So, is Kyrin banned forever, or what?

Should anyone here misunderstand this or have an issue with the way someone is responding to their opinions in the forum, they can contact me, JLSpinner, or another Councillor to help them get it resolved in a peaceful and respectful manner.

That sounds great!

Unless you and the other counsillors don't agree with me, or fail to get your own pitchforks and join my mob, then you're all just a part of a narrow minded boys club that looks out for its own and is incapable of growth and new ideas.

:silly:

Ha ha ha

As an exercise, I encourage everyone here to assume the best possible intent when something is directed at them.

When attempting to get a point across, I encourage expressing ourselves with the intention of not only getting our point or question across, but also framing it in a way that the receiving party will most likely lend it fair and appreciated consideration.

If my intention is to educate or otherwise benefit the other party, does it not make sense to say/write it in a fashion they are most likely to accept? If I am "rough around the edges" does it not stand to reason I should attempt to improve my skills in this area so the help I wish to give does not go unused?

If I am not interested in whether my message is well received or not, than I must admit to myself I am motivated to speak either pedantically, cruelly, or both. Surely there are more selfish reasons, but I see no need to list them here.

JamesSand wrote:

Should anyone here misunderstand this or have an issue with the way someone is responding to their opinions in the forum, they can contact me, JLSpinner, or another Councillor to help them get it resolved in a peaceful and respectful manner.

That sounds great!

Unless you and the other counsillors don't agree with me, or fail to get your own pitchforks and join my mob, then you're all just a part of a narrow minded boys club that looks out for its own and is incapable of growth and new ideas.

:silly:

Fair enough, but I have made it a goal of mine to detach myself from the judgment of actions and rather act only as the enforcement of the Terms of Use. This was part of the justification for the creation of the Sergeant At Arms title to differentiate the role from a Security Officer or a Councillor. Here's how I see it working.

As the Sergeant At Arms, it becomes my responsibility to research any disciplinary action taken by any moderator or Councillor and collect evidence from all sides in order to create the most accurate picture of events as possible. I then present this information to the Council as a whole in order to determine what rules were broken and what the prescribed solution is according to the Terms of Use. I can also present the evidence I collect to the involved parties and make it available to anyone else questioning it within the bounds of what is allowed without breaking any necessary confidentiality. The Council will then vote on an outcome with myself abstaining. At that point, I will enforce the ruling with whatever disciplinary action is necessary according to the documented rules or explain why no further action is necessary. I will explain the outcome and action taken to all involved and to the community as a whole.

Should the issue involve me personally, I have designated JLSpinner to act as the Deputy Sergeant At Arms to act in my place and I will completely remove myself from the situation.

If at anytime following the resolution and explanation of the outcome, the Knights Corps or wider membership still believes that Council has taken an unfair action, Knights can ask me for an appeal and provide further new evidence to Council that could change the decision. I will reopen the topic for discussion and present a new case. In the absence of new evidence, the original decision will be upheld.

Individual Councillors will no longer be responsible for making unilateral decisions involving discipline or moderation except in extreme circumstances, and no single Councillor will be able to decide what the punishment for violations should be. No Councillor should be singled out as too heavy handed or too lenient because discipline will be based on a group determination of the facts. In short, the finger pointing is over unless you want to point at me, and I will respond by giving anyone a fair chance to present their evidence.

Someone will take my message the wrong way no matter how I put it. I can do my best to minimize the risk, but at some point the cost of that just outweighs the benefits. So what if someone gets it wrong, I can clarify and correct the misunderstanding afterwards if need be. I shouldn't have to predict and prevent misunderstandings, or even offense, happening in advance. If someone takes away from the things I say anything that contributes to their personal growth, that's great, but I cannot and mustn't be obliged to be motivated by that in full or in part.

Think of it as a market, a game of profit. I'm fine with some people growing more or less than others in the end, if that's what it takes to not leave all without growth whatsoever. Every player working for a nebulous benefit of all works on paper, but in practice it ends in equality through poverty, while every player working for their own benefit may not in fact make everyone rich, but it may at least bring some prosperity to some. Much like an economy of wealth, so too must an economy of ideas be primarily a neutral tool, not a moral institution.

Do we know when the ban will be lifted? (apologies if this has already been covered)

As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that Kyrin has been banned? Of the past bannings that I can recall they usually only last a few days tops (unless the individual has done something really bad)

But this ban seems to going on forever, we're now into at least the second week.

I miss Kyrin!

Brick wrote: As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that Kyrin has been banned? Of the past bannings that I can recall they usually only last a few days tops (unless the individual has done something really bad)

But this ban seems to going on forever, we're now into at least the second week.

Kyrin has been banned a few times in the past. The last one, to the best of my memory, was a few days (a typical cool off type). I would be surprised if this one lasted less than a month.

