Dear PDGA Board Member Steve Dodge,

Please review the PDGA posting rules, and explain to me how I was put on probation. The rules state upon a first offense, "the offending post shall be removed". The second offense results in a short suspension of posting privileges, which I have just endured.

If you carefully review the FACTS of my case, you will soon realize that there is only ONE of my posts that has been removed; therefore, my suspension of posting privileges is clearly invalid. How do you explain breaking your own rules, sir? Have you concluded that the old PDGA kangaroo-court style is the best way to conduct your affairs?

I'll guess what you'll say; you'll say I was put on probation for an inproper user name...however if you read your own rules, they do not state a punishment for an improper user name; they speak only of moving offending posts to a "secret" place. Can you produce TWO of my offending posts from the secret PDGA vault, Steve? What gives, Steve? Do you really want to silence debate over PDGA policies? Has someone paid you to do the invisible hand's dirty work? Or did he blackmail you?

All I ask is to be treated fairly. I have asked your moderators to give me some guidelines, but they as yet have produced none. Is satire offensive? Is comedy offensive? Why is this organization dominated by a fearful mindset (e.g. closed-door BOD meetings, threats by Calhoun if Brenner discloses anything to anyone)?

Is the PDGA leadership so exceedingly insecure and paranoid to the point of censorship that it can not tolerate the OPINIONS of the great diverse disc golf culture? As the invisible hand might say at the USDGC prayer meeting, I mean player meeting, "Jesus loved his enemies. When the man slaps you on one cheek, turn and give him the other. Amen."

Steve, I'm sorry it has come to this public appeal, but the threat of a three-month suspension for infractions of unclear, subjective PDGA policy while I work to change the PDGA culture of fear, threats, intimidation, blackmail, and paranoia leaves me with few options.

Regards,
Michael Kernan
Member #14304

All I ask is to be treated fairly. I have asked your moderators to give me some guidelines, but they as yet have produced none. Is satire offensive? Is comedy offensive?



The PDGA Discussion Board Rules are clearly listed here: http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=

The moderation team received several member complaints last week about your postings and display name. We reviewed the complaints and agreed that your display name violated PDGA Discussion Rules - your posts were all left alone. The offensive name was adjusted and notice of probation was sent. That counted as an offense - a signature file or display name that is offensive counts just the same as an offensive post. You then appealed to Communications Director Steve Dodge who upheld the ruling.

That was last week, and there were many postings over the weekend and this week. Not until we received user complaints toward the end of this week did we again investigate your postings, one of which we agreed was offensive. Per PDGA Discussion Board Rules, you were suspended for 24 hours. You had the freedom to appeal that ruling and suspension to Communications Director Steve Dodge, and to my knowledge, you did not take advantage of such.

Instead of one person to handle all decisions regarding material on the PDGA Discussion Board, we have a moderation team now that reviews the complaints. We also have a Communications Director whom you can appeal to - a third party review. Let's review the steps again, shall we?

<ul type="square"> Message Board user reports post as offensive. Moderator reviews post to determine if it's offensive. A log is created and the other moderator can weigh in on the situation. An appeal can be made and Communications Director Steve Dodge can review the post in the log to determine whether it is offensive. [/list]
So you see that three and sometimes four different parties (user, moderator(s), Steve) are reviewing posts to determine whether they are offensive. It's the most clear, unsubjective, fair and diplomatic system that's ever been in place here.

You are free to "work to change the PDGA culture of fear, threats, intimidation, blackmail, and paranoia" but if a post is reported as offensive, the moderator agrees, an appeal is made and Steve agrees, you are subject to the penalties clearly listed in the Rules. And if such a complaint comes before your probation expires on 3/7/07, you will be subject to a 3 month suspension from the board.

threats by Calhoun if Brenner discloses anything to anyone



Can't you post without making up or exaggerating the "facts" you use, Mike Kernan? How can you expect anyone to responsibly discuss things with you?

Oh, I forgot, you don't.

Oh great Puppetmaster,
Do not try your Jedi Mind Tricks on me. While you have been greatly successful in silencing the new BOD members with your manipulative posts carefully cloaked in the bullcookies of "I'm on 18 non-profit boards, do what I say or we'll all get sued and the PDGA forever ruined," your reign of paranoia is in its final dark days.

That you would prey upon the fears of the new, inexperienced BOD members, after mind-raping the old ones for years, demonstrates the insiduous nature of your character, or lack of it.

I wondered how long it would take for you to step from the shadows. Perhaps you are surprised your lackey moderators (as displayed in the preceding posts attempting to do Steve's dirty work) have been unable to permanently silence the voices of reason? Perhaps they've been manipulated by someone other than the great Communist---I mean Communicator? Ha ha ha, I'm about ten moves ahead of you already, and the delicious part is that no one will realize it until it's too late! Freedom of speech will not be defeated; the OPEN nature of this NON-PROFIT organization as envisioned by the great Headrick will return, and balance will be restored to the Force.

Why does someone have to complain about Mikey? Can't the moderators simply read his posts and determine that he should be re-banned?

Why does someone have to complain about Mikey? Can't the moderators simply read his posts and determine that he should be re-banned?



Rhett,

It usually takes someone reporting an offensive post for us to see it. Contrary to popular belief, the moderators aren't on the message board for hours every day reading each and every post in all the threads. As you know, this is a big message board.

