| Author |
Message |
iain
Moderator
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:38
Quoting: rpmobsession I was grumpy, and pissed off at a newbie who had a very very flawed argument.
Because someone wasn't in agreement with you, when you said that their tongue should be ripped out for having a celebrity as a personal hero, is - in your opinion - grounds to shoot them out?
Two wrongs does not make a right, RPMO.
Quoting: rpmobsession All I want back is the ability to freaking throw notes from spycam
I believe I speak for all of OTF when I say "tough cookies".
|
Feeble
Moderator
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:54
And now could you please address the community and explain why the prime directives are not being unilaterally enforced in this case? 
|
rpmobsession
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:57
I'm so glad you are speaking for all of OTF now. I'm sure the rest of OTF is completely thrilled to have you speak for them. And, thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, but her argument was flawed because it was poorly constructed and had limited support. And, that comment, was meant to be extreme and harsh. So, I'm glad you keep using it over and over. But, don't twist my words to mean something they don't. And, I guess shooting someone out in regards to a disagreement in opinions is something common to not only measly Cl6's but the leading force of this chatroom. That's good to know. It should go on our welcoming banner.
|
rpmobsession
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 02:00
I was wrong. Hal was wrong. I didn't apologize. He hasn't apologized. I don't have an armory. He still does. No matter how you look at either situation, it stinks of power and corruption.
And, that's the last I'm going to say on this issue. I have more exciting lands to be escaping to.
|
iain
Moderator
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 02:00 · Edited by: iain
Quoting: Feeble And now could you please address the community and explain why the prime directives are not being unilaterally enforced in this case?
Stepping back for a moment before I can answer your question - in an ideal world, if you were me, precisely what would you do to "unilaterally enforce the Prime Directives"? (It must logically be something that I am not doing at present, by your implicit assertion that the rules are not currently being "unilaterally enforced".)
Please don't read a sarcastic tone in these words, by the way - none is intended. It's a genuine question, before I can answer.  (I know that tone of voice sometimes gets misplaced on the internet.)
|
iain
Moderator
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 02:04
RPMO,
I'm afraid that your argument (if any) is incoherent, chaotic, and illogical.
Quoting: rpmobsession I was wrong. Hal was wrong. I didn't apologize. He hasn't apologized. I don't have an armory. He still does. No matter how you look at either situation, it stinks of power and corruption.
We are able to agree that your actions were in the wrong.
There is one primary, overriding, reason why HAL has armoury access just now, though, and you don't. That is this: I believe that an objective observer would believe that HAL is unlikely to remove someone for not breaking the rules in future, with armoury access; you, however, are. By your own words.
|
Feeble
Moderator
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 02:20
Thank-you for the clarification question, I have no problem talking rationally to those who want to.
In this issue, A senior officer has neither expressed apology, or offered recompense for:
a) belittling a chat room user in their opinion when it was asked for expressly
b) shooting out said officer without warning, or without just cause
c) Stripping not only that officer but yet another officer of their chat rights and login access (a ban of sorts, no matter how we play with the words)
d) Further belittling that officer in private email
e) not stopping extremely harsh words and personal attack sent from another officer in higher echilon circles
f) incites discent in the community in his own email with, and I shall quote 'anyone who agrees with [that officer] is welcome to join him. But he won't be at OTF.'
after a long history of a certain amount of other incidents that are beginning to come out of the wood work...
There are numerous PDs and ISA protocols being broken, not to mention just incongruous and bad behaviour which is not being accounted for or discussed or explained to the community. I think we deserve an explanation as to
a) why we have ISA to punish some members actions, and not others
b) why those actions have not been followed through in this case - regardless of the rank (we are often told that it matters not who breaks the rules, as seen in Candice's case)
c) why the apologies and admissions of fault have come from other people's usernames, and why there has been no accountability for such actions.
I think that's fair.
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 02:41
Lee, do I disgust you? I haven't showered in 15 hours.
