On a recent thread, in response to PDGA board member Pat Brenner's made allegations about the PDGA, pre-amnesty, seeming to routinely granting requests from members who wanted to return to Am status from Pro status.

In support of the fact that such requests were not always granted, I mentioned a colleague who requested a return twice and was denied both times.

On this DISCussion thread, PDGA board member Pat Brenner asked me for that person's name and PDGA number. declined to provide that information.

PDGA board member Pat Brenner's response, here, was that he "perceived" that I was making what I said up. He had no reason to think so other than he didn't like what I stated. Apparently he considered my reluctance to share personal information about a friend in a public forum as "evidence" that I was lying.

Now, when I tell someone they are "making something up," that means I think they are lying, and I am calling them a liar, only slightly more politely.

So, from my perspective PDGA board Pat Brenner member called me a liar.

Guess what? The moderators, now backed up by PDGA board member Steve Dodge, think that's okay.

Do you?

If so, then why? Is it an acceptable form of argumentation to, without any reason to think so other than you don't like what the person said, accuse them of making facts up? In my world, that's a personal attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack). How about yours?

If these are the issues that are most pressing to you regarding the state of all that is Disc Golf, I suggest the following
1) Get a thicker skin.
2) Deal with the issue (that led to your posting this dirty laundry) directly with PDGA Board Member Pat Brenner.
3) Leave the rest of us out of it.

Really Terry - for a 60yr old - this is really rather childish.

As the world turns, these are the days of our message board lives.

Terry and Pat should make a resolution to not reply to each other's posts, and to not ever again mention each other in their posts.

Or they should both just be banned. :)

Gang4010, you failed to address the substance of my question. No matter what my age (And exactly what has that got to do with it anyway?) it reflects poorly on the PDGA that it permits unchecked accusations of lying on DISCussion.

As for the long-haired guy from SD, maybe he's lying and really thinks something other than what he posted. Our moderators have said that it would be okay to call him a liar if I wanted to. Isn't that nice.

And the long-hair guy from TX says, "If you can't back up your statements with the facts when asked, don't bring them up!"

What does hair length have to do with any of this?

He claimed it's his "perception." Is a man not entitled to express his own perception on an issue?

I was not the one to make the ruling, but I would support the moderator and Steve's decision that this was not a personal attack.

Terry, please keep in mind we (the Moderating Team) have to make judgement calls regularly when it comes to rulings like this. Most of the time the complainer is aware of the gray areas in language and is supportive of our decision.

I'm not going to say "grow a tougher skin" but I will ask that you consider our (Moderating Team) situation and understand that our rulings are made to protect individuals from attacks; we must also protect a poster's right to be critical (in a constructive way) of someone or someones' actions.

It is interesting to me that people make posts without thinking about the underlying meaning that can be implied. In the past I have replied to certain posts saying, "that seems like a borderline personal attack".... I even reported these instances to the moderator a couple times. I have no idea what the result was, but I think one has to write very carefully on the message board and consider what can be implied.... As for the question, saying that you are making things up can be implied as a personal attack imo..

Gang4010, you failed to address the substance of my question.



Sort of my point Terry, the "substance" as you call it is 99% personal between you and Pat. Your extrapolation of Pat ribbing you about not giving up personal info into a PDGA conspiracy of unfair application of MB rules is reminiscent of other conspiracy theorists I have seen here. Whose motivations I have yet to fully comprehend.

What has your age got to do with it? Most 60 year olds I know don't act like they are in grade school when dealing with personal issues. They find a more mature approach to the problem.

If these are the issues that are most pressing to you regarding the state of all that is Disc Golf, I suggest the following
1) Get a thicker skin.
2) Deal with the issue (that led to your posting this dirty laundry) directly with PDGA Board Member Pat Brenner.
3) Leave the rest of us out of it.

Really Terry - for a 60yr old - this is really rather childish.


http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/bestpost.jpg

So, in other words, gang4010, you don't think that by saying that I made up the statement I had posted, Pat was really saying that I was lying. Is that it?

I can see how you, if that is case, do not think this is that important. I would also suggest that you read up a little bit about lying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie): "A lie is type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive. To lie is to state something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by another. A liar is a person who is lying, who has lied, or who lies repeatedly."

Pat alleged that I made "untruthful statement with the intention to deceive" and, thus, called me a liar.

It happens that I have a pretty high standard for public discourse. I consider how a person conducts that to be a measure of true maturity. You have certainly elevated this conversation by your two posts, in each of which you attack my alleged lack of maturity.

That's really not one of the best ways to share differences of opinion and, in an ideal world, the moderators would characterize that as a personal attack.

I'm not holding my breath.

Senior, thanks for taking this seriously. The statement I made was one intended to be of fact, not opinion. And, if you are implying that Pat was simply stating an opinion, what he wrote was that he "perceived" that I was making things up.

I know, I know, your observations on people not being careful about what the words they write really mean is a valid one. OTOH, even accepting as fact that I acted hastily and didn't know what was at the other end of a link I posted for a period of just a few minutes before I realized my mistake and edited the link out, got me probation.

That's really not one of the best ways to share differences of opinion and, in an ideal world, the moderators would characterize that as a personal attack.

I'm not holding my breath.



I could "perceive" your lack of faith in the moderating process as a personal attack on our moderating abilities and volunteer efforts, but I'll digress.. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

i have been working hard to only respond to substantive posts, so hopefully i wont need such a resolution, rhett :)

i am searching for the purpose of this thread but so far the only thing i can come up with is to make me look bad, so i will excuse myself from debating it with its creator.

Although I see your point, Terry, I do not think Pat's response(s) could be categorized as a personal attack.
However, I would hope that the PDGA would not require public posting of certain personal information in order to consider or fulfill a request (which is what it sounds like you were saying).

OK Terry, I called you childish, please take as much time as necessary to see to it that I am banned from DISCussion.

I try and make it a point in my contributions to this forum to remain civil even to those I disagree with strongly. I might find your post more substantive if in fact you had not brought about the "attack" through your own public discourse. You could have avoided it entirely by speaking privately w/Pat - you chose to engage as you did - and reaped the results all by yourself.

Re: me attacking your maturity - I didn't have to - you illustrated it for us all in your first post. LET IT GO MAN!!!! Is this really what's important to you?

drunkentroubador, in the definitions of "personal attack" which I find most meaningful, and which I think most pertain to a place where people have discussions, one of the elements is an intent to divert from the facts or real arguments toward alleged defects or negative characteristics of the person you disagree with.

I do not think that whatever the definition you moderators use of "personal attack" is the appropriate one. I would like, and in fact have requested many times, to see that definition posted here so that we users can see what it is.