More importantly, the rules are intentionally set up to be a clear, unsubjective, fair and diplomatic committee system that removes individual bias. There shouldn't be any accusations of bias when there are three levels of review - the individual message board user reporting that a post is offensive, a moderator reviewing that post, and on appeal, Communications Director Steve Dodge reviewing the post.

There have been a few occasions where one moderator has observed something potentially offensive, but in that case, the other moderator is asked to review such a post to remove bias. 95% of the time, however, we only review posts when something offensive is reported.

If you, or any other user, feels that a post violates our PDGA Discussion Board Rules, click on the 'Notify Moderator' button at the bottom of the post, which is the icon just to the right of the finger with a string around it. This will trigger and initiate the review process.

There are too many posts over the entire board for the Moderators to read. They rely on us (the posting public) to point out potentially offensive posts or avatars.

Why does someone have to complain about Mikey? Can't the moderators simply read his posts and determine that he should be re-banned?



Can't someone be banned for his blind intolerance of fresh ideas? Can't someone be banned for being so wretchedly unhappy with his own lowly place in the dungeon of humanity that he must complain about those who stand for freedom of speech? Would the world be a better place if the story of the ultimate rebel, Jesus, who was executed for thinking in ways differing from the established power, was never told because of censorship?

Would the world be a better place if the story of the ultimate rebel, Jesus, who was executed for thinking in ways differing from the established power, was never told because of censorship?



Possibly.

maybe even probably.

Would the world be a better place if the story of the ultimate rebel, Jesus, who was executed for thinking in ways differing from the established power, was never told because of censorship?



Or was Lucifer the ultimate rebel, losing his place as "Guardian to the Throne" & being cast out of Heaven for his "thinking in ways differing from the established power"?

i thought that was Gollum.

Lagrassa,
While I know you are busy revelling in your new-found position and probably feel important for once in your life, you need to re-read those rules. You have yet to explain what was so offensive about my user name; I would ask you to do so here in order that the audience might have a loud laugh.

Now, could you please hurry up and investigate Terry Calhoun, #15117's recent threats against me? I do not feel safe anymore. I am suffering what my attorneys call "mental pain and anguish" due to his completely unwarranted threat against my well-being.

Thank you,
Michael Kernan
#14304

I see from your picture your so full of it your eyes are popping out of your head. :D

I see from your picture your so full of it your eyes are popping out of your head. :D



if only others shared your opinion, we'd be much better off. instead of endlessly debating the rights of the minority to express their opinions without the threat of violence from Terry Calhoun #15117, we'd have the right to discuss actual PDGA expenditures and how we feel about the waste associated with some.

I see why the Puppetmaster, Terry Calhoun #15117, puts names and numbers in his posts now---to make it easier for his mindless drones (some who are profiting from our ever-increasing dues) to formally complain to the moderators about opinions that Terry does not want to ever discuss. He's quite brilliant I must admit; but I am smarter and I will educate the masses as long as it takes until truth, justice, and freedom of speech are returned to this worthy PDGA Discussion board...that is, unless I am banned, which I pray the savior Steve Dodge never allows. I hope Steve remembers how outraged he once was when his co-TD was banned. Would Steve have ever risen to power if Steve had been banned? Or would he have turned his immense talents to another organization?

There will soon be a day when the membership is encouraged to suggest new ways of spending our dues. There will be a day when the Board of Directors remembers this is a NON-PROFIT organization, and will lower dues accordingly. Real debate will return to this fine organization.

Why does someone have to complain about Mikey? Can't the moderators simply read his posts and determine that he should be re-banned?



Rhett,

It usually takes someone reporting an offensive post for us to see it. Contrary to popular belief, the moderators aren't on the message board for hours every day reading each and every post in all the threads. As you know, this is a big message board.

More importantly, the rules are intentionally set up to be a clear, unsubjective, fair and diplomatic committee system that removes individual bias. There shouldn't be any accusations of bias when there are three levels of review - the individual message board user reporting that a post is offensive, a moderator reviewing that post, and on appeal, Communications Director Steve Dodge reviewing the post.

There have been a few occasions where one moderator has observed something potentially offensive, but in that case, the other moderator is asked to review such a post to remove bias. 95% of the time, however, we only review posts when something offensive is reported.

If you, or any other user, feels that a post violates our PDGA Discussion Board Rules, click on the 'Notify Moderator' button at the bottom of the post, which is the icon just to the right of the finger with a string around it. This will trigger and initiate the review process.



what about my right to hear Mikey? he sprinkles enough humor and thought into his posts that to see mere rebellion in what he does here is pretty dang myopic (shallow even).

one measure of leadership is its ability to tolerate criticism and not take itself too seriously. perhaps there is room for growth here?

tolerating dissent used to be American... (at least on paper)

if this were Salem you all would tie rocks to him and then throw him in a lake to see if he sinks. if he floats -- he's a WITCH!

There is a simple solution our budget should be able to accomodate. make part of this website PDGA business with stricter rules and part disc golf talk in general, etc. and be more lenient there. ban people from one area before banning them from both. steer sponsors to the nice stricter area if that seems appropriate and you want them to visit this place.

and while you're at it -- make the more lenient section open to non-members too. it might actually encourage non-members to get exposure to the PDGA...

