Welcome Back, Rhett

[LouMoreno]

Wecolme back to the board. Did you save all of the things you wanted to post during your suspension? Does Schwebby have a higher post count now?

[circle_2]

Where's Morgan?

[tdwriter]

How on earth did my pal Rhett get suspended? I missed that one somewhere. Someone get me up to speed. That's really hard to believe. rWc3523

[johnrock]

He was trying to tell Mike K. how he felt about the nonsense Mike spews.

[esalazar]

wow, thats shocking!! welcome back Rhett..

[tdwriter]

Understandable. And though I only met Rhett once, I read a lot of his stuff here and felt he was a pretty laid back guy. Thanks, rWc3523

[bruce_brakel]

Mikey and Rhett come back on the same day. Two men enter one man leaves! What's the under/over on Mikey this time?

[gang4010]

I'll take the over - whatever it may be!

[riverdog]

......beat me to the punch 4010.

[exczar]

All these people saying "Welcome Back, Rhett" but I haven't seen any posts from him. Has anyone?

BTW, With Pizza God and My Hero on probation, and Rhett just back from suspension, it appears to me that we might be a weeee bit overzealous in the use of the disciplinary hammer for MB infractions. Just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid to read it.

[esalazar]

you have to be careful and not mis-spell your profanity! [img]/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[m_conners]

Welcome back, Rhett.

[twoputtok]

I didn't even use profanity and I got 3months probation.
No personal attack, no veiled physical threats and no inappropriate images.

I think it would be a great idea to publish the name of the accuser.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to know who our accuser is?
Why should they be allowed to remain anonymous?
Do they have something to hide?
They were brave enough to complain, be brave enough to let the world know who you are.

[Moderator005]

BTW, With Pizza God and My Hero on probation, and Rhett just back from suspension, it appears to me that we might be a weeee bit overzealous in the use of the disciplinary hammer for MB infractions. Just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid to read it.

Bill, are you familiar with our disiciplinary process and/or the offenses they committed? You may be making these judgments based solely on persona, and without any knowledge of the current PDGA Message Board Rules and the offenses those message board users committed.

In each case, a message board user reported them for violation of our PDGA DISCussion Board Rules. A moderator reviewed the post, and agreed that it did indeed break our rules. The guilty party then had the option to appeal to the Communications Director who could overturn or uphold the decision. Three separate persons - the message board user who reported it, the moderator who reviewed it, and the Communications Director who upheld any appeal, were in agreement that there were infractions. In Rhett's case, he was on two probationary periods before the 3 month suspension was enacted.

This is all explained at length in our PDGA Message Board Rules and anyone who is not familiar with the disciplinary process should click on the aforementioned link and familiarize themselves with the process.

[twoputtok]

Yada, yada, yada, just more of the same.

[tkieffer]

I heard the line at 47 hours on another thread. Looks like he didn't make it.

[exczar]

Bill, are you familiar with our disiciplinary [sic] (another typo - must be MTL - exczar)

process
-
Yes
-
and/or the offenses they committed?
-
The listing of what offense they committed is so vague as to be of litte use:
-
Bryan James Probation 11/11/2007 2/11/2008 Offensive Material
-
From what I understand, the offensive material was a picture of a cartoon character in Southpark dressed up in some sort of Nazi uniform. Southpark is now shown on a local broadcast channel, and I have found that the language on that show to be more off-color than the pictures.
-
John Maurio Probation 10/2/2007 1/2/2008 Material not suitable for a minor
-
Don't know what that was, I think it might have been a link to a pic (?)
-
Rhett Stroh
-
no longer listed on Message Board Disciplinary List, I understand that he referred to UPM as someone with low intellegence (shocking!)
-
You may be making these judgments based solely on persona,
-
I have met all three of the gentlemen listed above, so I think I have a basic handle on their character and demeanor, not just what they appear to be here on the MB
-
nd without any knowledge of the current PDGA Message Board Rules and the offenses those message board users committed.
-
Wasn't I asked that already?
-
In each case, a message board user reported them for violation of our PDGA DISCussion Board Rules. A moderator reviewed the post, and agreed that it did indeed break our rules. The guilty party then had the option to appeal to the Communications Director who could overturn or uphold the decision. Three separate persons - the message board user who reported it, the moderator who reviewed it, and the Communications Director who upheld any appeal, were in agreement that there were infractions. In Rhett's case, he was on two probationary periods before the 3 month suspension was enacted.