So far, it's been a "we know it when we see it" situation.

Care to share?

(sigh)

if in fact you had not brought about the "attack" through your own public discourse. You could have avoided it entirely by speaking privately w/Pat . . . LET IT GO MAN!!!! Is this really what's important to you?



Answering the last first, it is among many things that are important to me. Not the only one and not the most important one.

The first last: Pat, a PDGA board member, made a statement about the PDGA's previous decision making regarding requests to return to Am status, that implied a lack of serious decision making on the part of PDGA staff and volunteers. He did that in public. I was in possession of a fact that supported appropriate procedures and decision making and I shared it. If I had only sent it to Pat, his allegation - which intended or not cast a negative light on the organization he is on the board of - made in public would have stood undisputed.

a strong, rookie-of-the-year start for best thread ever.

maybe the pdga should ban implications?

And the long-hair guy from TX says, "If you can't back up your statements with the facts when asked, don't bring them up!"

What does hair length have to do with any of this?

Terry's just jealous. :D

drunkentroubador, in the definitions of "personal attack" which I find most meaningful, and which I think most pertain to a place where people have discussions, one of the elements is an intent to divert from the facts or real arguments toward alleged defects or negative characteristics of the person you disagree with.

I do not think that whatever the definition you moderators use of "personal attack" is the appropriate one. I would like, and in fact have requested many times, to see that definition posted here so that we users can see what it is.

So far, it's been a "we know it when we see it" situation.

Care to share?



Perhaps off topic, but let me back up Terry's assertion that led to this thread. I received several requests by pros to reclassify as amateurs during my 2+ years as Competition Director. I denied a handful of them, for reasons I won't go into here. I also will not provide their names nor their PDGA numbers, unless they make it known to me that that's ok with them. And no, I'm not going to try and track those people down.

For the most part, posting anything on this message board is almost as efficient as herding cats. It CAN be somewhat therapeutic, but if I ever want real answers from the real people involved, I call or email them directly.

Sandalman, I don't think that you should drop out of this discussion... Actually, I think the point here is that of personal constraint and self policing. I think of all the people on this board as friends to certain degree, and fellow PDGA members that deserve respect. That said, I think friends shouldn't let friends post personal attacks. We should instead try to offer constructive critisism in the form of "read between the lines verbage". This of course in and of itself can be mis-construed as a personal attack, so care must be taken. Sort of the slippery slope analogy... I for one see the implications all around and I am offering that anyone using this board take extra care in what is written and rember these are your counterparts in the PDGA :D

Sandalman, I don't think that you should drop out of this discussion... Actually, I think the point here is that of personal constraint and self policing. I think of all the people on this board as friends to certain degree, and fellow PDGA members that deserve respect. That said, I think friends shouldn't let friends post personal attacks. We should instead try to offer constructive critisism in the form of "read between the lines verbage". This of course in and of itself can be mis-construed as a personal attack, so care must be taken. Sort of the slippery slope analogy... I for one see the implications all around and I am offering that anyone using this board take extra care in what is written and rember these are your counterparts in the PDGA :D



Amen!

It still has a ways to go before it can overtake this (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=600517&page=0&fpart=1&vc =1) epic thread. It's off to a good start though...

On topic, and somewhat seriously, I think Pat's post was pretty mild. I think what I got probation for was pretty mild. So mild stuff does get punished here.

Since Pat commented on his perception rather than reality, I think he was just outside the circle. I read Pat's post to say, "When you make conclusions that are not supported by specific examples, it looks like you are making stuff up." That seems to be as true of me as it is of you or anyone else. And it comes short of calling you a liar. It is more like informing you that your style of argument detracts from your credibility.

But if he came right out and called you a liar, that would be different. I didn't see that post.

senior, thanks for the thought. i dont mind talking about it with you at all. i agree that care should be exercised when posting. i am wondering how this thread meshes up with the concept of "constructive crticism"?

i just wish we could be talking about things that matter - like the our competitve structure, the future of the Pro Disc Golfer, how to go to 40,000 Members, increasing the ranks of the newbie, etc.

Since Pat commented on his perception rather than reality



Yeah, you put your finger on it, Bruce. Darn. I may have to let this go.

i just wish we could be talking about things that matter - like our competitve structure, the future of the Pro Disc Golfer, how to go to 40,000 Members, increasing the ranks of the newbie, etc.



If the PDGA REQUIRED that one membership be given away as a prize at every sanctioned tournament, that would result in 3-400 new memberships a year without any other sources. I have been saying this since 1992 - still don't see it in the sanctioning agreement.

I'm with you on this sentiment Pat - which is what prompted my sarcastic response at the beginning of this thread. With so many REALLY important things to discuss....... why is this......even.........here!

I'm going to throw a wet blanket on this love-in....

To me, in my perception, it seems like Terry has finally cracked from all the little snipes that Pat seems to go out of his way to take at Terry. This one instance seems kind of lame to brign up on it's own, but the history of the last 12 months of so of these two going back and forth is substantial. I'm sure Terry has gone out of his way to irritate Pat also, so it's kind of a dead heat here.

That's why I would like to see these two just leave each other alone. I find it uncomfortable to read these two guys going back and forth all the time. I like them both and I think they both do and have done a lot for disc golf and the PDGA. But something has happened somewhere along the line and these two just can't seem to get along anymore. It happens. But please let it go and try to quit antagonizing each other.

If the PDGA required it, only about 3 TDs would do it, so i'd go to the low end of the 3-400 range. :D

Or they could just fight, either way...

http://www.combatsports.com/IMAGES/CAGE1.JPG

If the PDGA required it, only about 3 TDs would do it, so i'd go to the low end of the 3-400 range. :D



And then they would/should lose the privilege of TDing an event.

I think it meshes up in that we are your peers, and if someone is pointing out possible problems with a BOD member, we should get on track and offer up view points in the spirit of true democracy, with respect and restraint of course. So I see this as an opportunity to voice my concerns about the implications in things said here and concerns about the lack of restraint excersied from members who post here. Not to say you are not excersising restraint, but just to say that this seems like the point of this thread to me personally.

PS... What Rhett said....

little snipes



I can handle snipes at me, personally, Rhett, my ego's too big to take them seriously.

It's the snipes at the PDGA that get to me.

drunkentroubador, in the definitions of "personal attack" which I find most meaningful, and which I think most pertain to a place where people have discussions, one of the elements is an intent to divert from the facts or real arguments toward alleged defects or negative characteristics of the person you disagree with.

I do not think that whatever the definition you moderators use of "personal attack" is the appropriate one. I would like, and in fact have requested many times, to see that definition posted here so that we users can see what it is.