Rob,

Our charter as moderators is to review posts reported by message board users that break our PDGA Discussion Board Rules against profanity, material unsuitable for minors, (pornography or links to pornography) personal attacks, or other offensive content (usually vulgarity)

At no time have we ever moderated rebellion, criticism or dissent. We have received complaints from message board users about such material and all have been allowed to stand. The 'PDGA Slogan' thread should be evidence of such.

Message Board users are free to engage in all the rebellion, criticism or dissent they want as long as they do such without profanity, material unsuitable for minors, personal attacks, or offensive content. If a message board user cannot present their rebellion, criticism or dissent without breaking PDGA Discussion Board Rules, their posting privileges may be suspended.

Personally I think the moderators have been doing probably the best I've ever seen in my time here on the board. Thanks for their volunteer work and trying to make this a better place.

I feel, however, that a rule is missing. While revealing the context of a PM either by fowarding or posting is currently allowed, I feel it is bad taste. I would really like to see a change in this rule in the near future.

Thanks to Steve Jeff Alan and the others who are stepping up for the better of the board.

Did you enjoy and support what happened to Brent Petersen. You know, the guy who gave you a free hotel room for the Hickory Classic that you got banned?

Do I support what happened to that user name? Yes. He broke the rules.

Do I like it? No. That is one less voice and one less opinion to add to coversations.

And I would not say that "I got him banned". It was his decision to break the rules, I would say he got himself banned.

What did Brent do?

The decision to ban this user name was not mine. Please contact one of the message board moderators for a description.

You sound like a moderator in training.

Personally I think the moderators have been doing probably the best I've ever seen in my time here on the board.



lest i be misunderstood, let me make clear i am not faulting our volunteer moderators. rather i find the criterion they have been given for suspending a poster is too trigger-happy -- it should have the safety added of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' too often things that might be taken as abusive, may have been intended humorously or as creative exaggeration to make a point.

it seems the moderating is unevenly being applied to those being considered as outsiders verses those being considered insiders. that probably has a lot to do with which camp is more likely to cry for censorship. in the interest of fairness, once a thread gets censored i think the moderators should monitor the other posters in the thread to see if their posts warrant censorship. it seems to me if the line is drawn even-handedly -- Terry has crossed the line (although i would only like to see him censored to display fairness -- not because i find what he said to meet the criterion worthy of censorship) .
absent that, i would like to see disclosure for each post that is censored revealing who reported the post as objectionable and also which posting rule was judged as having been transgressed.

i'm also not suggesting nothing should be censored. i expected some of the things i have seen from Mikey to be censored that subsequently were. i also realize i am postulating a bunch of conditions that i am not volunteering to help implement. but when you go to censor something you are taking away free speech -- a right for which there should be some reverence. (especially when considering historic limitations of such freedom before the bill of rights, and then the even slower spreading of those rights to women and non-whites)

I am always up for a good debate about the message board rules. We recently discussed a couple of topics:

1. Should the first suspension by 24 hours or 3 dyas? We discussed it and decided that 3 dyas would be better since it gives the suspendee time to cool off and not just count down the hours. The rules were improved.

2. We are currently debating the concept of whether or not attackng staff and/or volunteers should have a quicker, harsher penalty. So far, it seems that the majority believe that the protections given to the membership as a whole should be effective enough for the staff and/or volunteers.

3. NEW TOPIC: Should the posting of private PMs be against the rules? or is it just bad etiquette? This is open to debate and I would love to hear everyone's thoughts.

4. NEW TOPIC: Should the moderators stay aware of previously moderated threads? And if so, for how long? This also is a good topic of debate. And one that might necessitate an increased moderation staff.

5. NEW TOPIC: Should the deleted posts be open for review by the general membership? This too is a valid concep because it brings accountability and the ultimate review board (the members) to the table. Bearing in mind that these posts are, by definition, not the kinds of things that should be seen on this board, the implementation of this would be difficult. Perhaps a sysnopsis would work? Or perhaps a request through your State / Province Coordinator would work? This topic is open for debate as well.

All input is welcome. Our goals are the same. We want to make this discussion board a valuable tool and asset to the members of the PDGA where we can disucss the rules, new equipment, upcoming tourneys, how to get more women in to competitive golf, and even ways to improve the PDGA.

As always, keep the ideas coming. And please feel free to PM or email me with any ideas that you want to discuss.

i would like to see disclosure for each post that is censored revealing who reported the post as objectionable and also which posting rule was judged as having been transgressed.



I don't think the complainer should be revealed. Please don't forget that many folks using this forum are lurkers, not posters. If a lurker is offended by bad language or a porn link, they do not have to be identified. A person reporting a post does not need to get flamed by a mentally unstable poster for the next five years or have the Grand Poobah of consiracy theories start believing the complainer must be one of Terry or Theos cronies.

The person who is warned/suspended/banned should have the right to know what post was the problem (if they don't have the common sense to figure it out themselves).

I think we all know when someone is calling names, making personal attacks or posting photos/avitars that could cross the line of decency. What offends one person, may be acceptable to another. Please put an ounce of trust in the moderators and the system of checks and balances that are in place. There is due process to an extent. Is it perfect: no. Does it work: yes.

Remember it is a priviledge to post here, not a right.

Steve, you have an email.

Thanks!!

OK Steve - If you are trolling, then you've got a nibble!