This is all explained at length in our PDGA Message Board Rules and anyone who is not familiar with the disciplinary process should click on the aforementioned link and familiarize themselves with the process.

I am assuming that this response from the Mod was given for more than my edification - I just happened to be the one who said that the subjective criteria possible use a little tweaking.

Maybe we should just go ahead and make the MB truly moderated - all posts must be approved before they are shown on the MB. Should would cut down on the probations and noise we are seeing here, but would be a whooole lotta more work for the mods, and would greatly slow down the time between when a post was submitted and when it shows up here.

[Lyle O Ross]

All these people saying "Welcome Back, Rhett" but I haven't seen any posts from him. Has anyone?

BTW, With Pizza God and My Hero on probation, and Rhett just back from suspension, it appears to me that we might be a weeee bit overzealous in the use of the disciplinary hammer for MB infractions. Just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid to read it.

I agree, but in the name of fairness... I've only seen a few posts that really made me think whoa! Banning Rhett, no matter what he said, seems wrong.

[Lyle O Ross]

I am assuming that this response from the Mod was given for more than my edification - I just happened to be the one who said that the subjective criteria possible use a little tweaking.

Maybe we should just go ahead and make the MB truly moderated - all posts must be approved before they are shown on the MB. Should would cut down on the probations and noise we are seeing here, but would be a whooole lotta more work for the mods, and would greatly slow down the time between when a post was submitted and when it shows up here.

Mod, and Peter, the Mod director. Please review what Bill wrote here. I suspect that we are following the letter of the law to be fair. I'm not sure we're being served well. I admit I don't have an answer, but I don't think what we're currently doing is the right thing.

A few comments from me :

- Moderating comments before they go public would be a huge task. We are flooded at the time just reviewing comments that people think are offensive, imagine having to moderate EVERY post. Not an easy task.

- As far as certain posters being on suspension that people "like" on the message board, we do not bend the rules for anyone. Whether or not the person has been in trouble with us multiple times or has been on the board since it began and never had a single problem, everyone is judged by the content of the post. In fact, when we receive an email to look at a post, the poster is not shown. This insures an unbiased decision. It is not until we make the decision do we see who posted the content.

If we receive lots of complaining about our process now, I couldn't imagine how bad it would be if we were biased toards certain posters with no history of problems.

[switzerdan]

Just curious - shouldn't Rhett still be on the list since (if I understand correctly) that someone who comes off of suspension is on 3 months probation? Not trying to cause trouble, I just feel like if you're going to have these (in my opinion - rather silly) rules, they should be followed.

On a side note, I'm happier every day that I live in a country where freedom of speech is not being curtailed by the powers that be in the name of political correctness or whatever you want to call it.

[twoputtok]

Along with the accused list the accuser beside it.

That might lighten the load for the Mods.

[tkieffer]

I have a hunch that naming the accuser would be at minumum uncomfortable (more likely embarrasing) for a couple of people. Not that I'm in favor of this, but it could tell an interesting story. On the other hand, naming the accuser would probably result in the same hesitance to get involved as that of calling our playing rules.

As for Rhett, maybe he's broken the addiction and better spends his time playing than on here? Good for him if that's the case!

[twoputtok]

I don't hesitate on calling a rule on a player and if I were to find something on this board offensive I wouldn't hesitate to stand up and say so and let them know who I am.