So far, it's been a "we know it when we see it" situation.

Care to share?



Terry,

In conjunction with the other moderators and Communications Director Steve Dodge, we have defined personal attacks as abusive remarks. This is typically namecalling and the use of offensive language and terminology in regards to another person. This has been explained to you before.

Our charter is very specific in that only the following will not be permitted: <ul type="square"> 1. Profanity. 2. Personal attacks and physical threats against other members (obvious or veiled). 3. Materials or links to materials which are not suitable for a minor and/or are offensive. 4. Allowing others to post under your account name. 5. Discussion about the solicitation, distribution or manufacture of illegal drugs. 6. Causing harm to the message board is not allowed, including but not limited to insertion of large files, malicious code or abuse of the Notify Moderator button.[/list]
As has been explained before, it is unrealistic to expect moderators to verify the truth content of message board posts. If you report a message board user for posting something you feel is false, it cannot be the responsibility for moderators to verify these claims. That would be an enormous constraint on moderators' already limited volunteer time, and would serve no useful purpose.

Terry, please try to let go and realize that some of your prior rules and guidelines that you put in place when you were PDGA DISCussion Board moderator no longer apply. We have guidelines now that we think are very fair and encourage general discourse but will kick in when people stop being civil to each other. But if people disagree about something and somebody accuses another of lying, it's not our job to step in and determine who is telling the truth.

But if he came right out and called you a liar, that would be different. I didn't see that post.



At no point did PDGA Board Member Pat Brenner ever call Terry Calhoun a liar.

Without taking sides on this let me point out a couple of things.

1) I always thought the message board rules were clear that attacks, direct or indirect were proscribed. Obviously I was wrong. Often, politicians use the indirect attack to denigrate because they can say, "well, that isn't really what I was saying." Beyond the fact that politicians lack balls, the indirect attack is disgusting. That the MB is not impervious to this should surprise no one. That the moderators would not take action on such an issue isn't surprising, given that it is "hard" to judge intent.

As for Terry's offense at possibly being called a liar in public, I can empathize with his position. No one likes being called a liar, politely or otherwise. However, I don't think this is Terry's issue. I think Terry has the mistaken notion that leaders in any association should act with a certain level of decorum. I tend to agree, but given the general degradation of manners in our society per say, I'd have to say that Terry's notion may be a pipe dream.

So, as long as a poster doesn't say that "so and so is a Nazi," which would be name calling, and instead says that "so and so is a member of a group that believes in 'the superiority of an Aryan master race,'" then the post is okay.

Thanks for the clarification. I see how that makes things easier and I can certainly stay within those guidelines.

Why is it that the only people who can't understand the rules seem to be the ones who constantly push the limits and break them?

I mean I could name 5 people right now that don't ever do anything positive on here and would love to see them banned for good.

However, if they are not breaking rules, then we don't have that luxury.

It really is that simple.

Stop taking personal issues with people out on the board. I learned this the hard way. Now that I completely ignore a certain few posters, I am much happier. I would say you should try this as well.

If a post is bothering you, report it. A Mod will look at it and make a ruling. If you disagree, appeal. Posting your disagreements with the rulings makes you look stupid. Trust me - I've done this.

Why is it that the only people who can't understand the rules seem to be the ones who constantly push the limits and break them?



You answered your own question...

.....people who can't understand the rules....

Why is it that the only people who can't understand the rules seem to be the ones who constantly push the limits and break them?

I mean I could name 5 people right now that don't ever do anything positive on here and would love to see them banned for good.

However, if they are not breaking rules, then we don't have that luxury.

It really is that simple.

Stop taking personal issues with people out on the board. I learned this the hard way. Now that I completely ignore a certain few posters, I am much happier. I would say you should try this as well.

If a post is bothering you, report it. A Mod will look at it and make a ruling. If you disagree, appeal. Posting your disagreements with the rulings makes you look stupid. Trust me - I've done this.



Amen again..

But if he came right out and called you a liar, that would be different. I didn't see that post.



At no point did PDGA Board Member Pat Brenner ever call Terry Calhoun a liar.

So, as long as a poster doesn't say that "so and so is a Nazi," which would be name calling, and instead says that "so and so is a member of a group that believes in 'the superiority of an Aryan master race,'" then the post is okay.

Thanks for the clarification. I see how that makes things easier and I can certainly stay within those guidelines.



Nope, you're still missing the point. If a message board user stopped short of namecalling but still made offensive remarks about someone, that would still get him/her in trouble. Posting that someone isn't that smart or has a low IQ would get you in trouble just as outright calling them a moron or an idiot would.

The other point is that you're claiming that someone possibly made an untruth in a post, and you're now expecting moderators to 1) do research to confirm the validity of the claim 2) and then decide whether to moderate the offending post

Expecting such is totally unrealistic, and this has been indicated to you by both the moderators and the Communications Director.

I'm sorry, while I might agree that Terry needs a thicker skin, the perception that this can't be interpreted as someone suggesting someone else is lying seems skewed to me.

"that leaves me with the perception that you made it up"

Please read my signature.

Whether or not Terry should have made this an issue is irrelevant to me at this point, when I sit my son down for a talk because he's been lying, often enough I say, "that leaves me with the impression that you made this up." It is a commonly used term in our language that "few" will misunderstand.

Now, can we be done with this topic? Chap demonstrated that some people have taken the option, thus proving that Terry was telling the truth and that his honor is still intact. Furthermore, Terry has made his point. Lastly, the moderators have pointed out that despite the fact that Terry has an expertise in internet communication, he is wrong about this issue.

Yawn!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1=Terry&amp;word2=Pat

I think Terry is lying about being an expert in communications! :D

Why is it that the only people who can't understand the rules seem to be the ones who constantly push the limits and break them?



You answered your own question...

.....people who can't understand the rules....



Say "****** bag/bags/box" it works for me.

Terry, your ego called. It says its too big to fit in the state of Michigan.

I think Terry is lying about being an expert in communications! :D



If he were a politician he might be an expert about lying communications! :D

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Terry&word2=Pat



Try full names (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Terry+Calhoun&word2=Pat+Brenner) :D

try PDGA numbers (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1=15117&amp;word2=10403) :cool: :eek: :D

The other point is that you're claiming that someone possibly made an untruth in a post, and you're now expecting moderators to 1) do research to confirm the validity of the claim 2) and then decide whether to moderate the offending post


Nope, I have never made that claim. You've got that backwards. Pat made that claim about me. And I don't think or expect that you need to make a determination of "truthiness" to take action on something like that.

