For other non-gameplay topics, especially those related to Star Trek and the Star Trek CCG, non-gameplay surveys, trivia questions and puzzles, constructive commentary and more.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#555268
Since two threads have been locked and my post about today's board meeting got relocated to the Mod Dialog thread (of all places), and since I know a lot of people have muted the Mod Dialog thread, I'm reposting my comments here. I was told by the Head Moderator that this is the appropriate forum.

Here's what I wrote in response to the minutes that were posted earlier today:

So the Chairman couldn't be bothered to request a vote from each voting member present as requested? Or go on the record himself?

"My vote doesn't matter" -- wrong, sir. Your vote wouldn't change the outcome. It very much matters.

And Justin couldn't be bothered to even educate himself on the relevant issues enough to have even a modicum of a basis on which to cast a vote one way or the other with 2 months notice?

What the hell kind of "governance" is this?

At least Maggie had the courage of her convictions to actually vote to actively keep members out of the community that she's working so hard to build.

Meanwhile, Tjark and Scott apparently didn't need any convincing to join the lynch mob. So much for fresh perspectives and new leadership on the board.

Despite all of the above, I was sincere in my thanks to the board for considering my request - the silence and voting was most informative.
 
By Honest
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
2E Australian Continental Champion 2019
#555269
I am surprised this has gone the way it has, and lines have been drawn.

According to John's FB page a week or so ago, he said he didn't ask for, or want to be considered for reinstatement. If that is true, why mention it at all, and why all the subsequent drama?

Honest
User avatar
Ambassador
By bosskamiura (Thomas Kamiura)
 - Ambassador
 -  
Community Contributor
#555271
Hi all. TK your humble community organizer here to chime in with my two cents…

I haven’t watched the YouTube recording yet, but if what Brian is saying is true about Justin, that’s problematic.

If youre going to occupy a board seat, and there’s important business upcoming, it should be your responsibility to be informed.

My question is this — is Justin in this seat because he wants to be a community leader, or does he have it because he wants to be the bookkeeper and it was given to him as a bonus?

I think there is an important distinction to make. One we should all acknowledge that points to an inherent problem in our governing structure.


TK
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#555273
Honest wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:35 am I am surprised this has gone the way it has, and lines have been drawn.

According to John's FB page a week or so ago, he said he didn't ask for, or want to be considered for reinstatement. If that is true, why mention it at all, and why all the subsequent drama?

Honest
In my defense I brought it up after the last board meeting, before the most recent developments. At the time I was having some conversations that led me to believe that there was a desire in some quarters for John to return, or at least have the option to.

I am also of the opinion that the way John and Ben got banned in the first place was highly problematic and the result of either a severe overreaction to a couple forum posts or some bad faith hyperliteralism to achieve something the board wanted to do anyway. Regardless of whether or not either of them wanted to return, I wanted to raise the issue to see how the board would handle it.

As I've already stated, today's meeting told me quite a lot.
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#555274
When I said this was the appropriate place to post, I thought you were referring to the discussion of whether selling virtual cards won as tournament prizes on eBay was appropriate.

That said, I'll let the Board decide whether discussion of this issue is fine here or if this is more appropriate to the Moderatorial Dialogue Thread.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#555277
Boffo97 wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:59 am When I said this was the appropriate place to post, I thought you were referring to the discussion of whether selling virtual cards won as tournament prizes on eBay was appropriate.

That said, I'll let the Board decide whether discussion of this issue is fine here or if this is more appropriate to the Moderatorial Dialogue Thread.
I'll help you with that Dave. Whatever this is, it has nothing to with the Moderators or Moderation, so I fail to see why you think moving it to the mod dialog thread is appropriate if your goal is topic alignment.

You want to move it to The Buzz? Go for it.
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#555279
The feedback from the ban itself went into the MDT even though mods were not the ones who made that call because it involved banning users. By the same logic, this would belong there as well. The whole point of that thread is that some people simply don't care about these decisions, regardless of who makes them, and would prefer they are confined to one place so they may safely ignore them.

However, as I said, now that this thread has been started, I will allow the Board to make the call as to whether to keep the discussion here or move it there.
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#555280
I will criticize one element of today's events relevant to this thread I felt could have been handled better:

The bylaw that someone needs to petition to be reinstated themselves after getting banned rather than have a third party make that petition seems reasonable. We have a similar rule for appeals under the CoC.

But, I feel that as soon as that was noticed, Armus should have been publicly notified that his petition was out of order (Even in the future nothing works!) and from that Mr. Corbett and Mr. Hosp would likely have the news reach them that they would have to personally petition (and they have avenues to go through for that).

Thus, if one or both of them decided to go through with such a petition, the issue could have been decided today instead of essentially deciding not to decide and forcing them to wait a few more weeks if they did in fact wish to petition for reinstatement.

Note: "Out of order" might be the wrong term here. I'm far from an expert on Robert's Rules of Order.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#555281
Boffo97 wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:48 am I will criticize one element of today's events relevant to this thread I felt could have been handled better:

The bylaw that someone needs to petition to be reinstated themselves after getting banned rather than have a third party make that petition seems reasonable. We have a similar rule for appeals under the CoC.

But, I feel that as soon as that was noticed, Armus should have been publicly notified that his petition was out of order (Even in the future nothing works!) and from that Mr. Corbett and Mr. Hosp would likely have the news reach them that they would have to personally petition (and they have avenues to go through for that).