1. 3 days.
2. Staff and volunteers should get the same protection.
3. It's a bad etiquette perhaps, but no rules are needed. Good manners can't be legislated.
4. Let the assigned moderator moderate them.
5. Leave deleted posts in the bit bucket...if the author deleted the post, then it is theirs to delete or edit as they choose.

aww BOB needs more attention.

I wanted to assure you about a couple points:


I don't think the complainer should be revealed.



Agreed. You can rest assured that as long as I am guiding this moderation ship, the folks lodging complaints will remain anonymous unless they are somehow material witness to the deliberations. And then the accuser, I think, should have the right to defend themselves with knowledge of who is complaining. But in 99% of the cases, where folks simply click the "Notify Moderator" icon, they will remain ananymous.


The person who is warned/suspended/banned should have the right to know what post was the problem



The person decided against in any moderation is told which post has caused the moderating. If this ever does not happen, they should appeal the decision (to me) since they don't know why the decision was made.

3. NEW TOPIC: Should the posting of private PMs be against the rules? or is it just bad etiquette? This is open to debate and I would love to hear everyone's thoughts.




The fact that you used the term "private" in the question should provide the answer. If people want their message to be public, they post it on a thread. If they want it to be private, they use a PM. Pretty obvious and I'm not sure why PMs should ever have been considered acceptable for posting? I don't believe our PMs are the same thing as an employer who is allowed to snoop on employee emails because they pay for providing the service for business purposes.

The fact that you used the term "private" in the question should provide the answer. If people want their message to be public, they post it on a thread. If they want it to be private, they use a PM. Pretty obvious and I'm not sure why PMs should ever have been considered acceptable for posting? I don't believe our PMs are the same thing as an employer who is allowed to snoop on employee emails because they pay for providing the service for business purposes.



Here here!

B dee Bs!!

Is it OK in a private pm to admit steeling from the pdga without consequence, but not if you post it for others to see? I don't really get that. Can someone please explain this to me?

And is it OK to use profanity and threaten a person's well-being through pm, but not OK if you post it? Can someone please identify the difference here as well?

Haven't people such as Mr. Huffman in Oklahoma been banned indefinately for steeling from the pdga? What is the longest suspension for threatening someone in the pdga? I believe people have been suspended for that. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I like the way that the PM rule currently is set up. It adds a little accountability to those sending PMs. As PP points out, they know that there is an outside chance that it will get posted in pulic if the content is truly objectionable.

The flip side is that if you are so horrified of receiving nasty PMs, you can disable PMs so that they will never reach you.

If Theo or BG was threatened by a pdga player, I have a hard time believing they would let it go without severe punishment. I believe the Cam Todd incident is a good causal comparitive point of reference here. I don't think he threatened anybody, bud did get a big punishment for bashing a TD. So what would be the punishment for Steeling from the pdga, bashing a TD publicly, and threatening someone?

bashing TD<font color="red">s</font> publicly

1. 3 days
2. all people, Members, Staff and Volunteers, should be given equal protection. there is no "special" club in the PDGA.
3. posting of PMs is a risky move, but not against the rules. the rules have this one correct. besides, some people, myself included, are totally OK with the posting of our PMs and other communications.
4. moderators do not need to proactively monitor "threads". if something is written that offends a Member, that Member can click the button.
5. no need to review deleted posts.

6 - its a different opinion, but i like the idea of making the complain part of the record. when tensions between a couple people rise, its real easy to fire off a bunch of complaints hoping that one or more stick. posting carries a responsibility. so should complaining.

I am always up for a good debate about the message board rules. We recently discussed a couple of topics:

1. Should the first suspension by 24 hours or 3 dyas? We discussed it and decided that 3 dyas would be better since it gives the suspendee time to cool off and not just count down the hours. The rules were improved.

2. We are currently debating the concept of whether or not attackng staff and/or volunteers should have a quicker, harsher penalty. So far, it seems that the majority believe that the protections given to the membership as a whole should be effective enough for the staff and/or volunteers.

3. NEW TOPIC: Should the posting of private PMs be against the rules? or is it just bad etiquette? This is open to debate and I would love to hear everyone's thoughts.

4. NEW TOPIC: Should the moderators stay aware of previously moderated threads? And if so, for how long? This also is a good topic of debate. And one that might necessitate an increased moderation staff.

5. NEW TOPIC: Should the deleted posts be open for review by the general membership? This too is a valid concep because it brings accountability and the ultimate review board (the members) to the table. Bearing in mind that these posts are, by definition, not the kinds of things that should be seen on this board, the implementation of this would be difficult. Perhaps a sysnopsis would work? Or perhaps a request through your State / Province Coordinator would work? This topic is open for debate as well.

All input is welcome. Our goals are the same. We want to make this discussion board a valuable tool and asset to the members of the PDGA where we can disucss the rules, new equipment, upcoming tourneys, how to get more women in to competitive golf, and even ways to improve the PDGA.

As always, keep the ideas coming. And please feel free to PM or email me with any ideas that you want to discuss.

At no time have we ever moderated rebellion, criticism or dissent. We have received complaints from message board users about such material and all have been allowed to stand. The 'PDGA Slogan' thread should be evidence of such.




Thanks fan.

i would like to see disclosure for each post that is censored revealing who reported the post as objectionable and also which posting rule was judged as having been transgressed.