For example, if someone claimed on DISCussion that another player routinely engaged in the form of cheating called "pencil whipping" (Not name-calling him a "pencil whipper.) I would not expect the moderators to determine first if that was true or not before telling the person making the claim that it was inappropriate to make such a claim in this forum.

Note that pencil whipping is a form of "lying" or making up facts.

The other point is that you're claiming that someone possibly made an untruth in a post, and you're now expecting moderators to 1) do research to confirm the validity of the claim 2) and then decide whether to moderate the offending post


Nope, I have never made that claim. You've got that backwards. Pat made that claim about me. And I don't think or expect that you need to make a determination of "truthiness" to take action on something like that.

For example, if someone claimed on DISCussion that another player routinely engaged in the form of cheating called "pencil whipping" (Not name-calling him a "pencil whipper.) I would not expect the moderators to determine first if that was true or not before telling the person making the claim that it was inappropriate to make such a claim in this forum.

Note that pencil whipping is a form of "lying" or making up facts.



Colbert Rocks! :D

Nope, you're still missing the point. If a message board user stopped short of namecalling but still made offensive remarks about someone, that would still get him/her in trouble. Posting that someone isn't that smart or has a low IQ would get you in trouble just as outright calling them a moron or an idiot would.



So, in the DISCussion board world, saying that someone is "not very smart" is inherently more offensive than claiming that they lied? Well, that should certainly help me avoid some trouble I may eventually have gotten into. :D

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1=Terry&amp;word2=Pat



&lt;a href="http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1=Terry+Calhoun&amp;word2=Pat +Brenner"&gt;Try full names&lt;/a&gt; :D



beyond the fact that I don't know how to create one of those fights, it really ought to be Pirate vs. Sandleman.

I am officially dumber after reading this thread. 5 minutes of my life I will never get back.

/at least that's all I've wasted
//the rest of you, get out while you're ahead

Nope, you're still missing the point. If a message board user stopped short of namecalling but still made offensive remarks about someone, that would still get him/her in trouble. Posting that someone isn't that smart or has a low IQ would get you in trouble just as outright calling them a moron or an idiot would.



So, in the DISCussion board world, saying that someone is "not very smart" is inherently more offensive than claiming that they lied? Well, that should certainly help me avoid some trouble I may eventually have gotten into. :D



Terry, care to concede? I mean it was meant to be (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1=Moderating+Team&amp;word2=T erry+Calhoun)..

sorry, forgot the smiley.. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

So, in the DISCussion board world, saying that someone is "not very smart" is inherently more offensive than claiming that they lied?



Yes, I would agree with that. With the system we have and our amount of volunteer time, we're only concerned with obvious violations such as profanity, physical threats, namecalling, inappropriate links, sharing of accounts, soliciting illegal drugs, inserting malicious code, etc.

Accusations of lying is not something so easily adjudicated on. It requires a fair amount of research into past posts and tracing the history of a discussion and that's something that is just unrealisitic to expect. The items that I previously listed which are not allowed on PDGA DISCussion are things that a moderator can easily spot in just one post and rule on.

Even your previous example of someone accusing someone else of "pencil whipping" or cheating is probably not going to evoke a moderator response. We're not going to start interviewing all golfers who have played with the supposed pencil whipper to determine the validity of the claim.

I'm sorry Terry but we just don't have the resources or desire to adjudicate on issues where someone asserts that another is lying. At this time it is simply just not one of our PDGA DISCussion Board rules.

Okay. Thanks.

Okay. Thanks.



That sounds made up.

Okay. Thanks.



That sounds made up.



Boy, I can see how you would think that, you intelligent-as-heck, pencil-whipping-son-of-a-gun. :cool:

I am officially dumber after reading this thread. 5 minutes of my life I will never get back.

/at least that's all I've wasted
//the rest of you, get out while you're ahead



Dangit, WHY DIDN'T I LISTEN????

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1=Terry&amp;word2=Pat



&lt;a href="http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1=Terry+Calhoun&amp;word2=Pat +Brenner"&gt;Try full names&lt;/a&gt; :D


Dead heat (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1="Terry+Calhoun"&amp;word2="Pat+Brenner") with real full names. :)

what happened to my links that looked just fine in preview mode?

i'd prefer not to hazard a guess lest i appear to belittle you :)

Rhett, do you have a screen shot to prove they looked okay before you posted? :cool:

BTW, however you managed to make the Google fight do what you did, it certainly proves that you have a magnificent IQ.

I thought the 1-1 tie was awesome. :)

crap, I can't make a link with embedded quotes work. :(

I'm really glad to see fun being had here!!
The discussion board should always include serious discussion, but we should always remember to have fun.
Someone in the world is starving right now (as my mother always told me), so be glad that you are blessed. We obviously have it pretty darn good if we get to sit around on our fat behinds and type up some good old fashioned comedy :D

Disclosure statement:
The author does not mean in anyway that anyones behind is actually fat, nor does he accept responsibility for anyone who's behind is actually fat. The author only meant this as a figure of speech, in that behinds are for sitting on and some are fat.

You don't even have to say they aren't very smart. All you have to say is that they are 10 or 20 IQ points short of understanding the concept and you're on probation. Everyone is 10 or 20 IQ points short of understanding something. That's not even an insult unless [no -- don't say THAT!]

However, you can say that their reading preferences lean toward homosexual pornography and their wife reminds you of bigfoot. That gets no reaction whatsoever.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/hillbigfoot.jpg

You don't even have to say they aren't very smart. All you have to say is that they are 10 or 20 IQ points short of understanding the concept and you're on probation. Everyone is 10 or 20 IQ points short of understanding something. That's not even an insult unless [no -- don't say THAT!]

However, you can say that their reading preferences lean toward homosexual pornography and their wife reminds you of bigfoot. That gets no reaction whatsoever.


I do find it pretty strange, Bruce, that there is sensitivity about allegations about someone being not very smart (but not on accusations about lying or cheating; or insults to your wife or allegations about reading habits).

It sort of implies that everyone is just as smart as everyone else, making an accusation of differential smartness proven wrong from the get-go, and thus needing no truthiness judgments to be made by the moderators.

Or, the existence of such sensitivity sort of accepts a world-view that people who aren't so smart are in such bad life circumstances, that to allege that someone is in such "not so smart" circumstances is an inherently insulting allegation.

I don't think that not so smart people with low IQs, even those under 160, are inherently in unhappy life circumstances. Do you?

Over 140 - Genius or near genius

120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence

110 - 119 - Superior intelligence

90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence

80 - 89 - Dullness

70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency

Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness

Who are you hanging out with? The Einsteins?

Who are you hanging out with? The Einsteins?


