STATREP [Personnel]

[MODERATOR]

Gentlemen,

 

MODERATOR had recently begun to realize that some of those lurking among His host of minions lack the qualities that He considers desirable for fruitful participation in this Grate Sight. MODERATOR is referring to those that disrupt the smooth running of MODERATOR's fiefdom while contributing little or nothing to the general discourse, some of whom also labor under the illusion that they somehow have a right to be here and to behave as they please providing they stay just inside the ROEs. MODERATOR would remind all His minions that membership of TankNet is a privilege and not a right, and that He is perfectly at liberty to simply remove those who displease Him at will.

 

On that basis, after consultation with His Staff, MODERATOR has permanently banished Michael Donnelly from this place for being an irritant, wasting bandwidth and displaying a smug sense of entitlement while doing so. Lest He be considered too harsh and vengeful, MODERATOR would also point out Michael Donnelly had a prior account banned for passing himself off as a serving officer in the US Army despite having no military experience whatever. This and his subsequent re-registering under his real name after being banned was allowed to pass by MODERATOR in the spirit of fairness because He failed to take effective action in a timely manner. Despite this, Michael Donnelly has failed to justify MODERATOR's magnaminity and has thus eventually paid the price.

 

MODERATOR would also point out that He has his All Seeing Eye on one or two other candidates for similar treatment, and that He will not hesitate to cull more minions if He and His Staff deem it necessary.

 

Thank you for your time,

 

MODERATOR

[Archie Pellagio]

Out of curiosity what brought this on now?

[Murph]

Stay tuned to this channel

 

 

Out of curiosity what brought this on now?

[MODERATOR]

BE ADVISED.

 

This is a general announcement to the effect that member "5150" has had his posting privileges permanently revoked, for trolling.

 

Staff will not tolerate deliberately contrary behavior on this forum; spirited discussion is fine, even radical disagreement - but mean-spirited abuse will see anyone outed in time.

 

MODERATOR

[Kensuke]

I can't speak for Donnelly, but I know 5150 tended to be a bit more politically liberal than what could be considered the median of this GRATE SITE. I have, from time to time, disagreed vehemently with certain people on this GRATE SITE because of that. Including two in particular who seem to have decided to go rather rabid because of this (one of whom killfiled me, so I suspect that won't be a problem).

 

That being said, this always ocurred in the FFZ, and most of my posting concerns things that blow up other things. As God MODERATOR intended.

 

Perhaps the solution is to stay out of the FFZ. Religion and politics, and all that. At least until there is some better idea of what is considered acceptable. I'm probably just as confused as Luke. I also note that staying out of the FFZ isn't fool proof (remember pfcem, Markus, Sparky, and GUTB?).

 

Just a sugestion, but some written rules would be nice. It would help the FNGs a lot too.

 

- John

[Hittite Under The Bridge]

Color me amazed.

[FlyingCanOpener]

I can't speak for Donnelly, but I know 5150 tended to be a bit more politically liberal than what could be considered the median of this GRATE SITE. I have, from time to time, disagreed vehemently with certain people on this GRATE SITE because of that. Including two in particular who seem to have decided to go rather rabid because of this (one of whom killfiled me, so I suspect that won't be a problem).

 

That being said, this always ocurred in the FFZ, and most of my posting concerns things that blow up other things. As God MODERATOR intended.

 

Perhaps the solution is to stay out of the FFZ. Religion and politics, and all that. At least until there is some better idea of what is considered acceptable. I'm probably just as confused as Luke. I also note that staying out of the FFZ isn't fool proof (remember pfcem, Markus, Sparky, and GUTB?).

 

Just a sugestion, but some written rules would be nice. It would help the FNGs a lot too.

 

- John

 

Allow me to toss in my $0.02 from personal experience, but I'm fairly sure that there was more to it than you could see in the forums (e.g. PMs)*. Always nice to get a PM saying that you're a "pathetic hanger-on" just because you chimed in on an issue, for example.

 

*I'm in no way a member of Staff or anything, nor do I make any insinuation. Ia! Ia! And all that.

[Michael Eastes]

Allow me to toss in my $0.02 from personal experience, but I'm fairly sure that there was more to it than you could see in the forums (e.g. PMs)*. Always nice to get a PM saying that you're a "pathetic hanger-on" just because you chimed in on an issue, for example.

