Consistancy

After the six month ban it resets? So someone could play nice to be let back in and go back to their old ways and start at the bottom of the ladder?

Arisaig wrote: After the six month ban it resets? So someone could play nice to be let back in and go back to their old ways and start at the bottom of the ladder?

Could you please clarify who and what this is directed to?

Nakis wrote:

Arisaig wrote: After the six month ban it resets? So someone could play nice to be let back in and go back to their old ways and start at the bottom of the ladder?

Could you please clarify who and what this is directed to?

The original post.

I personally would imagine anything beyond that is up for a serious sit down to figure out what to do about the situation.

Nakis wrote: I personally would imagine anything beyond that is up for a serious sit down to figure out what to do about the situation.

Yet it states that it resets.

Ah, I read the chunk of text, not the text under it. Apologies.

Arisaig wrote:

Nakis wrote: I personally would imagine anything beyond that is up for a serious sit down to figure out what to do about the situation.

Yet it states that it resets.

The time it takes to work up to the 6-month ban comes with a lot of space for intervention and reflection. That includes the time to have those challenging conversations, the time you spend developing the action plans, the actual time the person is has been banned, and the times of peace after the ban has been lifted.

Maybe the reset is to provide warning and guidance while they acclimate to the transient Temple culture? I think a few slap on the hands are appropriate as the person readjusts, but if the problems continue to persist after all that provided space, then we seriously need to look at the individual's intent and weigh that against our duty to protect and serve our members and guests.

thomaswfaulkner wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Nakis wrote: I personally would imagine anything beyond that is up for a serious sit down to figure out what to do about the situation.

Yet it states that it resets.

The time it takes to work up to the 6-month ban comes with a lot of space for intervention and reflection. That includes the time to have those challenging conversations, the time you spend developing the action plans, the actual time the person is has been banned, and the times of peace after the ban has been lifted.

Maybe the reset is to provide warning and guidance while they acclimate to the transient Temple culture? I think a few slap on the hands are appropriate as the person readjusts, but if the problems continue to persist after all that provided space, then we seriously need to look at the individual's intent and weigh that against our duty to protect and serve our members and guests.

Perhaps that's the point, but it seems ripe for abusing. Faking until they make it reset, then reverting to the original problem.

Rosalyn J wrote: No it was not because I didn't like the thread. It was because a member brought it forward to my attention that it was against the guidelines in behavior unbecoming.

A civil conversation with a high level of community interest vs some arbitrary guideline that was made in a vacuum of hypotheticals. Maybe update the guideline?

This is the problem. Every. Single. Time.

Unfortunately, yes. Every single time you use your authority to shut something down or silence someone or to take away someone elses options it is going to bother people. Even when its justified. This really wasnt justified so it bothers people more.

I don't have a problem with the thread or the conversation. When the thread was brought up in Council I was the one to ask to let it run.

Well, thank you for that. Yet, here we are.

Now I take too long. Now I'm not listening. Now this. Now that. I gave the reason. If someone wants to unlock it fine. As I say, I don't have a problem.

Except that 1) it was you who locked it and 2) now if someone else unlocks it it looks like theyre taking a side against you. I dont really care who unlocks it. The discussion wasnt finished.

Every time we make a decision its not fair. Sorry. Its not going to be perfect .

No one here is asking for perfection, only to be allowed to have a conversation. Is this the reply you gave to the people who wanted Kyrin banned? Did you tell them "TOTJO's not going to be perfect"?

Rosalyn J wrote: No it was not because I didn't like the thread. It was because a member brought it forward to my attention that it was against the guidelines in behavior unbecoming.

A civil conversation with a high level of community interest vs some arbitrary guideline that was made in a vacuum of hypotheticals. Maybe update the guideline?

This is the problem. Every. Single. Time.

Unfortunately, yes. Every single time you use your authority to shut something down or silence someone or to take away someone elses options it is going to bother people. Even when its justified. This really wasnt justified so it bothers people more.

I don't have a problem with the thread or the conversation. When the thread was brought up in Council I was the one to ask to let it run.

Well, thank you for that. Yet, here we are.

Now I take too long. Now I'm not listening. Now this. Now that. I gave the reason. If someone wants to unlock it fine. As I say, I don't have a problem.

Except that 1) it was you who locked it and 2) now if someone else unlocks it it looks like theyre taking a side against you. I dont really care who unlocks it. The discussion wasnt finished.

Every time we make a decision its not fair. Sorry. Its not going to be perfect .

No one here is asking for perfection, only to be allowed to have a conversation. Is this the reply you gave to the people who wanted Kyrin banned? Did you tell them "TOTJO's not going to be perfect"?