Oh, thank you(!) Senior, for the lead:

It's actually all relative. :cool:

High IQ &amp; Genius IQ
Genius IQ is generally considered to begin around 140 to 145, representing ~.25% of the population (1 in 400). Here's a rough guide:

115-124 - Above average (e.g., university students)
125-134 - Gifted (e.g., post-graduate students)
135-144 - Highly gifted (e.g., intellectuals)
145-154 - Genius (e.g., professors)
155-164 - Genius (e.g., Nobel Prize winners)
165-179 - High genius
180-200 - Highest genius
&gt;200 - "Unmeasurable genius"

Mensa starts at around 130, which in theory is 2% or 1 in 50.

wiley coyote... super genius... I like the way that roles out....

wiley coyote... super genius...

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/hillbigfoot.jpg


nice! you know she'd do it, if she thought it'd get her the win.

Mensa starts at around 130, which in theory is 2% or 1 in 50.



That is correct. I joined in college, because I thought it would look good on my resume!

So at what age does a genius type hit Mensa-pause...150?

I'm getting hot flashes from taking Niacin for my heart or is that from Mensa-pause? :)

You don't even have to say they aren't very smart. All you have to say is that they are 10 or 20 IQ points short of understanding the concept and you're on probation. Everyone is 10 or 20 IQ points short of understanding something. That's not even an insult unless [no -- don't say THAT!]

However, you can say that their reading preferences lean toward homosexual pornography and their wife reminds you of bigfoot. That gets no reaction whatsoever.


Remember that you can't say anything like what is in my sig to anyone on here, or else you will get suspended. But Like Bruce points out, you can say all kinds of rude crap with no worries of censure.

say "iced ink" ten times really fast....

Sometimes I wish I didn't have a high enough IQ to understand what Bruce is talking about!

You don't even have to say they aren't very smart. All you have to say is that they are 10 or 20 IQ points short of understanding the concept and you're on probation. Everyone is 10 or 20 IQ points short of understanding something. That's not even an insult unless [no -- don't say THAT!]

However, you can say that their reading preferences lean toward homosexual pornography and their wife reminds you of bigfoot. That gets no reaction whatsoever.


Remember that you can't say anything like what is in my sig to anyone on here, or else you will get suspended. But Like Bruce points out, you can say all kinds of rude crap with no worries of censure.



It's all about the context. You'll learn that once you've been banned a couple times. I suggest you learn that ASAP---we could all use a 3 month break from your @#$%

:cool::cool::cool::) (another tip---moderators are easily fooled by emoticons) :D:) :cool::D :) :cool::D :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I do find it pretty strange, Bruce, that there is sensitivity about allegations about someone being not very smart (but not on accusations about lying or cheating; or insults to your wife or allegations about reading habits).

It sort of implies that everyone is just as smart as everyone else, making an accusation of differential smartness proven wrong from the get-go, and thus needing no truthiness judgments to be made by the moderators.

Or, the existence of such sensitivity sort of accepts a world-view that people who aren't so smart are in such bad life circumstances, that to allege that someone is in such "not so smart" circumstances is an inherently insulting allegation.

I don't think that not so smart people with low IQs, even those under 160, are inherently in unhappy life circumstances. Do you?

I suspect the not very smart people are more sensitive to aspersions about another's intelligence than are the Wile E. Coyote types. That is ironic because of all of a person's personal characteristics, their smarts are probably the one that is the least to their credit. You inherit your brains, for the most part. Your compassion for the less fortunate, your generosity when you have not so much yourself, your faithfulness to your commitments -- these are far more to a person's credit and less seemingly the happenstance of genetics.

Perhaps if the moderators were all used car salesmen, they'd be more sensitive to aspersions directed against someone's veracity? As lower lawyers, perhaps we are too.

A 'Mensa' discussion on the DISCussion board is pure comedy... IQ of 130? Please. Vocabulary is what this thread is about. I have to get drunk to be this stupid. (Lawyers, Liars, Car Salesman, Hippies, Pseudo Intellectuals all...)

"The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius."

-Oscar Wilde, 'The Critic As Artist", 1891

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/hillbigfoot.jpg


nice! you know she'd do it, if she thought it'd get her the win.



That's disgusting! I can't believe you said it! No self respecting Big Foot would ever do such a thing...

[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/hillbigfoot.jpg

My cousin has NOT endorsed Hillary, HAS NOT!

I just talked to him and he is PO'd, he's even threatened popping open a couple VW buses and grillin' some Hippie on a Stick, now my mouth is watering........mmmmmmmm........Crispy Hippies

He says he is leaning toward Joe Biden, but it's based solely on body hair :p

I just talked to him and he is PO'd, he's even threatened popping open a couple VW buses and grillin' some Hippie on a Stick, now my mouth is watering........mmmmmmmm........Crispy Hippies



at last, the real reason for the yeti road report: Crispy Hippies :D

So, from my perspective PDGA board Pat Brenner member called me a liar.



Who is Pat Brenner? What's his alias/user name on the MB?

So, from my perspective PDGA board Pat Brenner member called me a liar.



Who is Pat Brenner? What's his alias/user name on the MB?



Lying_Liar_Pants_On_Fire
...I think. ;)

It has certainly been a while since I read, and even longer since I have posted on a thread. I found the base question of this thread interesting. As former PDGA Competition Director, I had the distinction of accepting/denying applications for reclassification, in consultation with the PDGA ED and others. I can tell you from first hand experience that a number of applications were denied during my tenure, and I have documentation to support it if Mr. Brenner needs it.

So, take that factual information and do with it what you will! ;)

Didn't Nick Kight request to be reclassified as a True Am but you couldn't do it because all we have are Gamblers and Carnies? :D Where is Nick these days? I see he took the amnesty. :)

the saddest thing about this thread is that it would have been so easy to move on without making it about me. here is how the conversation could have progressed in a more constructive manner:

PersonA: i am not aware of anyone ever being denied the opportunity top re-Am.
PersonB: i know of someone.
PersonA: really, who?
PersonB: i wont tell you
PersonA: then in light of our society's inability to distinguish fact from fiction in the absense of evidence, i am left with the perception that you are making it up.
PersonB: well, i still wont tell you the name. i understand the perception, so how about if other people verify it?
PersonA: fine with me, no problem with that at all. i'm not saying they weren't, just stating that i have never heard of any.
PersonC: i was there, i saw it happen, and yes some people have been denied.
PersonA. thanks for clearing up the perception

that may have felt much more refreshing. for whatever part i played in the degradation of the discussion, however minimal, i apologize.

