wsfaplau
Nov 19 2008, 08:14 PM
The message board rules are clearly defined.
This week member A in a single thread posted 11 times using member B's account. After several posts, member C pointed out member A was posting under a different account. Member A continued posting under member B's account.
A couple of interesting things then happened. The post made by member C was removed and member B was placed on probation for account sharing on the message board disciplinary list.
The next day member B was no longer on probation.
I can only assume it is no longer against the message board rules to allow others to post under one's account or the message board rules are not applied equally to all members.
veganray
Nov 20 2008, 11:56 AM
The next day member B was no longer on probation.
If this is correct (and the posted MB disciplinary list is empty, so I must assume it is), it is outrageous. The posts in question make it patently obvious that "member B" blatantly violated the unambiguous MB rule #5:
The following will not be allowed:
5. Allowing others to post under your account name
If BG unwisely granted his appeal, it is demonstrated (again) that the PDGA is not an organization with any respect for the rule of law (law that it itself has written, BTW), but rather a semi-glorified boy's club, where who one is & who one knows define which rules one has to follow.
I'm not surprised, just disappointed (again). :(
james_mccaine
Nov 20 2008, 12:11 PM
It probably had something to do with the conversion. Maybe during the confusion, one of the scoundrels opened the message board prison gates. They are now roaming your neighborhoods. Keep a look out. :p
sandalman
Nov 20 2008, 12:42 PM
the chain of command for the message board is:
1) moderators
2) Graham
3) does not exist
there is no Board oversight of the message board anymore, and Graham can act without consulting. i'm not complaining about that, just pointing out that how the message board rules are applied is determined by Graham alone at this point.
veganray
Nov 20 2008, 01:58 PM
just pointing out that how the message board rules are applied is determined by Graham alone at this point.
And by "applied", you mean "ignored"? Or maybe "selectively enforced"? Or possibly "unilaterally vetoed"?
padobber
Nov 20 2008, 02:29 PM
I'd go with selectively enforced.
gang4010
Nov 20 2008, 02:43 PM
Ahhhhh when one ASSUMES...............
Is it possible that member B was signed on in the presence of member C, and said member took it upon themselves to make posts without considering the sign on process? I'm not saying this is what happened - only that any number of things COULD be possible - and that getting bent out of shape over it isn't exactly reasonable without knowing the facts.
padobber
Nov 20 2008, 02:48 PM
Ahhhhh when one ASSUMES...............
read (http://discussion.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=OtherPDGATopics&Number=88 5907&page=0&fpart=1)
veganray
Nov 20 2008, 02:56 PM
Ahhhhh when one ASSUMES...............
Is it possible that member B was signed on in the presence of member C, and said member took it upon themselves to make posts without considering the sign on process? I'm not saying this is what happened - only that any number of things COULD be possible - and that getting bent out of shape over it isn't exactly reasonable without knowing the facts.
Maybe you should READ, my friend. Rule is CRYSTAL clear:
The following will not be allowed:
5. Allowing others to post under your account name
The content of the posts makes it CRYSTAL clear that it was not member B posting, and that the non-Member B person that was posting was doing so with member B's full knowledge & at member B's direction.
gang4010
Nov 20 2008, 03:21 PM
OK, when I read the beginning of this thread - there was no reference to what thread all these posts were on - so how could I know?
Second - after reading the thread in question - as you say - posts were being made FOR Member B under the direction OF member B - so....................if I fall victim to gang violence and get my hands chopped off by a machete and still want to post on the MB. Can I have someone else type for me at my direction? Or is that a problem for you guys? Or I guess to adhere to the letter of the "law" I should learn to type with my nose or my tongue right?
Seems to me somewhere the intent and the literal interpretation of the written word need to be reconciled. Is there any difference between what happened and someone allowing use of their account for posting........whatever the third party may care to post? To me there is a difference - but perhaps that's just me.
I mean in this case - we have the story on the front of the home page - and the people involved are trying to get it chronicled real time on the MB.
Should we disappointed in our administration that they let this travesty go unpunished?
Strip em, flog em, throw em in the gutter!! All of em!!
