- Posts: 913
Consistancy
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Arisaig wrote: A reason was given for the ban, warnings were issued. Please do not comment on events you are ignorant about. The rules were broken and now he sleeps in a bed he made...
You clearly didn't read my post, or listen to me in the shout box. So I'll reiterate:
Brick wrote: Also, when people are banned, can we be informed about it, and can we be told why/provided with evidence where possible? - This was policy for about 5 minutes, and worked reasonably well.
What I'm asking for here, is information on the reason and warnings given, as I can't find it myself. I'm literally admitting my ignorance of the topic and asking to be enlightened, but all I'm getting is passive aggressive rhetoric calling me ignorant. I thought we weren't supposed to be attacking people?
- Knight Senan'The only contest any of us should be engaged in is with ourselves, to be better than yesterday'
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Carlos.Martinez3
-
- Offline
- Master
-
- Council Member
-
- Senior Ordained Clergy Person
-
- Posts: 7985
for -every time some one gets banned a response or a list of who why and where ? Some Where you can go to know why?
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
pastor@templeofthejediorder.org
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Brick wrote:
Arisaig wrote: A reason was given for the ban, warnings were issued. Please do not comment on events you are ignorant about. The rules were broken and now he sleeps in a bed he made...
You clearly didn't read my post, or listen to me in the shout box. So I'll reiterate:
Brick wrote: Also, when people are banned, can we be informed about it, and can we be told why/provided with evidence where possible? - This was policy for about 5 minutes, and worked reasonably well.
What I'm asking for here, is information on the reason and warnings given, as I can't find it myself. I'm literally admitting my ignorance of the topic and asking to be enlightened, but all I'm getting is passive aggressive rhetoric calling me ignorant. I thought we weren't supposed to be attacking people?
MadHatter wrote: After being asked to stop and after consulting with our security offiers, Ob1 is banned for continuing to attack people in a thread once reminded of the rules. His posts, my posts and any related to the personal attacks will be soft deleted so the topic can get back on track
Seems like it was... anything further you can go to the council for further info. Gods know I've done that many times rather than bring it to public forums...
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Just to clarify - Brick - your asking
for -every time some one gets banned a response or a list of who why and where ? Some Where you can go to know why?
Something like that would be good. We did introduce it, for a very short period around the time that Hannigan came back. But then it kind of died a death
- Knight Senan'The only contest any of us should be engaged in is with ourselves, to be better than yesterday'
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Carlos.Martinez3
-
- Offline
- Master
-
- Council Member
-
- Senior Ordained Clergy Person
-
- Posts: 7985
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
pastor@templeofthejediorder.org
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova
Please Log in to join the conversation.
So even from a resource management perspective, unless there is a team of monkeys answering every forum post for the Council, it's going to be more effective to do it as an individual in private IMO. Plus I guess the genuine enquiry can afford the personal enquiry and subsequent dialogue about answering, while in a public forum all manner of incidental temporary interest by any number of not really interested but curious users can be packaged the same way leading to a huge demand on good quality service from Council... leading to bad quality service I guess, or ending of service if it got bad enough.
So I guess a way to look at it is the discussion forum is best for discussion, but it is not the 'Temple' - its only a part of the Temple. The forum happens to provide a few means to contact the Council, but its not the Council. The Council cannot read every forum post, cannot participate in every forum discussion, and so cannot jump to meet ideas or even proposals presented in the forum..... contact them, point out the discussion, present your ideas, ask your questions, but you'll get a better answer by doing it directly in a message. If they don't answer, try a different one, and if none answer.... well then I'd complain about it on the forum :lol:
So in a way, asking in the public forum is probably the worst way to enquire, because private issues tend not to be suited to public fora. Well.... the worst way would be asking or listening to people who only have second or third hand knowledge so I suppose there is always a worse way to do something.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Can we have a list of things we can rely on yet? I guess that's the beauty of not being elected. One doesn't need to feel accountable to anyone. Speaking of which, can we talk about corruption yet or is that unbecoming too, and will I soon see my own name yellowed for daring to raise such an unmeetable challenge?
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Gisteron wrote: The soft deleting thing is also suspect to me. "Let's make sure there is no record of what happened. They'll trust us. I'm sure of it."
Hardly. Stuff which breaches the rules does so because its inappropriate - which means it has no place. The only reason it isn't hard deleted is so it can be looked at by others and reversed if its decided a mistake was made in the (soft) deletion probably. At least that is how its used.... and that in itself is a fail safe against abuse because we have a robust appeal process. Plus, I've seen the people who had/have that level of access here at TOTJO change so often it's unrealistic to suggest the power is being horded to a select few.
Gisteron wrote: Speaking of which, can we talk about corruption yet or is that unbecoming too, and will I soon see my own name yellowed for daring to raise such an unmeetable challenge?
It sounds like your not really being serious anymore, but to address it I'd say ask yourself why not? It probably depends what is corrupted I guess, as the boundary between personal and private seems easily lost when emotions come into play, and whether its a baseless attack, and whether a genuine communication was being done in the best way for the best interests of the Temple and its members.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
I also appreciate that many in power here have little experience or skill in wielding it. Luckily, neither do I. However, as someone on the bottom end of the formal food chain here (though rest assured also that I dare not speak on behalf of anyone else in my position), it is of minimal consequence to me, just how broad the leadership class here is, or how much they disagree with each other internally. I get to see none of that, because there are no meetings accessible to the users who end up subjects to decisions made, nor are there records released for our review. Whether an Emperor or a Senate, all we end up with are those decisions and people who nag about them too much get un-peopled for it.
Another reason the amount and diversity of the ruling class is unimportant to the mere mortal is that the mere mortal had no say in either the formation or evolution of that class. The talk of corruption is an easy one to come up with, because we are talking about individuals who either appointed themselves or were appointed by those that did on the basis of (at best!) an internal vote. There is, at least as far as I remember (and I do apologize for not searching through the entire site just in case this has changed in the recent year or two after not changing for the five before that, the FAQ sure doesn't render my suspicion out of date), no candidature process, no definite criterion of appointment, nor an explicit election process. Now, of course, that needn't mean anything. It could be that we are in the hands of trustworthy, responsible, and benevolent people, but there is no system to either ensure that it is so nor to help change things when it isn't.
There is, alas, no healthy amount of secrecy and censoriousness if you want to keep your subjects' trust. You either have to keep them completely in the dark, or be as transparent as is safe. One can also forego their trust altogether and just quit expecting any, but then at least man up to that, too, if that's the kind of leader one wants to be. To be an organ of compassion and trust only works by either weeding out all the incredulous and the savvy, or by earning it through openness and integrity.
And as for seriousness... I have been sarcastic and snarky plenty times in the past. Its not pretty, granted, but I am in the company of mostly adults who understand that a point worth addressing can be made all the same in style also. Hence why, I imagine, you addressed it, rather than dismissing it for sounding like it maybe wasn't phrased entirely literally.

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Please Log in to join the conversation.