I don't think the complainer should be revealed. Please don't forget that many folks using this forum are lurkers, not posters. If a lurker is offended by bad language or a porn link, they do not have to be identified. A person reporting a post does not need to get flamed by a mentally unstable poster for the next five years or have the Grand Poobah of consiracy theories start believing the complainer must be one of Terry or Theos cronies.




I agree 100%. Asking for disclosure for each post that is censored - revealing who reported the post as objectionable - would likely result in claims of 'snitching' and would only lead to personal attacks and a maelstrom of headaches. This would almost certainly ultimately produce a climate where no one reports anything they find objectionable for fear of retribution.

The person who is warned/suspended/banned should have the right to know what post was the problem




The person decided against in any moderation is told which post has caused the moderating. If this ever does not happen, they should appeal the decision (to me) since they don't know why the decision was made.



When a post needs to be moderated, a copy of the orginal is always sent to the author and the reason why it was moderated. On the message board, the moderators try to indicate why the post was moderated and moved to the Deleted Items section. I usually use <font color="blue">blue text and italics </font> inside a bracket to indicate such, as in the following example:

<font color="blue">[personal attack deleted]</font>

If we have failed at being diligent at such, I apologize, and pledge to ensure we do a better job with that in the future.

When a post needs to be moderated, a copy of the orginal is always sent to the author and the reason why it was moderated. On the message board, the moderators try to indicate why the post was moderated and moved to the Deleted Items section. I usually use <font color="blue">blue text and italics </font> inside a bracket to indicate such, as in the following example:

<font color="blue">[personal attack deleted]</font>





Not true as a post of mine was deleted by Oz/minion without any notice and sent to this deleted items graveyard for possible appeal/review. I won the appeal and the post should have been put back up, but shockingly was not. Don't try and pretend that everything in the moderation process is righteous and aboveboard.

Can we consider changing the message board code to limit user names to something like 25 or 30 characters?

I am always up for a good debate about the message board rules. We recently discussed a couple of topics:

1. Should the first suspension by 24 hours or 3 dyas? We discussed it and decided that 3 dyas would be better since it gives the suspendee time to cool off and not just count down the hours. The rules were improved.

<font color="blue"> personal attacks: 3 days. improper language: 24 hours </font>

2. We are currently debating the concept of whether or not attackng staff and/or volunteers should have a quicker, harsher penalty. So far, it seems that the majority believe that the protections given to the membership as a whole should be effective enough for the staff and/or volunteers.

<font color="blue"> Pat B. said it best: members should be protected equally to the inner circle so that the boundary of that circle is seen as a bridge rather than as a barrier </font>

3. NEW TOPIC: Should the posting of private PMs be against the rules? or is it just bad etiquette? This is open to debate and I would love to hear everyone's thoughts.

<font color="blue"> it's just bad etiquette like playing JohnTesh or Yanni cd's. plus, there are times when posting a PM may do a service. for example if i published Steve's recent PM to me it would make him look good and reveal how impartial he strives to be ... </font>

4. NEW TOPIC: Should the moderators stay aware of previously moderated threads? And if so, for how long? This also is a good topic of debate. And one that might necessitate an increased moderation staff.

<font color="blue"> i was thinking more along the lines of monitoring reactions to a recently moderated post to see if it created retaliatory posting transgressions from some of those who it offended. Terry's post about being a Navy Seal and a 'hair cut' crossed the line and should have been censored faster. this wouldn't be so much a rule as it would be acting to proactively moderate when possible. </font>

5. NEW TOPIC: Should the deleted posts be open for review by the general membership? This too is a valid concep because it brings accountability and the ultimate review board (the members) to the table. Bearing in mind that these posts are, by definition, not the kinds of things that should be seen on this board, the implementation of this would be difficult. Perhaps a sysnopsis would work? Or perhaps a request through your State / Province Coordinator would work? This topic is open for debate as well.

<font color="blue"> i think deleted posts should be kept in a "lock-box" LOL so that if an appeal is made the material judged as objectionable can be reviewed in light of the appeal </font>

All input is welcome. Our goals are the same. We want to make this discussion board a valuable tool and asset to the members of the PDGA where we can disucss the rules, new equipment, upcoming tourneys, how to get more women in to competitive golf, and even ways to improve the PDGA.

As always, keep the ideas coming. And please feel free to PM or email me with any ideas that you want to discuss.



<font color="blue"> maybe fining anyone who criticizes the PDGA leadership should be considered -- it would help generate revenue,
and might make some of the egos on our leadership team feel special </font> :p

i would like to see disclosure for each post that is censored revealing who reported the post as objectionable and also which posting rule was judged as having been transgressed.



I don't think the complainer should be revealed. Please don't forget that many folks using this forum are lurkers, not posters. If a lurker is offended by bad language or a porn link, they do not have to be identified. A person reporting a post does not need to get flamed by a mentally unstable poster for the next five years or have the Grand Poobah of consiracy theories start believing the complainer must be one of Terry or Theos cronies.

The person who is warned/suspended/banned should have the right to know what post was the problem (if they don't have the common sense to figure it out themselves).

I think we all know when someone is calling names, making personal attacks or posting photos/avitars that could cross the line of decency. What offends one person, may be acceptable to another. Please put an ounce of trust in the moderators and the system of checks and balances that are in place. There is due process to an extent. Is it perfect: no. Does it work: yes.