Even better, this all could have been avoided if person A either considered the source and took the input as valid and contributing to the discussion, or if still in doubt took it upon themselves (given their position) and asked the powers that be off-line if it was in fact correct. There was no need for the inflammatory "i am left with the perception that you are making it up".

yes, that would have been another solution. personA was hoping that since the data is available to him anyway, it would not be withheld. after all, a simple two word PM would have sufficed, and saved not only personA's time but also that of the hardworking PDGA staff.

besides, that statement is inflammatory only if one chooses to take it that way. i fully recognize that it is an incomplete analysis that does not consider the possibility of third party verification.

[crickets chirping]

huh?

burp...

<font color="blue"> good out </font>

Look people, we already have one, super boring, uncomprehendable, dumb thread called the one word story... Please if you must, you must, but please go there with it....
Lets get back to the real life drama this thread is soooo gooood for!!

[crickets chirping]



Reminds me of the old classic Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Bugs would go on stage and sing/dance - [wild applause]

Daffy Duck would follow with same - [crickets chirping]

Boy, the old cartoons were the best ones.

<font color="blue"> o </font>

bill, my kid watches some really old ones that have the songs updated. magilla gorilla is one i can think of off the top. listening to the urban style How Much Is That Gorilla in the Window along with updated graphics in the intro is a bit bizarre but kinda coool.

Please note that an offensive comment made about Rhett was stricken from the message board. Please also note that pending an appeal, PDGA members Mike Kernan and Rhett Stroh have been suspended from message board use for 3 months for offensive posts and personal attacks made yesterday.

Mr Moderator, sir,

May I ask a few simple questions?
If the comment was so offensive to be stricken from the MB, why do you quote it?
Reviewing the tread, the comment appears multiple times.
Should those who quote the comment be subject to probation?
Do past "violators" find themselves subject to different rules?

steve timm

<font color="blue">it REALly depends on who you are </font>

<font color="blue">it REALly depends on who you are </font>



There is no bias in the moderating process.

Before I was a moderator, I had some doubt about this. Now, that I see the other side of things, I can tell you with 100% confident that the system is fair and just.

Anything that deals with any the the moderators personally, that moderator is left out of discussion.

Should you have any concerns about the moderating process, I ask you to email us at [email protected] and we will be happy to address any concerns.

If something is posted that breaks PDGA DISCussion Board rules, moderators will edit the original and remove repeat references where another message board user has quoted the original post. Sometimes we don't catch all of them, however. To date, we have not found a message board user in violation for quoting another's post that broke PDGA DISCussion Board rules. In fact, on several occasions this has been helpful as it preserved the original post after the initial poster went back and edited out the offensive content. However, we do ask that if message board users see something they think violates PDGA DISCussion Board to use the 'Notify Moderator' button at the bottom of the post to let us know. The 'Notify Moderator' button is the icon just to the right of the finger with a string around it. This will trigger and initiate the review process and send a copy of the post, with a link to it, to all of the moderators on the moderation team. It will preserve the original post exactly as it was, even if the user goes back and edits the offensive content out.

So again, we ask that if message board users see something they think violates PDGA DISCussion Board, don't quote it; please use the 'Notify Moderator' button.

And to answer your last question, every intention is made to disregard past violations and a user's history and treat every issue according to the same rules. When we receive the 'Notify Moderator' e-mail, we can't see who the author of the post is unless we click on a link and go view the original on the message board. By just looking at the contents of the post in the e-mail, a judgement on whether the post violates PDGA DISCussion Board rules can be made independant of who actually made the post.

do ALL mods us the same address?

do ALL mods us the same address?



We all have access to the email I supplied.

If you have a concern and would not like the entire moderation to see it, please contact one of the other moderators via PM or thier personal email.

I would suggest starting with Steve Dodge, as he is the communications director for the PDGA.

<font color="blue">Thanks
glad its not another "Troy Polamalu" account... </font>

To date, we have not found a message board user in violation for quoting another's post that broke PDGA DISCussion Board rules.



Wrong.

I was put on probation 6/13/07 and the funny part is, the person I directed my post at quoted me and he also was placed on probation the same day. :D

So, I was able to slam him twice. :D:D

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=718979&amp;Main=718979#Post7 18979

<font color="blue">i love the double standard </font>

Wrong.

Both David Wise #21242 and Jake Regier #19658 were put on probation on 06/13/07 not for quoting material, but for posting inappropriate material unsuitable for a minor and personal attack, although the latter was the lesser of the two rules broken there.

would it be an acceptable use of the message board to make odds on whether or not Probationed posters will survive their Probe period without gaining access to the next level of discipline? it might make for some fun polls :D:cool::D

SInce I'm the one that did it, I think I can remeber how it happened.
/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
I posted the material and Jake quoted it to respond to me.

So he was placed on probation for quoting inappropriate material. All he did was quote my posting of inappropriate material, he didn't post anythiing additional.

Still funny though. I laughed, he didn't. :D

Its amazing how one little word like swallow can get you in trouble. I'm surprised it isn't on the censored list of words. :D

I have been trying to be carefull to avoid the dreaded double secret probation. :o:D

Wrong.

Both David Wise #21242 and Jake Regier #19658 were put on probation on 06/13/07 not for quoting material, but for posting inappropriate material unsuitable for a minor and personal attack, although the latter was the lesser of the two rules broken there.



That is the official response. However, I ultimately was placed on probation for quoting dave wise.

Jake, if that's the impression you were left with then I would contact Communications Director Steve Dodge.

The impression that I am left with is that the whole thing is a bunch of BS.

However, I have more important things to worry about than my MB probation. I have been in contact with Steve, we disagree.

Hey Jeffrey,

I thought you lost (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2007-06-06-BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf) your moderator privileges?

<font color="blue">we couldn't be that lucky.

the double standard is still in full effect</font>

Hey Jeffrey,

I thought you lost (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2007-06-06-BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf) your moderator privileges?





Steve has asked Jeff LaGrassa to give up his frontline moderating
duties but to continue to work with and support the moderating team.



Good catch, but the wording is vague.

This MB has gotten so far away from being a productive tool; it is a mockery of itself.
Moderation has become subjective and has sometimes included Moderators' personal agendas.
Would it really be worse if the Moderators went away?

<font color="blue">i don't think all of them should <font color="red"> personal attack deleted </font> just the ones with personal agendas </font>

Chris,

That was only for a period of about 3 weeks.

Several months ago we had a message board user report this moderator for the use of profanity - basically using a word with a symbol that the software censor didn't pick up. At that time it was understood amongst the moderation staff and the Communications Director that such was not against our rules, as several previous reports of the same for other other users had been disregarded. Additionally, at the time that incident occurred, we had only one other moderator, who was occupied with other committments, and one moderator in training, so response times from these other moderators were slow - sometimes a week or more.