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 02:44
For the record, this is pot stirring! *waggles her fingers at folk who know what she's talking about* I promised to punish you all! I'm going to make you all write love poems to Hal.
*points* That was my attempt at humorously reminding some people of a request by someone they respect. If it made you angry...uh...well that wasn't my intention.
|
majin_fett
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 02:48
Stop thread hijacking. 
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 02:49
I hate you!
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 03:01
Uh *points* Majin and I were totally kidding, btw. This brief commercial break was brought to you by reality. Now back to our regular programming...a big giant spat.
|
daecrist
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 04:30
A big giant spot? Like the 7up spot? Or like Data's cat spot?
Fun fact, Data's cat spot had the miraculous ability to change gender depending on who was writing the script for a particular episode.
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 04:46
This is not a case of 'could have been handled better' - this is a case that rules and procudures, as clearly pointed out by Aeon and Phoebe, were broken and not by myself. No amount of posting off-topic messages in this thread is going to derail me from asking for an apology and an assurance that the OTF rules apply to everyone high and low. If the rules do not apply to everyone they are meaningless.
|
shakeycat
Moderator
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 07:47 · Edited by: shakeycat
There once was a fellow named Hal,
He's always been my pal,
He shot out the Doc,
And gave him the talk,
Now become good friends they shall.
|
tiamai
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 10:01
Well.... I agree with Babel, if I didn't in the past, I certainly do now.
This whole thing (and I didn't witness it I may have been ironing at the time, I'm only going by this thread) has just highlighted everything that is wrong here.
As Lee, said,
"One rule for one. One rule for another. Sometimes this so-called community disgusts me."
So, I guess that by saying that, I can now leave for Alder Hill.
Or we can just throw some eggs, that's what we do with politicians who flaunt the rules 
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 12:06
Jeremy, well I actually don't think you're wrong in wanting an apology. But I also think you hve to be prepared to deal with it if you don't get one.
|
austins
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 12:18
To quote Monty Python... "Help, Help, I'm being repressed..."
At this juncture it is incumbent upon me to point out the nature of this "incident".
Firstly, we had an emotional outburst from everyones favorite repressed time-lord. No offence Jeremy, but there's nothing new there.. This is not the first time you've been at the heart of a "repression" here at OTF.
Secondly, we had Hal, who I really don't know all that well, as I was phasing out of OTF(Pun intended) by the time he was really active, shoot Jeremy out, on what seems like questionable grounds.
Thirdly, we have Lee, throwing a little tantrum about Jeremy being removed, and I have to put that one down purely to geographic location.. I mean lets face it, there's really not much to do for fun in somerset. Unless you like sheep...
So lets ground this a little...
i.> Jeremy was removed from OTF for expressing an opinion about the current leadership..
So what?
Firstly... to quote the great and mighty CT.. "This is just a chatroom!" Your life is not over, you were not really shot or violated in any real sense of the word, a few of your desired IP packets did not reach their proposed destination. Move on!
Secondly, OTF is not, and has NEVER been, a democracy. Don't like what the leadership is doing, offer constructive advice, and No Jeremy, "Resign" even prefixed with a pretty please with sugar on top, is not constructve.. Hal is in this position, by virtue of Andrew Maxwell passing on the torch.. (And No.. it was not because it had to be another Andrew).. If you STILL do not like it... Leave..
It's that simple.. It's always been that simple, and if you can't handle that, then you need to get out in the real world a little more, and spend a little less time in front of the computer and avoid letting an online community get you so worked up.
Don't get me wrong, as you know I met my wife through OTF, and am shortly about to have my fourth sprog as a very direct result of this community which has been built here, but while the friendships created here are very much real, the chat itself is not real life... it is, just a chatroom.
ii.> Hal shot Jeremy, when Jeremy asked him to resign.
Again, So what!
Yes, it was probably an emotional response, not thought through to it's conclusion at the time (IOW, Did not allow for over-reaction of the target), and perhaps it was not even warranted..
But the fact remains that the rules at OTF are ultimately decided, and enforced at the top level, by the current CiC. There is no bill of rights, there is no constitution to hold the powers-that-be to account, because THIS IS A CHATROOM...