Remember it is a priveledge to post here, not a right.



i have complained about avatars that were pornographic because i want my neice to find a friendly environment here if i talk her into becoming a future PDGA Champion and into becoming a player with a 1000+ rating. (i'd also like to see disc golf more girl-friendly in general). some will say girls who find such stuff objectionable should not worry about how women are portrayed or that boys will be boys or that girls who have a problem with soft porn wouldn't be a fun date anyways -- but i disagree with their whole line of reasoning. Put your porn posters on your wall or desktop and put a pic of a disc or course or something here... :p

i agree the complainers should not be revealed -- but i also think the complainers should not just be able to team up against someone's views they don't like and get them banned for questionable reasons.

posting may be a privilege but it should also be the PDGA's privilege to have non-members come here and interact with we-the-membership. that's how you grow a sport: interacting with those who have yet to get addicted ;)

The only change I wish to see made is this:

I desire the PDGA to immediately implement a facility by which "offensive" posts are flagged and grouped, so that I may read them all in a more easily-accessible format. This facility should include a mechanism by which thusly flagged posts can be emailed to me, possibly even directly to my mobile phone. It could be expanded so that users may rate the post's level of offense, and I could be sure to read the most offensive ones first.

I require this because I very obviously missed something good because I do not have time to read every thread every day. I am greatly offended.

that would be great for ratings: they would be the most read posts.

i have complained about avatars that were pornographic because i want my neice to find a friendly environment here if i talk her into becoming a future PDGA Champion and into becoming a player with a 1000+ rating. (i'd also like to see disc golf more girl-friendly in general). some will say girls who find such stuff objectionable should not worry about how women are portrayed or that boys will be boys or that girls who have a problem with soft porn wouldn't be a fun date anyways -- but i disagree with their whole line of reasoning. Put your porn posters on your wall or desktop and put a pic of a disc or course or something here... :p



Rob, there should be no pornographic avatars here at the PDGA Discussion Board. However, remember that message board users also have the ability to choose NOT to display other user's pictures when they click on their profiles, other user's avatars, and other user's signatures with their posts. You simply go to 'My Home' and under Main Configuration, choose to edit display preferences.


i agree the complainers should not be revealed -- but i also think the complainers should not just be able to team up against someone's views they don't like and get them banned for questionable reasons.



Rob, if you think that a 'complainer' can get anyone banned for 'questionable reasons' I can assure you that is absolutely not the case. The moderators still have to agree that whatever is complained about violates our PDGA Discussion Board rules. Just by rough estimate of what I've been called to examine over the last six or seven weeks, I would say that less than half of what is reported is actually found to violate our PDGA Discussion Board rules.

and what about during the years prior to the last six or seven weeks when you came onboard? :p
that said, keep up the good work :D

I think it is way cool that folks complained, and Mikey got banned. I've been cringing as I reading what's been spewn forth, and not responding only because I just haven't been able to bring myself to do anything that would give more life to these threads. (One technique that works with dogs and kids sometimes is to just ignore them; if they are clever they'll sometimes try a different way to approach their goal. Mikey is surely clever, but he still seems to think that if "loud" doesn't work, "louder" surely will!)

Thanks guys for complaining. Thanks moderators for evaluating things fairly. I wish I'd complained. And I'm not anonymous about it either.

I am always up for a good debate about the message board rules. We recently discussed a couple of topics:

1. Should the first suspension by 24 hours or 3 dyas? We discussed it and decided that 3 dyas would be better since it gives the suspendee time to cool off and not just count down the hours. The rules were improved.



I would be really upset if I said something wrong and since I AM on probation suspended for three days. This is because I was said that it would only be for one day. So is the PM i was sent true about another slip resulting in a 1-day suspension or would it be 3? :confused:

The length for the first suspension has been changed from 24 hours to three days, effective immediately. Communications Director Steve Dodge and the moderation team decided on this change for two reasons: <ul type="square"> We ran into issues where neither moderator nor Steve was available over a weekend to enable posting privileges for a suspended user after exactly 24 hours. The tenure ended up being close to 30 hours, and the message board user became irate at the delay and sent nasty message to the moderation team. With a suspension of three days, some flexibility is built in as to when moderators are available to re-enable posting privileges.

The moderation team felt that 24 hours is not punitive enough. A 3-day suspension is a second offense and comes while a user has already been on probation for a first infraction. A 3-day suspension also makes more sense when one considers that the next infraction (a third offense) warrants a 3-month suspension. [/list]

So basically you are going to go agaist what I was told IF I do say something which is against the rules right? It doesn't seem very fair. :confused: I think that the Moderators should have to uphole the specifications which were given to people on probation prior to the switch and if not they should be taken off probation.

If you don't make an offensive post before your probation ends 2 months from now then this change is something you never have to worry about! And is there really that big a difference between 1 day and 3 days such that those currently on probation should be 'grandfathered' into the new policy? If this is that big a deal to you, then please feel free to lobby your protest with Communications Director Steve Dodge (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showprofile.php?Cat=&amp;User=5043&amp;page=1&amp;what=showmem bers).

Can we consider changing the message board code to limit user names to something like 25 or 30 characters?

Just trying to get some attention for this post...

"The following post of yours was deleted due to personal attack / offensive material. Starting today, you are on a 3 month probationary period. If this or other offenses occur during this probationary period, you will be subject to a 24 hour posting suspension. If you would like to appeal this decision, please contact Steven Dodge, the PDGA Communications Director."

