Camera Stellata (i.e., Star Chamber)

DJTorrente

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
3,217
Location
NJ
Display Name

Display name:
DJTorrente
Rather than give warnings to specific individuals, we're sharing these general reminders about our Rules of Conduct (RoC):
...

  • Bans and warnings, actual or suspected, shall not be discussed on the forums.

Multiple posts in this thread have ... discussed his ban from PoA. Neither is allowed per our RoC.

The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.
The second rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.

Of course if you never discuss what conduct led to a disciplinary action, there is nothing to be learned about the incident except fear of arbitrary moderation.

If that's what you want, bravo -- well done. There's no shortage of examples across history. I would have thought any of those examples were best taken as cautionary warnings, not how-to manuals.
 
What you signed on to. Don't like it, you can vote with your (in silico) feet. Kinda glad they closed the door on the Henning thread. Not fair bashing a guy who isn't around to stick up for himself.
 
What you signed on to. Don't like it, you can vote with your (in silico) feet. Kinda glad they closed the door on the Henning thread. Not fair bashing a guy who isn't around to stick up for himself.

But I didn't write it. More to the point, it was (is) a contract of adhesion -- not open to negotiation; take it or leave it.

So that fact that "a-huh, a-huh, you signed up for it" doesn't make it one iota less dumb of a policy for the party that authored it. I'm highlighting a way that PoA can be made better through self-policing, but that point seemed to evade you.

BTW, I agree that the other reason for closing that thread (personal attacks against Henning) should have been sufficient. All the more reason to wonder why a good reason needed to be bolstered with a bad one.

Is that really the best argument you've got, professor? Lead with your chin there.
 
Is that really the best argument you've got, professor? Lead with your chin there.

Sadly, it is. Hey, I don't like it, I'm huge fan of transparency. But, I don't support the site. I don't pay for it. So I won't ***** about how things are.
 
Actually, its not a bad point. The MC would have a much easier job moderating if they at least included a reason for the ban/suspension in the banner that decrees the status of the poster.

For example: "Suspended, personal attack." or "Banned, repeated use of tubgirl."

Keep the rule in place about discussing the ban/suspension, but let people know what behaviors could lead them into the same boat. If I were on the MC, which I am not, but if I were, and I'm not, but if I were - I'd want this done to avoid policing the same behaviors over and over and over again.

Make the MC job easier.
 
I disagree, and agree with the MC on this.
For a person with minimal intelligence, and hopefully most pilots have at least that, following the published behavior rules and knowing when they are playing with fire should be fairly easy. In fact, if everyone avoided even being close to borderline behavior, nobody would ever get banned or suspended. Sort of like always landing with at least an hour of fuel. Try to shave that limit, and take your chances.
On the other hand, the "beans" principle tells us that it's counter-productive to discuss, advertise or indulge in descriptions of bad behavior.
 
Back
Top