I have never been at the CiC level, and I have phasered people for less.. My goodness I have even phasered people for FUN!..
iii.> So Jeremy wants an apology, then franky this should have been finished in private, via email, and who knows, as I said I don't know Hal that well, but could potentially have been over with a "Yeah, I'm sorry, it was an over-reaction, you're welcome to your opinion, next time you might consider coming to me with your issues rather than publicly airing them."
But no, Jeremy played the Sun Newspaper Sensationalized Forum post card. Well, now you've turned it into a political smear campaign, and general whining competition..
Gone are the real chances for a quick amicable resolution to the issue, because you have made this so much larger than the issue really is.
iV.> Which really just leaves us with Lee, bored, and looking for something to fill his time, as there's really nothing better to do in somerset than stir up a virtual insurrection.
So.. Phasers at 30 paces.. Everyone grow up, and move on!
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 13:17
Jon, if I were you I'd keep quiet given the disgusting and libellous way you described me on the EC list.
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 13:23 · Edited by: babel
OK maybe 'libellous' is pushing it but my god Jon what you said was beyond the pale and I won't give any thought from now on to anything you have to say.
|
Feeble
Moderator
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 13:34
Why does everyone suggest this is all about personal vendettas?
Jon, yes it is a chatroom - but that does not mean we are above respect and honour, and admitting when we are wrong. In fact - calling again to our principles - that is the very notion on which this place is founded. If the leader cannot rule by example, and the head of the disciplinary body cannot judge without sufficient bias, then there is no point in having this body - it should be a free for all.
I do -love- how everyone is sticking into the emotional side of these arguments, digging in the claws and bandying about all sorts of personal jabs that they know all too well will hurt the people that they are aimed at, and yet, when people are asking dispassionately and reasonably for an explanation - I think the community deserves more than 'it's a chatroom', and is owed a well addressed reply that isn't circular and offers some real recompense.
Sure, we all make mistakes, but those of us who make them must acknowledge when our foibles come to light. This is not a matter of 'stick a bandaid on it and make up' because this issue is more than the PDs and it is more than the personal issues. We can write cutesy limericks that belittle people's feelings and opinions (a theme seems to be running here) and we can make jokes to say that we shouldn't be stirring the pot - but I for one want my question - which was phrased in multiple parts so no confusion was made and which was thought out as rationally as possible - addressed without bold accusations such as 'you're just taking sides' or 'you want to overthrow the administration' or 'you have no idea what you're talking about'. These are questions we all diserve answers to.
And finally, just because we're on the end of a computer line doesn't mean we don't have feelings, and personal barbs dig deep sometimes more over a phone line than they do in person... can everyone take a breath before they respond to a post because sometimes I don't think we realise how much we can hurt with a single word... thank-you.
|
robert_atkins
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 14:03
personally I think that we could all use a little military decorum, after all Hal and others are commanding officers on this site. Sir and Ma'am should NOT be optional, no matter whether you agree or not with the person of higher rank. I remember those days and I liked those days.
Does it mean that people with higher rank are infallible, no but we need to make logical arguements and not ones based on emotion.
I have no idea about this situation, I was not on when it happened, but I do believe that we need to respect everyone else. A little kindness goes a long way.
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 14:16
This is not the military.
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 14:31
You know,
I genuinely believe there will be no agreement here. No amount of diplomacy will solve it. Yup, I was, shall we say, 'feisty' in the original incident but I felt things had reached a point where something had to be said and I was given that opportunity. No, I don't think my subsequent reaction was over the top, but I'm never going to convince people, who think it is ok to slag people off on mailing lists, of that, am I?
I am of the opinion that the 'OTF Spirit' is a dying commodity here now. It might well be that people disagree with me and persevere here and that is their right and I would not debate that. But clearly I am no longer a valid part of this community. Part of that, I accept, is my inability to accept certain things. But I honestly believe that the OTF I grew to love no longer exists.
