[Bob Kuczewski]

I also believe that Grisham has intentionally fabricated his complaint with the intent to wreak havoc here on the US Hawks forum.

I agree with this 100%.

But to impose a time out, we need to have that as a stated policy.

I believe one of Michael Grisham's goals is to force us to do the things done by Jack, Davis, and USHPA. Then he can say "see, the U.S. Hawks is just like all the rest".

It certainly is easier to do as Jack, Davis, and USHPA have done, but then we become them. In the long run, if we can avoid being like them, then people will see that and appreciate us even more. But it is trying in the short run.

I want to be very fair to Michael regarding his ability to post. If he continues as he has, he will give us a mountain of quotes that discredit him. I think he's starting to see that, and I think he's slowly starting to moderate himself a bit. He's not used to seeing this many good people disagreeing with him, so I think that's the key. We should all be as firm and professional as we can be. We want to write a history of posts that speak well of us. I apologize to all fellow directors that I've not always been as professional as I could have been.

[wingspan33]

But Bob, a "Time Out" is not banning someone. The fine points of a "Time Out" can be defined and then publicly announced. The difference will be obvious.

Sure, a person could lie and say they were "banned". But they could do that now, as a member who simply stops posting after they make the claim somewhere else. But a published "Time Out" could be investigated and "What do you know. That person wasn't really banned. What a F-ing liar! The US Hawks are willing to give him another chance even still!". This makes the US Hawks look good and the "Timed Out" member look bad.

I see a temporary membership revocation as a positive feature. In fact, we could offer it to the (offending) member and if they want to just quit and leave the site that would be on them, not us. The whole process would be held in a public topic so no negative crap could be claimed at some future point.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hi Scott,

This is a good topic to discuss and to establish as a policy.

We have had nearly a decade without needing these kinds of tools, but lately they would have been very useful. I see these attacks as a sign of our growing importance in the hang gliding community. What was Ghandi's famous quote?

[wingspan33]

. . . What was Ghandi's famous quote?

In this context I think it's this one -

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.

[Bill Cummings]

Scott is on to something here.
Perhaps we should formulate "The Grisham Procedure." (Like the Sara Rule.)
The only way I could see to sift through the flood of posts that Michael generated was to TRY not be distracted by posts before and after.
Here are some suggestions to contain such an uproar again.
The Hawks should have a cut and dried set of complaint pathways.
Members need to be pigeonholed into one pathway or the other depending on their complaint.
MG should have had to quote the exact rule being violated. As it turned out slander is/was a lousy fit and the Hawks should correct that.
MG should not have been free to allude to the rules in their entirety which is equal to throwing the whole book at the Hawks or an individual.
No expansive allusions to a complaint should be entertained only direct quotes highlighted within a link.
If someone doesn't follow the technicalities of the complaint procedure then BANG, DENIED BEFORE MOVING ON!
The moderator should move any associated posts, about the complaint, into one thread so that no one has to look anywhere but one thread. Even if it is just copies that are moved to one thread.
If a complaint thread expands too fast - lock it until everything so far can be settled then allow more input on the complaint to continue.
These are just ideas to awaken some idea not yet mentioned coming from the minds of board members.

[Bob Kuczewski]

. . . What was Ghandi's famous quote?

In this context I think it's this one -

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.

That's the one Scott!!   

[Bob Kuczewski]

That which doesn't kill you ...
    ... makes you stronger.

I think we learned a lot. I know I did!

I'm sure glad that one didn't kill us!!!     

[wingspan33]

Hello fellow Board members. Little Micky Grisham has started back in earnest to FLAME the "front page" of the US Hawks. It's time to stop this. As I've told Bob, "Give me moderator status and I'll revoke his membership.", or I'll give him a "Time Out" or restrict him to the Free Speech Zone. However it happens, something needs to be done.

But I think that leaving Bob blameless is important in this case.

Scott

[JoeF]

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

[wingspan33]

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.