MTL21676
Nov 20 2008, 03:38 PM
hmmm.....
rollinghedge
Nov 20 2008, 03:41 PM
I'd go with selectively enforced.
Sounds like we have a winner.
cgkdisc
Nov 20 2008, 03:43 PM
The PDGA Media log on was used by Gentry, Graham, Addie, Karolyn, Johnny B and me for a variety of Worlds posts.
padobber
Nov 20 2008, 03:47 PM
OK, when I read the beginning of this thread - there was no reference to what thread all these posts were on - so how could I know?
Second - after reading the thread in question - as you say - posts were being made FOR Member B under the direction OF member B - so....................if I fall victim to gang violence and get my hands chopped off by a machete and still want to post on the MB. Can I have someone else type for me at my direction? Or is that a problem for you guys? Or I guess to adhere to the letter of the "law" I should learn to type with my nose or my tongue right?
Seems to me somewhere the intent and the literal interpretation of the written word need to be reconciled. Is there any difference between what happened and someone allowing use of their account for posting........whatever the third party may care to post? To me there is a difference - but perhaps that's just me.
I mean in this case - we have the story on the front of the home page - and the people involved are trying to get it chronicled real time on the MB.
Should we disappointed in our administration that they let this travesty go unpunished?
Strip em, flog em, throw em in the gutter!! All of em!!
clearly
james_mccaine
Nov 20 2008, 04:28 PM
The PDGA Media log on was used by Gentry, Graham, Addie, Karolyn, Johnny B and me for a variety of Worlds posts.
Criminals :p
I can't believe someone reported that. Well, actually, since I was a mod for awhile, I can easily believe it. Being a moderator and having to rule on something so petty really lowers morale.
If someone indeed use thier discretion to overlook this "violation," kudos to them. That is not selective enforcement, but rationality. The "only post on your account" rule was intended to prevent people on suspension from posting, not to prevent relaying of innocuous information.
sandalman
Nov 20 2008, 04:37 PM
then it should say that.
otherwise its selective enforcement.
nothing is worse than rulers breaking rules when it suits their purposes.
twoputtok
Nov 20 2008, 04:45 PM
Worse than that would be a guy that designs a utopia course that no one can play. :p
gang4010
Nov 20 2008, 04:47 PM
point taken Pat
tell me something, every time you are using a pencil and it needs sharpening, do you immediately get up and sharpen it? Or do you sometimes continue using it before addressing that situation?
james_mccaine
Nov 20 2008, 04:48 PM
No, nothing is worse than someone not understanding when a rule matters and when it doesn't. Discretion preserves the meaning in rules, lack of it erodes away public confidence.
ps. I have no idea what actually happened here, just throwing out four cents.
wsfaplau
Nov 20 2008, 04:55 PM
I didn't report the post. I merely pointed out the inconsistent enforement of the rules.
Whatever the intent of member A, the whole thing would have been avoided had member A posted under member A account, not member B.
James you call it a "petty" violation. I guess I just thought the rules were the rules. Does that mean if I call someone a jerk its a petty violation but if I call them a big jerk its a more serious violation? (and to be perfectly clear I am NOT calling you a jerk, it is just an example)
janttila
Nov 20 2008, 05:04 PM
I know who reported it. hehe
james_mccaine
Nov 20 2008, 05:43 PM
Well, we'll have to disagree on whether all violations are created equal. In my opinion, the difference between jerk and big jerk is miniscule. The difference between what happened on that thread and a banned poster using an account is pretty significant. And as a member of the organization, I am more than willing to not only let, but encourage discretion from both the moderators and those whom decisions are appealed to. Otherwise, I lose faith in the system.
Sorry to belabor this discussion, but a previous life as a moderator makes this issue near and dear to me.
rollinghedge
Nov 20 2008, 05:49 PM
I lose faith in the system when one member gets probed and the another does not for the same violation. That being said, it does not really surprise me either...
briangraham
Nov 20 2008, 06:00 PM
The PDGA office gave Terry Calhoun special permission to allow his wife Sheila to post the play by play of the 1,000th course being played using his discussion board account. Terry is a member of PDGA Media and was performing a service to the association. He was at the IDGC in Georgia and was reporting to Sheila in Michigan by cell phone. Sheila could not create her own discussion board account because that feature of the discussion board is currently under construction.