I know it isn't cool to post PMs but this is given to everyone who has violated the rules by making an offensive statement so it isn't really personal. I would hope the Moderators would stand by thier original decision and only allow a 1-day suspension for those in which this message was sent if they do violate another rule.

If not I would at least like to receive another "official" statement saying that it will now be a 3-day suspension. Maybe the Mods will make it a 1-month in another week or so. BTW I'm prety sure I saw someone on here call someone else a moron and they idn't get in trouble. :confused:

So basically you are going to go agaist what I was told IF I do say something which is against the rules right? It doesn't seem very fair. :confused: I think that the Moderators should have to uphole the specifications which were given to people on probation prior to the switch and if not they should be taken off probation.



I agree with this sentiment. If you were told that there would be a 24 hour suspension, then there should be a 24 hour suspension. The rule has now changed and future folks will be notified that there will be a 3 day suspension.

This will be a small hassle for the moderators, but it will continue with our effort to be consistent and fair.

So basically you are going to go agaist what I was told IF I do say something which is against the rules right? It doesn't seem very fair. :confused: I think that the Moderators should have to uphole the specifications which were given to people on probation prior to the switch and if not they should be taken off probation.



I agree with this sentiment. If you were told that there would be a 24 hour suspension, then there should be a 24 hour suspension. The rule has now changed and future folks will be notified that there will be a 3 day suspension.

This will be a small hassle for the moderators, but it will continue with our effort to be consistent and fair.



Ok thanks Steve. It just seemed kinda strange because I doubt someone on judicial probation who was told if he failed a drug test he would go back ot jail for a year would be upset if halfway through his probation period it went to 3 years. :D

Well I am off to take my finals. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think it is way cool that folks complained, and Mikey got banned. I've been cringing as I reading what's been spewn forth, and not responding only because I just haven't been able to bring myself to do anything that would give more life to these threads. (One technique that works with dogs and kids sometimes is to just ignore them; if they are clever they'll sometimes try a different way to approach their goal. Mikey is surely clever, but he still seems to think that if "loud" doesn't work, "louder" surely will!)

Thanks guys for complaining. Thanks moderators for evaluating things fairly. I wish I'd complained. And I'm not anonymous about it either.



You mean there's a volume button around here somewhere? Oh what fun I will have when I find it! Vanessa, thanks for your courage in standing up against those who would threaten me with bodily injury...oh wait, that's apparently just fine with you...are you that woman in the pictures at Abu Gharib?

I thought this thread (and the associated ones) was actually interesting until I finally found the supposed "physical threat" you're talking about. weak, dude. just weak.

So basically you are going to go agaist what I was told IF I do say something which is against the rules right? It doesn't seem very fair. :confused: I think that the Moderators should have to uphole the specifications which were given to people on probation prior to the switch and if not they should be taken off probation.



I agree with this sentiment. If you were told that there would be a 24 hour suspension, then there should be a 24 hour suspension. The rule has now changed and future folks will be notified that there will be a 3 day suspension.

This will be a small hassle for the moderators, but it will continue with our effort to be consistent and fair.



Duly noted. All those currently on probation for a first offense before 12/12/06 are grandfathered in and would only receive a 24-hour suspension for another infraction.

I thought this thread (and the associated ones) was actually interesting until I finally found the supposed "physical threat" you're talking about. weak, dude. just weak.



note to incompetent moderators: the following post does not refer to anyone in particular...


you are correct baldguy, <font color="blue">[personal attack removed]</font> however, watch how fast I am banned when I mention how <font color="red"> I </font> would like to give someone a haircut. I am attempting to show the hypocrisy of our moderators and how they allow some people to say offensive things, but others who say similar things are allowed because they tote the official communist party line. hell, one of our moderators can't even count. When is the PDGA going to hire those professional IT guys CK promised?

I thought this thread (and the associated ones) was actually interesting until I finally found the supposed "physical threat" you're talking about. weak, dude. just weak.



Weak it is, but without a doubt there is an attorney out there somewhere that will take his case and his money if he is adamant about pursuing the charges.

Weak it is, but without a doubt there is an attorney out there somewhere that will take his case and his money if he is adamant about pursuing the charges.



Mr. August, I'm glad to see you contributing intelligently. There is no doubt that if I was as stubborn as the wretched group of leaders who allowed our by-laws to be written such that the members have no rights, not even to timely elections, or free speech, I would pursue a civil action against this organization. Fortunately for us all, I am not that stubborn.

Having served as President of a non-profit organization this year with a budget three times that of the PDGA, I have learned that in most lawsuits, it is only the lawyers who win. As much as I detest the abominable deeds of those who would seek to destroy the rights of the wonderful, creative, and diverse members of this organization, it would be a waste if I was stubborn enough to make the PDGA defend its actions in a lawsuit, when I know I can count on the membership to eventually remove from power those who would destroy accountability, freedom, and most of all, RESPECT for the rights of others to voice their concerns.

I apologize for stooping to Terry Calhoun #15117's level, and appearing to threaten a lawsuit against the PDGA. It is only a ploy to get the new and improved BOD members to realize that if someone tells their moderators they felt threatened by a post, the post should be deleted, end of story.