Thus, if one or both of them decided to go through with such a petition, the issue could have been decided today instead of essentially deciding not to decide and forcing them to wait a few more weeks if they did in fact wish to petition for reinstatement.

Note: "Out of order" might be the wrong term here. I'm far from an expert on Robert's Rules of Order.
If you go back and read my original request, you'll see it was only made *after* it was established at the *last* board meeting that the board does not require a petition to take action. As such, all I was calling for was for the board to use their own inherent authority.

I don't think asking the board to exercise their own authority can be out of order, but I'm no Robert's Rules expert either.
 
By Honest
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
2E Australian Continental Champion 2019
#555282
Thanks for answering my earlier question, but some things I still don't understand.

I don't think John asked or wants to come back. So,

Why make it an issue?

If the board banned him and he hasn't asked to come back, why should they consider bringing him back anyway? (I get you have asked on his behalf, but he may turn around and tell them to take a jump anyway, so what is in it for them?)

A lot of bad things have been said over this, has it been worth it?

Thanks

Honest
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#555286
Honest wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:10 am Thanks for answering my earlier question, but some things I still don't understand.

I don't think John asked or wants to come back. So,

Why make it an issue?

If the board banned him and he hasn't asked to come back, why should they consider bringing him back anyway? (I get you have asked on his behalf, but he may turn around and tell them to take a jump anyway, so what is in it for them?)

A lot of bad things have been said over this, has it been worth it?

Thanks

Honest
Honestly, if I hadn't been having the conversations I was in April, I probably wouldn't have.

I was asked to help back then, so I did. However, given yesterday's board vote, it's clear that I shouldn't have bothered. Another very valuable lesson learned from this whole experience.
User avatar
Director of Organized Play
By LORE (Kris Sonsteby)
 - Director of Organized Play
 -  
Architect
1E Andoria Regional Champion 2023
2E Andoria Regional Champion 2023
W.C.T. Chairman's Trophy winner 2014-2015
#555287
Wow, holy crap there were a whole lot of posts over the weekend while I was in South Dakota for Regionals. Here is the cut right to the chase answer, from me as acting Director of Organized Play. Regarding reinstatement, I voted no on both. The rationale / intent behind their respective bans last year is not up for debate - it was done on the former Chairman's watch, and with the intent either party could then petition for reinstatement - which still has not happened. Reinstatement would be considered by the Board if it was in good faith - which is not the case given the ongoing eBay sales. End of story as far as I am concerned.

That said, the forum ban has nothing to do with Organized Play. Our governing document, the Organized Play Guide, deals directly with tournament participation. Social media, PMs, forum posts, etc. only fall under that scope when said tournament is transpiring online. As far as I am concerned, both John & Ben are still welcome to run tournaments, attend tournaments, etc. and there behavior at said events will fall under the purview of the Tournament Code of Conduct - the same as everyone else.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#555292
There's plenty of precedent for "permanent" bans not being permanent.

Kevin Jaeger was suspended for a period of time for making legal threats years ago. He's an active member of the community now.

The Moderators (at least as of 4/1/2019) were real uncomfortable not having any wiggle room for reinstatement and we spent a lot of time on what the top of the ban ladder looked like in real terms (answer: a de facto 6-month ban followed by reconsideration).

You may not like John Corbett or Ben Hosp, or want them in the community, but let's not pretend that permanent bans are a real thing. It's been close to a year, I'm hoping cooler heads have had a chance to prevail.
Since this your thread I feel that quoting you from the other thread is in bounds.

You are selectively and as usual missing the part where the supposed threat was a "the cc needs to change this thing bc it is illegal" and part of me coming back was because it actually was changed. So what I did was to help via tough love.

Of course that doesn't fit your little persecution narrative bc it runs against what corbett and Ben are doing which is to hurt the cc for no reason other vengeance and spite over the fact that they didn't get succeed in turning the cc into their own little feifdom where the rules don't apply to them.

You say there isn't any coordination bc Ben doesn't have social media....you expect anyone to give any weight to your arguments or afford you any trust when you start off with insult our intelligence level lies - as if we aren't smart enough to know what texting and emails are much less "da group chat" and the fact that Darrel, Phil and sandy only ever pop up to be avenging pawns in this game of nonsense chess.

"Such loyalty would be admirable if it wasn't so misplaced." - Weyoun
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#555293
Honest wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:10 am If the board banned him and he hasn't asked to come back, why should they consider bringing him back anyway?
Functionally, the board can choose to vote to remove the ban whenever (and why-ever) they like. But someone bringing a topic to the board doesn't automatically require a vote, and I'm a bit confused on why they had one when it was pretty obvious no-one was sold on the idea in the first place. (And it's not a great precedent to say that anyone can just force a Board vote on any topic they like.)
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#555294
I don't see how there could possibly be any controversy over this. Neither John nor Ben have contacted the Board expressing their desire to return to good standing in this community. Neither have acknowledged the error of the behavior which got them banned. It doesn't seem that there is any reason to believe that a reinstatement would result in anything but a continuation of their previous behavior.

@Armus, this was brought before the Board because you requested it and we respect you. But until we have some reason to believe there would be a different outcome than another ban, I can't see either being reinstated.
Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]

Ignoring point losses & Timing

I would be interested in the answer to this as wel[…]

Greetings 'trek fans! As discussed in our Februar[…]

1EFQ: Game of two halves

First: Rescue Captives is OP, there should[…]