I would personally like to thank the Calhouns for the service that they performed for the PDGA and the IDGC in doing play by play of this milestone event.
1K Course Milestone Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xUcKU6mIw0&eurl=http://pdga.com/1k-course-milestone)
sandalman
Nov 20 2008, 06:07 PM
Terry Calhoun also made a post one time that would have gotten a long list of people banned instantly. but he was allowed to retract it - after it had been reported. other people were refused the opportunity to report it. it was the most offensive post ever made on this forum, imo. we all know Terry Calhoun gets special treatment. this is just one more example.
wsfaplau
Nov 20 2008, 06:15 PM
Thank you Brian.
As the person who pointed out the apparant inconsistency I am satisfied in this case there was no inconsistency.
Although perhaps the PDGA Media acoount Chuck referenced above would have been a better choice for this situation.
This thread is dead.
james_mccaine
Nov 20 2008, 06:43 PM
Terry Calhoun also made a post one time that would have gotten a long list of people banned instantly. but he was allowed to retract it - after it had been reported. other people were refused the opportunity to report it. it was the most offensive post ever made on this forum, imo. we all know Terry Calhoun gets special treatment. this is just one more example.
disclaimer: I don't know Terry from Adam.
Based on my knowledge, I don't remember anyone receiving special treatment, but all the criminals run together in my mind. ;)
In my experience, a lot of what got reported to moderators was simply a result of tit for tat between warring parties. It was amazing to see who reported what, and to think "Wow, they post this, and report THAT." Sad really.
Little dramas are best kept private. Minor vendettas are best forgiven.
lizardlawyer
Nov 20 2008, 07:18 PM
Terry Calhoun also made a post one time that would have gotten a long list of people banned instantly. but he was allowed to retract it - after it had been reported. other people were refused the opportunity to report it. it was the most offensive post ever made on this forum, imo. we all know Terry Calhoun gets special treatment. this is just one more example.
Wow, the single most offensive post in the history of the discussion board! It must have been a doozy. Terry must have had a headache for weeks just thinking it up. If Terry is indeed immune we should have him repeat just so we can debate how offensive it was. Purely for academic reasons, of course.
stack
Nov 21 2008, 10:35 AM
thanks for the video ... funny stuff ~5:00 in... joke from Hosfeld & Stan getting others to goof off (imagine that).
(also funny that there is a video 'confession' near the end @ 8:47 about the whole 'issue' above)
Jeff_LaG
Nov 21 2008, 11:44 AM
1K Course Milestone Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xUcKU6mIw0&eurl=http://pdga.com/1k-course-milestone)
LOL at Terry playing disc golf in a suit jacket at ~2:40. :D
sandalman
Nov 21 2008, 12:02 PM
Wow, the single most offensive post in the history of the discussion board! It must have been a doozy. Terry must have had a headache for weeks just thinking it up. If Terry is indeed immune we should have him repeat just so we can debate how offensive it was. Purely for academic reasons, of course.
Mark just might be the most articulate and patient PDGA Board member ever. Certainly one of the most valuable. We're just lucky he isn't in court 24/7 being articulate and winning battles on behalf of his clients, some of which have no business being won, otherwise we wouldnt have these gems. Besides he needs at least 3 hours putting practice a day ... should he entertain having the audacity of making the MPG World Final again !
Re sandalman and his apparently endless sniping (sandalbagging?) - at Theo, at Terry, at BG, at others who've made major contributions to disc golf and the PDGA - it's hard to improve on what many db denizens have said before ... YAWN
[/QUOTE]
well spoken by a man who makes how much from the pdga for what? you have not yet had the courage to tell anyone how much the pdga pays you each year. i help pay that money, at least for this year. and also the salaries and contract dollars of all those folks you mention. so you better believe i will say what i feel about their performance.
veganray
Nov 21 2008, 12:58 PM
What do I do?
I spend about 15-20 hours a week on the International program, much of it from 8 AM to 5 PM on weekdays, building the schedule, reviewing results, promoting and answering questions about membership, responding to inquiries from countries where DG is being introduced, coordinating the writing of the Guide to Europe, in other words much of the same work as is performed by the office staff within the international context.
