. They (the mods) have a private channel to discuss these matters and make joint resolution affecting the membership. Although if something is so egregious that it violates rules and standards that action may be taken without notification of others.

Again that is my understanding.

Your understanding is correct.

In the case of the election forum it is a little different because of two factors:

1) Three of the people on this moderator's forum are candidates

2) The election forum is an experiement and as the Secretary is responsible for the election *and* I not running for office (expiring term) I volunteered to impliment and moderate it.

I did this because I [wanted us to have a place to meet the candidates and have an open discussion with them on the issues. So far I think it is working very well.

I have had to do much less action in the election forum than anticipate and for this I thank you all.

 

[Rod Sheridan]

As much as I hate to see anyone banned, get a grip, this is simply a forum for a hobby. Some people seem to be taking this far too seriously, when as far as I am concerned, only Mark and the moderator should be taking this seriously.

I know that moderators may make mistakes, however forum members sometimes exceed the limits of civility and action may be required. It's a balancing act that isn't improved by attacking members or moderators.

I had a warning from a moderator once, and upon re-reading my post, I had to agree that someone could interpret it in a manner that certainly wasn't my intended one. I removed the post.

I hope Mark and the moderator come to an agreement because I would like to be able to read future posts from Mark.

I also would like to thank the moderators for performing a difficult, and un-appreciated job.

Regards, Rod.

 

[PacWestGS]

Thank you Rob for both the explanation and your time to make the 'Election' forum a reality.

 

[mrich12000]

To much !!

Das Forum Fuhrer all this from an insurance thing not to mention we ride BMW not kool!! I need a scotch For a Gentlman who has posted and given to this board lots of fun ... it is a little much . Bike's in the Auto Trader Toronto gta pictures are there $3250.00 edition...: going

 

[easy]

No one person should have the right to ban someone because they don't like the tone of their speech. This policy is too prone to abuse.

I understand how sometimes people may need to be banned, but it should be a decision made by three or more moderators that can be appealed to the executive director.

Hopefully after the elections this apparent dictatorial policy can be changed. Free speech is too important for any one person, even Rob, to control.

Easy

 

[mika]

It is a beautiful day in Lilydale and I have been working on the Roadster. While I have been working a question came to mind. This is a question for any and all on the administrator/moderator team.

I wonder why the decision has been to move in the direction of deleting items rather than redacting the unacceptable part.

If it is technically possible redacting would seem to have some advantages.
- The content and context of the problem post or posts remains in tact allowing the membership to better understand why it was removed.
- Pertinent acceptable content remains for all to see
- Posts by others that were not part of the problem remain for everyone to see
- It may serve as a more effective object lesson

This really is a question and not a shot at anyone. I want to learn and understand. I will be heading out to work on the bike after lunch but I will check in the future.

 

[knary]

No one person should have the right to ban someone because they don't like the tone of their speech.

That didn't happen.

 

[bigdelta]

Apparently Nye doesn't think so

No one person should have the right to ban someone because they don't like the tone of their speech. This policy is too prone to abuse.

I understand how sometimes people may need to be banned, but it should be a decision made by three or more moderators that can be appealed to the executive director.

Hopefully after the elections this apparent dictatorial policy can be changed. Free speech is too important for any one person, even Rob, to control.

Easy

Dictatorial policy-you hit the nail on the head.Just 33 more days for him to "moderate" and counting.

 

[bigdelta]

Then tell us who else was involved

That didn't happen.

in the decision to ban him-in the interest of fail play of course.Were you involved?

 

[chacifer]

by now.If so,is Rob Nye involved?I only question that because he once banned me.He pulled the same stuff with me when I was banned and you have to apologize politely and repent and promise to behave.

aww, poor baby. you had to promise to behave and everything?!

 

[chacifer]

Das Forum Fuhrer all this from an insurance thing not to mention we ride BMW not kool!! I need a scotch For a Gentlman who has posted and given to this board lots of fun ... it is a little much . Bike's in the Auto Trader Toronto gta pictures are there $3250.00 edition...: going

I can tell you that whatever point you were trying to make with this post was completely lost because it doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[bigdelta]

That's certainly a mature response

aww, poor baby. you had to promise to behave and everything?!

You sound so much like that person running for office that has "cleaning up the Forum" on her agenda.
Yeah my smilie is just as ridiculous as yours is.