Senan wrote: .....She was accused of being too harsh and attacking people who were unprepared for that type of conflict. This judgement was subjective, and in and of itself is not a good reason to suspend or ban her. What happened though, is a hostile relationship formed between Kyrin and the people who were always calling out her behavior, and people started attacking each other personally rather than discussing the ideas. Name calling and personal insults were thrown about, not only by Kyrin. Regretfully, (by that I mean I regret) she was the common denominator in enough situations that she took the punishment that could've been spread among any number of other offenders....

Firstly, I'll clarify that I'm not having a go at you personally Senan :laugh: Also, whilst my words may come across impassioned (because I do care about this item), can everyone please read it in the calm and relaxed manner that I am typing it.

I'm only quoting/replying directly to you Senan because you're the representative most active in this thread and the person who is most likely to reply to me. You also know me well enough to know that I'm not just slinging mud for the sake of it.

That being said, I have to say that I find that explanation completely unacceptable.

Initially, she's been accused of causing offence that we openly admit is entirely subjective and we also openly admit is not a good reason to ban her. As such, it would completely unreasonable to hold that against her. So really that information is neither her nor there in relation to topic of discussion.

Then due to an entirely subjective matter, that we've established she shouldn't be held responsible for, a hostile relationship develops between her and several other members who we acknowledge are actively calling her out on things.

So we now have a group of people ganging up on a single individual (who must by now feel incredibly alienated and isolated by this mass opposition). It is then understandable that this individual may become extremely defensive and resort to name-calling and mud-slinging rather than honest debate.

Now, obviously that kind of behaviour is against our Terms of Use and thus not acceptable. So I'm not condoning Kyrin's behaviour. But we're also openly acknowledging that Kyrin was not the only person in breach of the Terms of Use. But because she was the one constantly under attack, she received a punishment that we are also openly acknowledging could've been spread among any number of other offenders?!

I'm sorry, but that's insane!!

The message that sends is wrong on a number of levels:

1. You can behave however you like, and break the Terms of Use whenever its suits you, so long as most of the membership agree with the fundamental point you're making, or happen to also dislike the person you're attacking.

2. If you're too good at challenging/scrutinising other people's ideas, and they get their feelings hurt because they've subjectively interpreted the tone of you're words and taken offence to them, then we'll ban you indefinitely.

Neither of those messages are good

Brick wrote: Initially, she's been accused of causing offence that we openly admit is entirely subjective and we also openly admit is not a good reason to ban her. As such, it would completely unreasonable to hold that against her. So really that information is neither her nor there in relation to topic of discussion.

Then due to an entirely subjective matter, that we've established she shouldn't be held responsible for, a hostile relationship develops between her and several other members who we acknowledge are actively calling her out on things.

So we now have a group of people ganging up on a single individual (who must by now feel incredibly alienated and isolated by this mass opposition). It is then understandable that this individual may become extremely defensive and resort to name-calling and mud-slinging rather than honest debate.

Now, obviously that kind of behaviour is against our Terms of Use and thus not acceptable. So I'm not condoning Kyrin's behaviour. But we're also openly acknowledging that Kyrin was not the only person in breach of the Terms of Use. But because she was the one constantly under attack, she received a punishment that we are also openly acknowledging could've been spread among any number of other offenders?!

Everyone here is their own person, and should carry themselves as such, as you know. The rule breaking of one person should not excuse whatever rule breaking one may do in retaliation to the first. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

I'll say it straight up and plainly so to clear the air on this matter, at least in regards to the, quote, 'usual suspects' when it comes to 'goading on' Kyrin.

However, the week leading up to this ban was a week of uninterrupted and unanswered attacks against many people here. (These attacks were primarily against my master, Zenchi, and his 'Minions (sic, Kyrin)' (Avalon and myself)). We stayed out of it, however, rather than get tied up in it. But yet said attacks continued. So this argument does not carry for this ban, as no one goaded Kyrin on, no one attacked Kyrin (I was actively (daily, even, as the attacks continued) told to do nothing in this case), and in essence this ban was the result of a week of shooting oneself in their own foot and not the actions of others. They were told to stand down many times, to stop with these attacks, and that the shoutbox was not for personal gripes, but it continued.

In the end, Kyrin is their own person, and is responsible for their own actions. I am grateful for the moderators for stepping in and putting an end to this tirade of attacks, and I hope we can move on from this topic, as it serves only to help people forget what happened and muddling the facts of the matter.

Funny, when my staff go off the rails and start irrationally attacking their colleagues or supervisors, we generally treat it as a welfare issue, rather than just giving them the sack.


On a semi related note, Kyrin has (outwardly) been steadfast in a certain interpretation of "self" and "jediism", if that can be taken at face value, then a day, week, month, or year without access to a website will do no harm whatsoever.