 

*I'm in no way a member of Staff or anything, nor do I make any insinuation. Ia! Ia! And all that.

 

Very prescient.

 

Ia, back at you.

[Matt Urbanski]

Just a sugestion, but some written rules would be nice. It would help the FNGs a lot too.

 

As many posters on this site are fond of pointing out, why bother with more laws when the ones in existence aren't being enforced? Continued membership if you break the rules seems to be a matter of a simple popularity contest. (and I say this as someone who found a lot of 5150's posts profoundly irritating)

Edited August 17, 2009 by Matt Urbanski

[ShotMagnet]

I personally thought that the Golden Rule was the only one operant anywhere within TGS.

 

Perhaps I was/am mistaken.

 

 

Shot

[MODERATOR]

MODERATOR thus spake:

 

For those that have opinions of how and why certain decisions get made by Staff, we will inform you of the following:

 

1. All matters are discussed and voted upon by Staff prior to implementing or not implementing action.

 

2. Staff is made up of numerous nationalities, which provides a check and balance with regards to not punishing members because of their outlook on US politics (as an example).

 

3. There is no monolithic voting bloc within Staff (from the left, center or right) that trumps the opinions of the majority of Staff members regarding votes.

 

4. Past history of Staff voting usually errs on the side of caution (ie little or no action).

 

5. When a discussion/vote on possible disciplinary action on a member is initiated, that member’s entire history here is considered – not just the most recent event.

 

6. Although Staff tries to be as fair as possible, they are not perfect and mistakes can and will be made. That being said, Tanknet is not a democracy and the continued membership of any one member remains at the discretion of the Staff.

 

7. The rules have always been posted and changes/amendments to the rules have always been posted.

 

MODERATOR has spoken.

[FlyingCanOpener]

As many posters on this site are fond of pointing out, why bother with more laws when the ones in existence aren't being enforced? Continued membership if you break the rules seems to be a matter of a simple popularity contest. (and I say this as someone who found a lot of 5150's posts profoundly irritating)

 

Just for the record (Being a good minion and all), the ROEs are posted here: http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=7902

[Doug Kibbey]

Allow me to toss in my $0.02 from personal experience, but I'm fairly sure that there was more to it than you could see in the forums (e.g. PMs)*. Always nice to get a PM saying that you're a "pathetic hanger-on" just because you chimed in on an issue, for example.

 

*I'm in no way a member of Staff or anything, nor do I make any insinuation. Ia! Ia! And all that.

 

 

Good point. I just made one of re-reading the "rules" posts and they seem abundantly clear to me still, and I can't see the point in jumping the curb just for the sake of it (posting under one's real name probably reinforces this). I'm also pleased to be able to report that I've never received a PM the spirit of which wasn't intended to be helpful or supportive in some way. If PM's are being used to circulate some kind of private hate mail or other insults, then that would be both unseemly and, to my way of thinking, dishonorable. Some mention of this use of PM's (which I've not personally been exposed to, thankfully) might ought find it's way into the rules, if not deemed to be already covered, which it seems to me to somehow be the case.

I have been and no doubt will be, subject to criticism for some of my opinions, but to the credit of the detractors, it's always been out in the open (whether one chooses to respond or not is an individual prerogative). I have the expectation that that's how things are supposed to be done among adults.

[rmgill]

Let me say for the Record that I like the way things are handled here on a regular basis where it concerns problems and the general ROE.

[Corinthian]

Let me say for the Record that I like the way things are handled here on a regular basis where it concerns problems and the general ROE.

 

Ditto. Also, despite all the ad hominem and such, the level of discussion (and the humour as well) is above par from other boards. This place isn't "diabetic" or excessively PC. Even the flame posts have useful info in them.

[MODERATOR]

Be advised, Tanknet Member Ken Estes has been given a two-week vacation from This Grate Sight for Conduct Unbecoming, to wit, personal attacks made in the ACORN thread (amongst others).

 

MODERATOR

[MODERATOR]

MODERATOR has ditched the recent FFZ thread entitled "Bearded Dragon and Paul in Qatar."

 

Although the opening comments about those two Tanknet members by the starter of the thread were meant to be complimentary, the mere presence of the thread also invites undue criticism of the two as well.

 

Threads whose topic is solely about a Tanknet member with no other issues attached will not be allowed.

