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
#555295
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:01 am
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.
I don't mind you quoting me, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mis-quote me. I never said the bolded part, so maybe re-examine your entire last paragraph.

As for your banning, I don't remember the legal details, but if the CC was doing something illegal back then that you felt the need to take a stand to force change, what about now? You're the lawyer, does the CC have reason to be afraid of legal action? If so, why haven't you taken a similar stand to force whatever other change is needed? If not, then why does the CC feel the need to banish long-time players over forum posts of dubious to non-existent threat level? Also, if that's the case, then why get spun up about Corbett selling CC foils on eBay?
 
By sandy
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#555296
Hi, I would like to point out that calling me an "avenging pawn" is a violation of the CoC. I'm sure the crack mod team will take appropriate action.
User avatar
 
By pschrader
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E American National Runner-Up 2023
#555299
sandy wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:48 am Hi, I would like to point out that calling me an "avenging pawn" is a violation of the CoC. I'm sure the crack mod team will take appropriate action.
As if this mod team knew how to do anything other than act as a bureaucratic shield for this farce of a “board”.
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#555300
AllenGould wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:28 am
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.)
I brought it up for a vote because the board was asked specifically to address it. As the current chair, I made that call. As I said elsewhere, I'm not a parliamentarian and I'm really not good at Robert's Rules of Order. If you couldn't tell, I was stumbling and extremely nervous during the meeting in fear of making a mistake. So if anyone out there has advice on how I can better run these meeting properly, I'm all ears.

-crp
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#555302
MidnightLich wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:12 pm
AllenGould wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:28 am
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.)
I brought it up for a vote because the board was asked specifically to address it. As the current chair, I made that call. As I said elsewhere, I'm not a parliamentarian and I'm really not good at Robert's Rules of Order. If you couldn't tell, I was stumbling and extremely nervous during the meeting in fear of making a mistake. So if anyone out there has advice on how I can better run these meeting properly, I'm all ears.

-crp
@AllenGould is wrong. Nobody can FORCE the board to do anything. However, any member should have the right to petition the board on any topic for any reason (or no reason at all too, I suppose).

Procedurally speaking, as I understand it, the board must consider any petition brought, but that "consideration" can be as simple as the chair calling for a motion to discuss (or vote), receiving none (or if the chair were to make a motion, not receiving a second), and moving on to the next agenda item. Alterntively, any board member can make a motion to table (take no action) on a petition, receive a second, and table the petition with a majority vote.

I'm sure there's details I'm missing or wrong about, but in short, the board can't (and honestly, shouldn't) reject consideration of any petition brought by a member, but there are plenty of parliamentary tools available to properly disposition any frivolous petitions.
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#555303
sandy wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:48 am Hi, I would like to point out that calling me an "avenging pawn" is a violation of the CoC. I'm sure the crack mod team will take appropriate action.
Rule 11a permits criticism so long as it is measured, reasonable and civil. As far as I'm concerned, the remark passes that test. Another mod may disagree, but that's how I see it.

You've said worse and not been sanctioned for that exact same reason and you know it.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#555306
Armus wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:34 am
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:01 am
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.
I don't mind you quoting me, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mis-quote me. I never said the bolded part, so maybe re-examine your entire last paragraph.

As for your banning, I don't remember the legal details, but if the CC was doing something illegal back then that you felt the need to take a stand to force change, what about now? You're the lawyer, does the CC have reason to be afraid of legal action? If so, why haven't you taken a similar stand to force whatever other change is needed? If not, then why does the CC feel the need to banish long-time players over forum posts of dubious to non-existent threat level? Also, if that's the case, then why get spun up about Corbett selling CC foils on eBay?
I went back and re examine. My mistake - you didn't say that, Phil did. I'm trying to catch up on 4 days worth of nonsense and it's running together in my head bc most of it is garbage.

But given that this has been a full coordinated effort why should anyone buy into what you are saying over what any of the rest of da group chat members saying. You think we are going to give your word anymore heft bc you think ppl view you as the more or most respectful/respectable member? What a laugh after all the times you've gone after me and others with snide comments on our lives, careers etc.

You want a legal theory Brian, here it is:. Conspiracy. The members of an organized group acting toward a common goal are all considered to be equally responsible for the actions of the other members. Sandy and Phil come in firing with attacks and nonsense and lies and so therefore in my mind you are also responsible for those lies.

The reselling of those cards is legal as is the creation of the cards themselves under the fan based exception to copyright law. The only issue has ever been that drawing attention and implying things that aren't true just opens the door to the unwinnable cease and desist - SLAPP suit.

My personal feeling aside about the extremely problematic personalities your group has always had and how thats driven away a lot of players..........That your entire group seems not to comprehend the magnitude of the SLAPP suit issue is exactly why you should all be drummed out under a conspiracy theory and never let back in.

That is my final word on this thread.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#555307
Armus wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:23 pm @AllenGould is wrong. Nobody can FORCE the board to do anything. However, any member should have the right to petition the board on any topic for any reason (or no reason at all too, I suppose).