It is just too easy to make frivilous complaints to the moderators of being offended by material on this board with out being held accountable.

If you feel offended then MAN up and stand behind your beliefs.

[Moderator005]

Switzerdan, indeed, when coming off suspension, a user is on a 3-month probationary period. That was an oversight due to a moderator updating the Message Board Disciplinary List who has not previously done so before, and will be rectified shortly.

David, feel free to run your idea by the Communications Director, but I think your suggestion would likely result in dozens of headaches. The system relies on message board users being able to confidentially report when there are rules violations. Knowing the indentity of those who reported violations could lead to retaliation against them, both on the message board and possibly in real life. Message board users would quickly become fearful of reporting violations for fear of retaliation. If the PDGA DISCussion Board is to remain a respectful and friendly place, then it's contingent on message board users being able to report egregious rules violations without fear of retribution.

Furthermore, I can tell you that with almost no exceptions, we don't have an excess of overly sensitive or frivolous notifications to the moderators of Rules violations. It's not like there's one guy out there who reports stuff to us all week long.

[twoputtok]

Thanks, that was what I wanted to know.

[Lyle O Ross]

A few comments from me :

- Moderating comments before they go public would be a huge task. We are flooded at the time just reviewing comments that people think are offensive, imagine having to moderate EVERY post. Not an easy task.

- As far as certain posters being on suspension that people "like" on the message board, we do not bend the rules for anyone. Whether or not the person has been in trouble with us multiple times or has been on the board since it began and never had a single problem, everyone is judged by the content of the post. In fact, when we receive an email to look at a post, the poster is not shown. This insures an unbiased decision. It is not until we make the decision do we see who posted the content.

If we receive lots of complaining about our process now, I couldn't imagine how bad it would be if we were biased toards certain posters with no history of problems.

I think you miss the point. It isn't that people like, for example Rhett. We actually respect him. We have talked with him and found him to be rational and adult even when angry. It then surprises us when the rules are such that something he has done gets him banned. Take the case here. Saying the UPM is less than "blank" (I wouldn't want to get myself banned) in response to some of the things UPM says. Relatively speaking, Rhett's reply is metered and rational.

Sometimes a flat rule is surprisingly inefficient. That's why the police use judgment when handing out tickets.

I fully admit, there is no good solution, but I argue, I'd rather have to put up with UPM than risk banning an intelligent contributer like Rhett. As I see it, in the past year we've lost two real problems, along with that we've lost about 5 middle of the road posters who made some great contributions and 3 or 4 great posters who have made significant contributions. I'd say we're on the losing side of this situation...

[Moderator005]

We have rules for a reason, and they apply equally to everyone. The absolute worst thing moderators could do is to selectively apply the rules. It is no matter whatsoever how intelligent a contributer or well respected a person is. If they break the rules, they break the rules.

Rhett's actions 3 1/2 months ago were anything but metered and rational. He intentionally chose to make statements that knowingly violated PDGA DISCussion Board rules. He continued to choose to make these statements even after he was warned, then placed on a probationary period, then suspended for three days and placed on another probationary period and informed that the next transgression would bring a three month suspension. In each case, a message board user reported each post for violation of our PDGA DISCussion Board Rules. A moderator reviewed the post, and agreed that it did indeed break our rules. The decision was appealed to the Communications Director who reviewed the post and upheld the decision. Three separate persons - the message board user who reported it, the moderator who reviewed it, and the Communications Director who upheld the appeal, were in agreement that there were infractions.

[stack]

some quick questions...
-UPM = ????
-Is it possible to have full names underneath our aliases? I know its only a few clicks away but it might help to identify with those who are bashing who and realize that there are real people @ the other end and that you are representing yourself and not a fictitious name you made up on the msg bard.

I'm not taking sides on that last question/point... just posing an idea that could help (admittedly I don't think there is any one single solution)

[MTL21676]

UPM = Under Par Mikey

Mikey Kernan's original alias on the board