 

Examples of a thread whose topic is about a Tanknet member with attached issues are birthdays, birth/death of a loved one, graduation, upcoming deployment, etc. These are allowed, for although the thread's topics concern a particular Tanknet member, each has a central theme regarding something other than JUST that Tanknet member.

 

Example of a thread whose topic is solely about a Tanknet member with no other issues attached is the recently departed "Bearded Dragon and Paul in Qatar" thread, which although it invited compliments about the two members, also invited negative comments. Such a thread could be set up about any Tanknet member ("Old Tanker is a flaming conservative," "Rocky Davis is a cranky old man," etc.). This violates no published rule, but violates the spirit of good behavior rules already set up to help govern the site.

 

If you feel you have the need to compliment (or ridicule/criticize) other members, please do so via PM and do not start a thread to do so, for it is now considered a violation of the ROE and the starter of the thread could face the wrath of MODERATOR.

 

Thank you.

[MODERATOR]

Announcement:

 

By a majority vote of Staff, George Newbill is no longer a member of Tanknet as of this morning.

 

As is SOP, his most recent behavior in the FFZ “13 Dead at Ft. Hood” thread, combined with complaints about his postings there led to a Staff discussion about halting the behavior. Specifically, the sequence started here:

 

And you guys wonder why I don't like officers.

 

A serving officer member of Tanknet responds:

 

Its got nothing to do with being an officer (me or him). Its got to do with the guy is a piece of $hit traitor terrorist. Nothing is too bad for him.

 

Newbill responds in troll fashion:

 

Actually FAL I was not talking about you, got a guilty conscience?

 

Response follows:

 

No guilty conscience- just that you posted right after me, so it seemed like a response.

 

Newbill responds:

 

No guilt, thats what I'm talking about. So you have never done something as an Army officer that you should not have done, just to advance your own career? Okay if you say so...

 

Newbill reiterates his outright blanket hatred for officers here:

 

See, I knew it! YOU ADMIT IT.

 

To be honest I have met a few good Army officers but out of how many? So 1% Hell I like more than 1% of the Arabs I met in Iraq and we are at war with them.

 

Either this was an act of terrorism or it was a typical Army officer, and the FBI says it was not terrorism.

 

George Newbill was then warned by Moderator to cease and desist his attack by Moderator. He responded by sassing Moderator.

 

As always, a member’s entire history of behavior is reviewed when Staff discusses possible punitive action against a member. This is not the first time George Newbill has vilified military officers (as a group) and hurled insults at them simply for being or having been military officers. Staff would not permit a member to post “That is why I don’t like Mexicans (or fill in the blank with another nationality or ethnicity).” Staff would not permit a member to post “That is why I don’t like Catholics (or fill in the blank with another religion).” Military officers are a group amongst themselves as well. Tanknet has officer-members serving right now in Afghanistan (Manic Moran and Scott Cunningham, amongst others). Tanknet has officer-members that have already served in the combat zone and returned. Tanknet has officer-members that are retired. Tanknet has members that are former officers. In short, impugning the honor and integrity of US Military Officers Corps pretty is pretty much akin to a dagger in the heart of some of Tanknet’s members.

 

It is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Postings of a specific nature (anecdotes regarding the behavior or misbehavior of a certain military officer or NCO) are permitted, so long as they maintain the central theme of the thread. But, broadbrushed insults about officers or NCOs in general is simply prejudice against an entire group based possibly on the actions of one.

 

In his time on the thread, George Newbill also resorted to a tired, worn-out form of insulting other posters by addressing them with a child-like version of their name – he has done this to Ken Estes (addressing him as “Kenny”) and to Richard Lindquist (addressing him as “Richie”). This is unacceptable as well, as it is an oblique personal insult.

 

And, finally, when Moderator warns a member, there is to be no retort, no discussion, no back-talk. George Newbill did this as well.

 

That is all.

[MODERATOR]

MODERATORS MESSAGE

Mr Ken Estes has been given a perma ban of 1 to 2 years or life if the Staff feel he should ever be allowed back. His conduct when viewed as a whole has been deemed disruptive and he has become an administrative burden.

 

Let this be a warning to all others. Moderator has a terribly swift sabre and it swings both LEFT, RIGHT, and Centre. With election fever starting to take hold of some of our posters, please keep in mind the fate of administrative burdens