[Bob Kuczewski]

Michael Grisham :: I think he needs a time out.
It is easy, when not moderated, to destroy a forum with all kinds of poor behavior in posting.
Michael G. is smart enough to take detail webmaster items to private messaging, so as not to plaster the forum with things best handled via notes to the webmaster.

PM to Michael G

Michael,
Please do your best to be polite in the forum posting.
Consider:
1. Bumping can be abused. There may be time for you to delete some of the bumps. The topics are known to exist.
2. Attention costs
3. Using PM for detail webmastering detail.
4.

Thanks for any positive RHG building you may do in the forum.
Best,
Joe

I've tried to disable the "bump" feature in most of our forums. The "bump" feature allows someone to push a topic to the top without actually making a post. So it looks like the last (previous) poster had posted more recently than they had. I think It's a bad feature because It's deceptive. People can always " bump" a topic just by posting, but at least their name shows up as the last poster.

I'd like to make a motion that Micheal Grisham be given a "Time Out". I feel this should happen swiftly. But the idea is to temporarily revoke Grisham's membership to the US Hawks with a public notice that the action is temporary. We can describe it as lasting 30 days (or until the Board decides to end it).

I think the vote should be unanimous but I'd also like Bob K to not participate so that the "blame" can only be leveled at all other board members. That way anyone claiming that "Bob did it" would be speaking falsely.

I am not in favor of this, but if the Board votes to do it, I will carry it out.

[wingspan33]

Mr. Grisham has again today posted a veiled(?) insult to "Scottie and Bobbie". I've posted a reply, but since this is just one more negative post by a member who does not seem able or willing to be respectful, then I think that my earlier   MOTION   that Michael Grisham be given a "Time Out" (of 30 days or possibly longer) be acted upon.

Once that Time Out is in place we, the board, can consider its specific length in days or weeks (or months?).

As I said a few posts back, upon accepting the motion, I think that Board members, excepting Bob, should be those voting. I think this would be best since no one could make a truthful claim that "Bob banned me." .

And repeating, a TIME OUT (if approved) would be publicly announced and would include the names of the Board who voted "yes" on the action.

[Bill Cummings]

Mr. Grisham has again today posted a veiled(?) insult to "Scottie and Bobbie". I've posted a reply, but since this is just one more negative post by a member who does not seem able or willing to be respectful, then I think that my earlier   MOTION   that Michael Grisham be given a "Time Out" (of 30 days or possibly longer) be acted upon.

Once that Time Out is in place we, the board, can consider its specific length in days or weeks (or months?).

As I said a few posts back, upon accepting the motion, I think that Board members, excepting Bob, should be those voting. I think this would be best since no one could make a truthful claim that "Bob banned me." .

And repeating, a TIME OUT (if approved) would be publicly announced and would include the names of the Board who voted "yes" on the action.

Bill Cummings I   SECOND THE MOTION  

[wingspan33]

I will take the first step and vote   YES   toward giving Michael Grisham a Time Out.


.

.

[Bill Cummings]

I will take the first step and vote   YES   toward giving Michael Grisham a Time Out.


.

.

Bill Cummings   YES  
(I would suggest that in fairness this should not be used retroactively but after a Time Out discipline notification procedure has been posted. Perhaps a three step procedure should be in place similar to: First Step: Warning that you are in violation of an exact rule.
Second Step: Two weeks of posting only to Free Speech Thread. Third Step: One month of posting only to the Free Speech Thread with possibly having to remain there. Fourth Step: Total banning from the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association.)
PS: my wife thinks I have too many steps.)

[wingspan33]

Bill, I'm not opposed to discussion of the details after the vote finishes (before actually "enforcing" the Time Out).

I do like your idea of limiting a member to the Free Speech Zone as a first step.

I've also had an idea of creating a "Member Complaint" Forum. How it works could be included in the Terms of Service. The idea being that the Complaint Forum would not be in public view but Board members could review member grievances there. If complaints were posted in the open forum, rather than brought to the Member Complaint Forum, that would be a violation of our Terms of Service.

*A member complaint would have to be PMed to one or all Board members in order to open a topic within the Member Complaint Forum.

I've also mentioned to Bob that from every new member we should get, not only an email address, but also their real name, their city of residence, reason for interest in the US Hawks, time active in the sport of hang gliding, and a phone number. Lots of people give that amount of info the the U$hPa to become members - even temp student members. Until receiving this info the person would be restricted to the Free Speech Zone.

[wingspan33]

Point of Order - I have given some thought to my recent motion and now feel that it needs some clarification and added details in order to be the best it can be. For that reason I am withdrawing my above motion.

I think Bill's comments about an initial warning and then the possible next steps after that, are good thoughts.

I've also considered my idea of having a Member Complaint Forum (MCF), which would be accessed by an initial PM to one or all Advisory Board members. That this MCF's discussions would be held in a private area of the web site, but that a final decision would be made public. Also, that this process would be included in the Terms of Service and that a member who does not follow this complaint process may be subject to corrective actions.

This, in itself, would be the First (and only?) Warning to any member that decides to post complaints on the main/public section of the web site, instead of with the MCF as they have been told.

Posting messages that are abusive, harassing and/or threatening are already addressed in the Terms of Service agreement - and are not allowed. As things are, members ignoring that rule have been warned and can be banned.

So, creation of the MCF and adding the basic process to the Terms of Service agreement would cover the need for a "Warning" about some member spouting one or multiple complaints in the pubic space on the US Hawks. I think it's also a good way to handle complaints in a formal and respectful manner, out of view of the general membership - until a decision by a majority of directors is determined. Once that decision is made public that thread would be locked. Why? Because someone who disagrees with the outcome, whoever they may be, could start responding to a decided and closed issue - attempting to reopen their can of worms.

Feed back is appreciated.

[Bill Cummings]

Scott’s motion has been withdrawn for now.
Voting will be suspended until Scott advances a new motion
or another board member makes a motion.

[wingspan33]

Bill and all other Board members,

I'd like to get some input into my Member Complaint Forum (MCF) idea. I can't see any major problems with it. So, if how it works was placed in the Terms of Service membership agreement then, as I've said, it becomes the primary "warning" for people who may have a plan to post their problem(s)/complaint(s) all over the front page. It becomes an automatic warning system.

When the MCF process is not followed, the offending member should be notified (perhaps by PM to avoid further public conflict) with notification they have violated the US Hawks' complaint process. The next step (or steps) that should be taken can be defined and decided upon by the Board - such as Bill's presentation about a member's posts being placed in the Free Speech Zone for some period. The MCF idea gets us past the "How do we warn the member?" question.

If a member posts abusive/harassing type content then the Terms of Service already cover that with a warning. The recent events with Hawk891 would have been covered by what is already in place in the Terms of Service.

I'd like to submit the idea as a motion (to add the MCF process to the Terms of Service) but will wait for some feed back before doing so. BTW - Other Board members, if you've read the idea and have no problems with it please comment saying so. Then I'll know that we're all on the same page, and we might move forward.

[JoeF]

I am assuming the PM would be to the suspect.
I am assuming the suspect would be given password access to the MCF.
The suspect could copy and paste any discussion posts anywhere on Internet or private file.
The discussion would not be very secure as "private" if suspect decided to copy and publish any or all of the proceedings.
Would suspect be able to post in open forum during the proceedings?