I urge you to read the new by-laws. What they say will be enforceable in court. I have learned this the hard way; before I took over as President of my condominium association, the previous BOD had actually signed a roofing contract that said the roofer "is not responsible for damaged caused by leaks before during and after construction", so when the roof leaked and caused about $100,000 worth of new damage to our Katrina-damaged buildings, we were screwed. So, when the PDGA by-laws say that the BOD can re-write the by-laws at any time with a simple majority vote, that means that 4 people in coercion with each other can actually use our $800,000 budget to do whatever the hell they please (such as doing abominable things like donating to a political campaign, hiring unqualified family members, giving themselves salaries of $100,000 each, etc.) with no one, not even Johnny Cochran, able to stop them!

As James pointed out yesterday, the quality of the leaders is actually more important than the substance of the by-laws. That our leadership continues to believe that the PDGA finances are not to be viewed by the members, that they feel the protections of the old constitution were getting in their way, that they continue to enforce subjective disciplinary actions, tells you more about the character of our leaders than any obnoxious or offensive post I could possibly imagine.

Think, people, think. Then act.

Thank you to all of those who have allowed me to post this important opinion.

Respectfully,
Michael Kernan
PDGA Tournament Director
PDGA Volunteer

that's all well and good... but as with any elected official in any organization, we have to do our best to vote the right people in and vote the wrong people out. I personally don't think that they are as corrupt as you make them out to be. I agree that some things haven't been handled as fairly as possible... but this much uproar over something so petty is an egregious waste of everyone's time.

The attitude of "if he gets away with it, then so should I" is tiresome. don't be an idiot on the boards and you don't have to worry about comparing reactions to your idocy versus another's.

Mr. August, I'm glad to see you contributing intelligently.



Thank you. It's a burden that some people must carry for those who cannot. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

That was the most tactful post I have seen from you - a definite improvement. It seems you are on your way to presenting your thoughts in a constructive manner.

The attitude of "if he gets away with it, then so should I" is tiresome. don't be an idiot on the boards and you don't have to worry about comparing reactions to your idocy versus another's.



i agree, it is tiresome. but unfortunately, it is necessary. would you rather put up with a few tiresome posts, or have me banned where i couldn't post at all?

if i was banned, you wouldn't get to laugh at posts like this:

Hey Terry, I've decided I would like to take your offer for a free haircut! I would also like to give you a free haircut as well, with my chainsaw! Lookie here, I've been practicing and I carved out your portrait in wood:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/gerald.guenkel/heads/gandalf_1.jpg

The only change I wish to see made is this:

I desire the PDGA to immediately implement a facility by which "offensive" posts are flagged and grouped, so that I may read them all in a more easily-accessible format. This facility should include a mechanism by which thusly flagged posts can be emailed to me, possibly even directly to my mobile phone. It could be expanded so that users may rate the post's level of offense, and I could be sure to read the most offensive ones first.

I require this because I very obviously missed something good because I do not have time to read every thread every day. I am greatly offended.



Just search for all posts by me. It's 50-50 at that point.

Chainsaws and haircuts! Two of my favorite things.

We'll give anyone a haircut at Marshall Street. Wait till you see the DVD. This year's party footage puts it all into perspective. And we use chainsaws all the time, just not for haircuts. I have three chainsaws. How many chainsaws does the PDGA have?

I do think we should refrain from German historical figure references. A historian friend of mine was telling me tonight how Mussolini died. Yikes. You don't want to know.

Idi Amin should also be fair game, as horrible as his atrocities were. Just my opinion. You're free to disagree.

Okay let's forget rule 4, leave the moderators alone. I'm just concerned about them burning out and not doing it anymore and someone else currupt with big fangs taking their place. Jeff Lagrassa enjoys a good verbal fight, so there's really no point in leaving him alone at all. You're absolutely right Mikey. Allan Sweeton can handle himself as well, but if you know him a little you don't get the sense he's biased either way. Both guys will get the job done until they don't do it anymore. Steve Daaadge (as we call him behind his back) is doing a bangup job and will most likely enforce the rules as stated the way they're stated. Already they tweaked the rules once -- a good sign that the "program" is not stagnating.

I like the people who hate you, with their shut up shut up posts. They crack me up. I couldn't find the physical threat Terry maden. Did it have something to do with Navy Seals? Just guessing.

I'll be leaving the moderators alone for a while. I would even suggest paying them for their time, as well as paying the BOD members for their time, however, according to Terry, his time is worth $100 an hour at a minimum---hell, for that price we could keep the greatest overworked and underappreciated ED in the history of modern civilization around. If I had the time, I'd go dig up that post and butcher it, but, alas, another organization has recognized my talent again and I'll soon be off to another promotion and another raise. Oh well, five years from now disc golf will be the same...or maybe the Invisible Hand will just take over, put 3 of his cronies on the BOD, and divert all the PDGA funds into his "charity".

Jason, did you get my e-mail about sponsoring the MSDGC? I've sent several appeal emails to steve and haven't heard anything back and I'm thinking I may have an old address for y'all that you no longer read.

If I recall correctly, Mussolini was hanged with piano wire. I think he accused a Navy Seal of inflicting his paranoia on Italy's Board of Directors.

Hey Mikey,

either I'm not reading your emails (I've set you to ultra ignore amos!) or you're not getting mine. Here's the link and it includes a link to what all the sponsorship goodies get you:

http://www.msdgc.com/register/proddetail.asp?prod=070818_msdgc_sponsorship

Stepford Steve.