So I replied to the person who made the complaint and notified them that profanity wasn't against our rules. I CCed (carbon copied) all the other moderators as well as the Communications Director so that they were fully aware that this issue had been handled.

The Communications Director decided that even though the resolution in this case seemed obvious to me, we didn't want moderators responding to complaints about their own posts. In order to stress the point, he asked me to perform all the other duties (which includes tracking resolution of complaints, tracking start/end dates for probation/suspensions, keeping our policies guide updated, etc.) but not rule on complaints for a period of about 3 weeks. An added benefit was that it forced the other moderators to get up to speed and handle all the complaints during that time.

Please note that later, after several more instances of words with symbols weren't caught by the software profanity filter, and after discussion amongst the moderation staff, we then clarified the policy that such would be against our rules.

Hope that answers your question. If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to address them with the Communications Director, Steve Dodge.

Following the rules is not tough.

I've had like 8,000 something, probably closer to 9,000 posts and never once have been placed on any type of probation.

All you have to do is not cuss, not type in dollar signs or whatever to replace letters in cusswords, not personally attack someone, not post a big pic that could crash the server, post under your name and your name alone while not allowing anyone to post under yours, not post a link to innapropriate material, not discuss the sale or whatever of illegal druges and not post a pic of something innapropriate.

If you do so, you can say pretty much whatever you want!

To prove this, I am going to say things below. I urge you all to report this post to the moderation team. Since I am now a moderator, I will not be involved in any of the discussion of this post. I garuntee you not a single word of this post will be edited.
*note - everything I am about to say is not my personal opinion. Just trying to prove a point*

"The PDGA really is a mess right. Brian Graham, in my opinion, is not pushing the sport where it needs to go. Also, this moderation team is not doing a good job at all. I think they have double standards in place and really don't do a good job at all. Mikey Kernan is my hero. I think that he should be removed from suspension and given the freedom to post exactly what he wants"

See guys. I said all those comments and followed the rules. It is not difficult!

is this policy?

"Mr. LaGrassa then posted a whining rant about his
having been vetoed &amp; broke message board rule #1,
calling the whole saga a "crock of [censored]". I
complained to the PDGA message board moderators about
the post on profanity grounds.

Well, a few hours (and a few evil PMs from Mr.
LaGrassa) later I get an email from moderator "Troy
Polamalu (ourownwaterfall_at_yahoo_dot_com)" saying
that the post was reviewed &amp; found to be innocuous. A
cursory Yahoo search revealed that "Troy Polamalu
(ourownwaterfall_at_yahoo_dot_com)" is, indeed, Jeff
LaGrassa, ruling on a complaint against HIMSELF.?!?!?!"

I was not a moderator at the time and had no clue of this incident until this morning.

However, I can say that anytime a moderator reports a post or a post references a moderator, that / those person(s) are not involved in any of the moderating process of that specific post.

Also, please note, we read the actual post within an email BEFORE we see who posts it. The email that notifies us of a compaint does not contain any info on who posted the information.

Anyone who still thinks that a moderator with a personal agenda could affect the message board clearly still doesn't understand how our policies are set up and instituted.

In order for something to be removed, it has to first be reported by another message board user. Occasionally, a moderator will notice something potentially offensive and report it to another moderator for review. This is performed to avoid bias and so that a minimum of TWO individuals are agreeing that something violates our PDGA Discussion Board Rules. There is the original user complaint, and the moderator that agrees with it. An e-mail is then sent to all the moderators with the content of the post. At this point, one of two things happens:

The moderator agrees that the post violates our PDGA Discussion Board Rules. The post is then archived in the Deleted Items forum describing why an action was taken. The post is archived to ensure a fair appeals process can take place. User punishment and probation dates are then noted. If the user then chooses to appeal, Communications Director Steve Dodge will act as an independant third-party and review the post and the situation. Steve has overturned many a moderator decision and we take no offense when he decides that something is too much of a gray area to be considered a rules violation.

Or, the moderator disagrees that post violates our PDGA Discussion Board Rules and lets the person who reported it know. The original complainer can then appeal to Steve Dodge to take a look at the post and make his own opinion on whether it violates our rules.

The rules are intentionally set up to be clear, unsubjective, and fair, and decided on by a 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. Additionally, Executive Director Brian Graham has now been charged with ultimate authority over the DISCussion Board and could provide another level of oversight if called upon.

Jim Klem: PDGA leaders would rather do away with the DISCussion board altogether than have a message board without moderation which could expose them to legal issues. You've been around long enough to remember that before the current system, we had a process where one solitary person was in charge of the entire message board. There were no rules or guidelines specified whatsoever and no oversight. A moderator could ban anyone they wanted for any time period and delete anything they wanted, including something that was deemed a strain on resources or even vaguely anti-PDGA. Just like the "Bump N' Rhyme" threads, the "1 word story" thread wouldn't have lasted 1 day under prior moderators' watch. We've allowed threads such as those, as well as the "Boycott the PDGA" and "PDGA Slogan" threads because we believed they didn't violate our rules and encouraged positive discussion and ways to improve the PDGA. We have set rules and time limits on suspending users, and do so only as a last resort.

Again, I ask you to consider the system we had before, with one moderator and no rules or oversight, and compare that to the system we have now with clearly defined rules and penalties, multiple moderators, and multiple levels of oversight, and decide which is more fair.

Additionally, Executive Director Brian Graham has now been charged with ultimate authority over the DISCussion Board and could provide a fourth level of oversight if called upon.



The E.D. should not be involved in MB quarrels.
Minor issues like that should not rise to his that level in our organization.


Jim Klem, PDGA leaders would rather do away with the DISCussion board altogether than have a message board without moderation which could expose them to legal issues. You've been around long enough to remember that before the current system, we had a process where one solitary person was in charge of the entire message board. There were no rules or guidelines specified whatsoever and no oversight. A moderator could ban anyone they wanted for any time period and delete anything they wanted, including something that was deemed a strain on resources or even vaguely anti-PDGA.



Perhaps it is too structured now.
Mods and PDGA BoD members are involved at various levels of checks and balances, spending time and resources - about what? About MB semantics.
I'd rather see some intelligent PDGA members focus on growing the sport, not babysitting a forum of opinions.

About MB semantics.
I'd rather see some intelligent PDGA members focus on growing the sport, not babysitting a forum of opinions.



I 100% agree!!

However, some members of the MB needs babysitting. If the PDGA attaches its name to this then this represents the PDGA.

If all members truly cared about growing disc golf, then all the negative stuff that goes on here would not occur b/c these members would realize that this is representation of the PDGA and its members.

When I see someone who cannot follow the rules and clearly breaks them, I interept that as not caring about the growth of the PDGA.