For this I receive a 1/3 to a � time non-profit sector consultants wage.
Its 11:20 AM. So far today I have dealt with:
- a disagreement between a country rep and a member in a Euro country that has resulted in the resignation of the country rep
- responded to a proposal from France for a global stats gathering initiative that would become a PowerPoint presentation and a tool for countries to use in promoting the sport
- composed a 7 paragraph carefully worded response to the new WFDF ED on why the PDGA chose to withdraw from that org including the potential for a restoration of said relations
- an email to the pdga Europe website manager on enhancements to that site
- a request to HQ for a change, just received, to the dates of an 09 EuroTour event, said change has already been posted by HQ
- responded to Jonathan Poole in regards to the international qualifier events for the 2009 USDGC
- before I go to my 2/3 other part time job with a trans-continental bicycle expedition company on the 2:15 Toronto Island ferry I will
- communicate to our 15 partner countries on 3 continents the 2009 affiliate country member forms (final copy received yesterday from HQ and the fulfillment house) including changes to the form and the magazine and why, as well as a request for 2009 event info and the format this is to be received in
- set up the semi annual PDGA Europe teleconference, slated for Saturday morning, November 29
- finish this email indicating what I do for PDGA to you
Sounds eerily similar to what a state coordinator does. Maybe each of them should receive "1/3 to a � time non-profit sector consultants wage", as well.
bruceuk
Nov 21 2008, 01:14 PM
Sounds eerily similar to what a state coordinator does. Maybe each of them should receive "1/3 to a � time non-profit sector consultants wage", as well.
That would be wonderful yes. But the fact that the PDGA cannot afford to pay every volunteer for their work doesn't mean that they shouldn't pay any of them.
sandalman
Nov 21 2008, 01:22 PM
thats correct, neil. we are talking about which ones to pay. the inner circle gets paid. the rest get to be vounteers. the people who brag the loudest about how succesful programs are are the ones who benefit the most from having the rest of us believe their tales.
throw in opacity at every turn, and bingo - you hide all sorts of shenanigans, favors, and special deals.
cgkdisc
Nov 21 2008, 01:23 PM
Sounds eerily similar to what a state coordinator does. Maybe each of them should receive "1/3 to a � time non-profit sector consultants wage", as well.
As we continue to see in all arenas in addition to disc golf, elected officials don't need any skilled expertise but consultants do.
terrycalhoun
Nov 21 2008, 02:33 PM
Pat Brenner:
the inner circle gets paid. the rest get to be volunteers.
ROFL
klemrock
Nov 21 2008, 02:36 PM
Speaking of that, where can I find a list of all PDGA elected officials?
Is there also a page of current contractors and requirements thereof?
Thanks.
terrycalhoun
Nov 21 2008, 03:04 PM
Just got to see the video - great job, Johnny B! And not just because you showed a couple of my good shots :D
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9xUcKU6mIw0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="never"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9xUcKU6mIw0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="never" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
sandalman
Nov 21 2008, 04:06 PM
thats correct, neil. we are talking about which ones to pay. the inner circle gets paid. the rest get to be vounteers. the people who brag the loudest about how succesful programs are are the ones who benefit the most from having the rest of us believe their tales.
throw in opacity at every turn, and bingo - you hide all sorts of shenanigans, favors, and special deals.
Wow, conspiracy theorists of the world unite! Call it braggadoccio all you want, to me it was simply a concerted attempt to answer your paranoid questions ... guess I shouldve known better ...
Well ... bye!
cool, attack the messenger. some things never change. but when its you've got, i guess ya gotta use it. bye, indeed. i wish.
terrycalhoun
Nov 21 2008, 04:37 PM
cool, attack the messenger. some things never change
When my kids were little, we had a family expression: "kettleblack" which is a shorthand way of saying, "That's the pot calling the kettle black." Not that anyone would waste the time, but IMHO an analysis of your posts over time, former PDGA board member Pat Brenner, would reveal that "attacking the messenger" is your own default action in most discussions and nearly all arguments. But, probably not as impactful as your dependable "attacking the doers" routine.