Procedurally speaking, as I understand it, the board must consider any petition brought, but that "consideration" can be as simple as the chair calling for a motion to discuss (or vote), receiving none (or if the chair were to make a motion, not receiving a second), and moving on to the next agenda item. Alterntively, any board member can make a motion to table (take no action) on a petition, receive a second, and table the petition with a majority vote.
Good catch - poor phrasing on my part. I think we're on the same page that a discussion doesn't require a vote at the end unless someone actually wants to change the status quo.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#555308
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:55 pm I went back and re examine. My mistake - you didn't say that, Phil did. I'm trying to catch up on 4 days worth of nonsense and it's running together in my head bc most of it is garbage.

But given that this has been a full coordinated effort why should anyone buy into what you are saying over what any of the rest of da group chat members saying. You think we are going to give your word anymore heft bc you think ppl view you as the more or most respectful/respectable member? What a laugh after all the times you've gone after me and others with snide comments on our lives, careers etc.

You want a legal theory Brian, here it is:. Conspiracy. The members of an organized group acting toward a common goal are all considered to be equally responsible for the actions of the other members. Sandy and Phil come in firing with attacks and nonsense and lies and so therefore in my mind you are also responsible for those lies.

The reselling of those cards is legal as is the creation of the cards themselves under the fan based exception to copyright law. The only issue has ever been that drawing attention and implying things that aren't true just opens the door to the unwinnable cease and desist - SLAPP suit.

My personal feeling aside about the extremely problematic personalities your group has always had and how thats driven away a lot of players..........That your entire group seems not to comprehend the magnitude of the SLAPP suit issue is exactly why you should all be drummed out under a conspiracy theory and never let back in.

That is my final word on this thread.
I'd advise you to be real careful here Kev... you don't know as much as you think you do.
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#555319
Am I part of it? I always wanted to be part of a conspiracy.

Do we get robes?

Are there secret handshakes?

I will admit to controlling the British crown and keeping the metric system down, but I deny making Steve Guttenberg a star.
 
By sandy
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#555322
Boffo97 wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:39 pm
sandy wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:48 am Hi, I would like to point out that calling me an "avenging pawn" is a violation of the CoC. I'm sure the crack mod team will take appropriate action.
Rule 11a permits criticism so long as it is measured, reasonable and civil. As far as I'm concerned, the remark passes that test. Another mod may disagree, but that's how I see it.

You've said worse and not been sanctioned for that exact same reason and you know it.
Ah yeah, I guess "queen of the ashes" is way worse than "avenging pawn" lol.
 
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#555334
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:55 pm
Armus wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:34 am
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:01 am

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.
I don't mind you quoting me, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mis-quote me. I never said the bolded part, so maybe re-examine your entire last paragraph.

As for your banning, I don't remember the legal details, but if the CC was doing something illegal back then that you felt the need to take a stand to force change, what about now? You're the lawyer, does the CC have reason to be afraid of legal action? If so, why haven't you taken a similar stand to force whatever other change is needed? If not, then why does the CC feel the need to banish long-time players over forum posts of dubious to non-existent threat level? Also, if that's the case, then why get spun up about Corbett selling CC foils on eBay?
I went back and re examine. My mistake - you didn't say that, Phil did. I'm trying to catch up on 4 days worth of nonsense and it's running together in my head bc most of it is garbage.

But given that this has been a full coordinated effort why should anyone buy into what you are saying over what any of the rest of da group chat members saying. You think we are going to give your word anymore heft bc you think ppl view you as the more or most respectful/respectable member? What a laugh after all the times you've gone after me and others with snide comments on our lives, careers etc.

You want a legal theory Brian, here it is:. Conspiracy. The members of an organized group acting toward a common goal are all considered to be equally responsible for the actions of the other members. Sandy and Phil come in firing with attacks and nonsense and lies and so therefore in my mind you are also responsible for those lies.

The reselling of those cards is legal as is the creation of the cards themselves under the fan based exception to copyright law. The only issue has ever been that drawing attention and implying things that aren't true just opens the door to the unwinnable cease and desist - SLAPP suit.

My personal feeling aside about the extremely problematic personalities your group has always had and how thats driven away a lot of players..........That your entire group seems not to comprehend the magnitude of the SLAPP suit issue is exactly why you should all be drummed out under a conspiracy theory and never let back in.

That is my final word on this thread.
Thats comical. What group of players ran the tournament with the biggest turnout of last year?
User avatar
Director of Communications
By OKCoyote (Daniel Matteson)
 - Director of Communications
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#555344
trekwars2000 wrote: Thats comical. What group of players ran the tournament with the biggest turnout of last year?
I don't know, but if a group did hold a tournament with a large turnout last year, in the middle of a pandemic, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be there.
 
By sandy
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#555372
OKCoyote wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:48 pm
trekwars2000 wrote: Thats comical. What group of players ran the tournament with the biggest turnout of last year?
I don't know, but if a group did hold a tournament with a large turnout last year, in the middle of a pandemic, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be there.
Even if it was online? Or followed social distancing guidelines?

I think German Nationals was in person, could be wrong. Not sure how they handled social distancing.

I know John's tournament had mask enforcement and complied with all regulations around distancing (including having tables 6ft+ apart).

Brian ran online tournaments only iirc, unless you count when John or Ray visited him.

Didn't someone have a trek event in Vegas during a wedding? Seems hypocritical to cherry pick this to complain about...

But go off, I guess.
Last edited by sandy on Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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[…]