Brent Alan Petersen,

You should know that a cursory Yahoo search wasn't necessary - that my signature file clearly listed "from the desk of J. LaGrassa" at the bottom of the message was apparently somehow missed by the recipient. And if I was truly trying to hide my identity, would I have carbon copied all the other moderators and the Communications Director on the message, and used the same e-mail address I used for all previous moderator business?!?

If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to address them with the Communications Director, Steve Dodge.

I think that the moderation itself may expose the PDGA to liability issues, especially the more work goes into making it appear even-handed and just. No offense to the moderators, it's a tough job, I know, and as individuals I think they try not to act biased, which does not preclude a group bias, but that's not what this post is about.

Many believe that websites managers face less liability if they do not moderate at all than they do once they moderate. If they do not moderate, they can position themselves as merely providing a forum within which others can post their own expressions.

Once they begin to moderate, they are in essence "editing" what is published, therefore taking some level of responsibility, and can more easily be held liable for what is published. As well, once they begin to moderate, they have accepted a responsibility to moderate that may be seen legally to extend beyond what they wish to moderate.

For example, and this is hypothetical, the moderators recently shared that they will not moderate accusations of lying, because they feel that to do so they would have to adjudicate the truth or falsity of statements.

I do not believe that need to adjudicate necessarily arises, and that the accusation of lying itself is a personal attack and should be moderated.

Further, though, when faced with the hypothetical, "What if a poster alleged another PDGA member to be a pencil whipper?" - that is, to be someone who cheats by lying about their score - the moderators shared that also is not something they feel they need to moderate.

Setting aside whether such an accusation is a personal attack, which I believe it is, I do have concerns that if the official PDGA forum were to allow accusations of cheating to be made without discipline or moderation, it would be cutting really close to an area where there could someday be legal liability for the PDGA.

Just my opinion.

I'd rather see some intelligent PDGA members focus on growing the sport, not babysitting a forum of opinions.



Most likely, everyone involved in these discussions, even those with whom you or I vehemently disagree, is at the same time actively involved in growing the sport.

a strong, rookie-of-the-year start for best thread ever.




Well, I think it's official now.

Such praise from the person :D whose bio I cannot link to because it itself is probably a forum violation, in ASCII format.

Does that mean that the forum itself needs disciplined because it links each of abcd's posts to inappropriate material?

I wonder why Rhett hasn't chimed in here :o

<font color="blue"> [personal attack edited by poster] </font>

Me, too. I think maybe he got disciplined but not to the point of having his privileges suspended.

Actually, I am not sure what he was disciplined for. He didn't attack anyone. Unless I missed something, he merely made a statement about what some of things he thought you could get away with saying about someone were. He didn't actually say those things about anyone.

I can't, quickly looking, find what he wrote. Maybe someone better at that than I am can find it.

yes, he and mickey are suspended for 3 months. my understanding is that rhett's was not for an attack.

I believe I saw a post of Rhett's that went over the top railing at and calling UPM names. If Mikey was named Richard, he still might not have been able to get away with the rest of the post.

yes, he and mickey are suspended for 3 months. my understanding is that rhett's was not for an attack.



I'm not on the inside on this, but I would suspect it was for a post where he tore into Mikey pretty good on a thread. I think Mikey got his goat but probably had it coming. Its too bad that the flammable posts that start these types of things are allowed and often applauded.

Oh, I did see, somewhere, a Nixon/Cheney descriptor. Maybe that was it. Still wondering about abcd's bio :confused:

The disciplinary list only shows them to be on probation. Unless they have now gone to double secret probation status. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

That would require more of a Nixon/Cheney/Rove descriptor.

Actually, it looks like Rhett was already on Probation 2, which means he might have been suspended. If that's the case, then everyone who can update the disciplinary list is probably too busy reading these posts to have had the time to update the disciplinary list.

Or to check out abcd's bio. :D Oh, it's gone. But I have a screen shot!

I remember something about a bigfoot and other stuff on the Liars thread.... It must have been during the time people were pushing the limits to show what is tolerated and what is not... It seems that type of stuff will not be tolerated.

I remember something about a bigfoot and other stuff on the Liars thread.... It must have been during the time people were pushing the limits to show what is tolerated and what is not... It seems that type of stuff will not be tolerated.



Probably more likely Here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=699014&amp;page=0&amp;fpart=19&amp;v c=1) at the bottom of the page.

I just got the e-mail notice from one of the other moderators confirming that they deleted the image in the profile of Chris Wild #27723 and gave a warning about placing such images in his profile information.

I posted it yesterday on this very thread, but please also note that pending an appeal, PDGA members Mike Kernan and Rhett Stroh have been suspended from message board use for 3 months for offensive posts and personal attacks. Communications Director Steve Dodge typically posts the updated disciplinary list but he is gearing up for the MSDGC this weekend.

I just got the e-mail notice from one of the other moderators confirming that they deleted the image in the profile of Chris Wild #27723 and gave a warning about placing such images in his profile information.

I posted it yesterday on this very thread, but please also note that pending an appeal, PDGA members Mike Kernan and Rhett Stroh have been suspended from message board use for 3 months for offensive posts and personal attacks. Communications Director Steve Dodge typically posts the updated disciplinary list but he is gearing up for the MSDGC this weekend.



Darn it, I was going to copy his bio in mine. Shoot, well, maybe next time.

Setting aside whether such an accusation is a personal attack, which I believe it is, I do have concerns that if the official PDGA forum were to allow accusations of cheating to be made without discipline or moderation, it would be cutting really close to an area where there could someday be legal liability for the PDGA.




Terry, I don't have the law background that you do so I'll have to take your word for it. If you truly think that this is something which could open the PDGA to legal liability then I urge you to contact Communications Director Steve Dodge or Executive Director Brian Graham about this.

Thanks.

I think what Terry is trying to say is if you have a dog in your backyard and you post a sign on the fence that says "Beware of Dog", ....if it bites someone, you no longer have plausible deniability because by posting the sign, you are admitting that it's a mean dog.

On the other hand it could be a friendly dog and end up licking you to death. ;)

About MB semantics.
I'd rather see some intelligent PDGA members focus on growing the sport, not babysitting a forum of opinions.



I 100% agree!!

However, some members of the MB needs babysitting. If the PDGA attaches its name to this then this represents the PDGA.

If all members truly cared about growing disc golf, then all the negative stuff that goes on here would not occur b/c these members would realize that this is representation of the PDGA and its members.

When I see someone who cannot follow the rules and clearly breaks them, I interept that as not caring about the growth of the PDGA.



Yeah
this message bored is stagnating the growth of the PDGA.

GET REAL