I will wish you good luck here. If anyone fancies helping out at Alder Hill we'd be glad of your company. I'll still pop back and say hello in here, don't worry about that, but my days of 'raging against the machine' are over. I hope you're happy.
|
daecrist
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 15:07 · Edited by: daecrist
For the people who want some justification Babel was removed for violating Prime Directives 1, 6, and definitely 7. Removal without a warning isn't unprecedented in the case of particularly abrasive troublemakers, and after talking it over with the ISA Director and Andrew Maxwell it was determined that it was justified in this case.
And let's please call it what it was. A lamer was shot out of the chat room for causing trouble, you weren't banned from the chat. Access rights were briefly stripped (after discussion with Maxwell, I might add) to avoid another Alivan incident. Everything was restored to you the next morning on my orders. You weren't banned at any point and no one had to intercede on your behalf to have your access rights restored.
You want to blame me for everything that is going wrong lately, but the fact that the chat is even still here is a testament to the work Iain and I have done behind the scenes. Since that time you have been stirring the pot and showing a lack of mature leadership, not me. I apologize if you feel out of the loop, but you made the choice to be out of the loop when you resigned from the EC in a hissy-fit several months ago.
You could have contacted us at any time in private if you had problems. You made peace at the end of May and we informed the community that there would be a break in the month of June so I figured everything was okay, but rather than voice private concerns you decided to air a drama bomb, try to incite a departmental strike that would further hamstring the site, and poach people to a chat room where you call the shots.
So we have continued violations of #7 on the forums.
You're obviously not happy here, and I'm not in a position to give you the thing which would make you most happy here at OTF.
It looks like you're finally reaching the stage of your tantrums where you decide to pick up your ball and take it home since the other kids refuse to play by your rules. You've been saying that you were done with this place and never coming back for months now, yet you continue to show up and say the chat is doomed despite the fact that it continues to exist and people continue to enjoy themselves in the chat.
So please, if going to Alder Hill is what will make you happy then by all means do so and save us more drama. After all, how can we miss you if you never leave?
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 15:19
I didn't break those PDs. Say it as much as you want but I didn't.
You're leading OTF down a dark path, Hal. You've abused your position to insult me and belittle me and twisted rules for your own personal gratification.
Accuse me of tantrums or whatever. Plenty of people know the truth of this and every subsequent you make to belittle me just backfires even more. I repeat, I did not incite a strike. You accuse me of this without any foundation. You can ask the people who went on strike if you like - but given you're not too brilliant at listening, what's the point? I wopuldn't have said anything but for you driving your teamleaders to the point of mass resignations which was the case prior to 'the incident'.
I won;t stoop to the level of you and others here by levelling insults. But rest assured Hal that I and others have an opinion of you that is definitely not a good one.
|
daecrist
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 15:26 · Edited by: daecrist
Quoting: babel You're leading OTF down a dark path, Hal. You've abused your position to insult me and belittle me and twisted rules for your own personal gratification.
Babel, have you been listening to yourself? You've done nothing but hurl insults and bile and vitriol across the forums and the chats for months now. I'm sorry if you think that OTF is going to a dark place, but it would have been in a nonexistent place right now without Iain and I stepping in and shouldering the responsibility. Believe it or not, we do this thankless job mainly because we like OTF and want to see it continue in some form, not because we are Internet megalomaniacs.
You're quick to point out that I'm universally disliked by your group of friends, but at least I'm willing to listen to criticism. Every time someone points out what an ass you're making of yourself you chalk it up to the very character assassination you're so fond of practicing yourself and then refuse to listen to their points.
So again, you've said repeatedly that you are leaving. I'm starting to think that you are more interested in stirring up more drama than you are in the future of OTF given your continued public ranting. This sort of behavior has been tolerated from you in the past, but it's starting to wear thin after ten years of ranting and drama.
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 15:49
Hal . . .
I'm sorry, but with your last post you've just disappeared under my radar. It's really not worth me responding to.
|
daecrist
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 15:53
Quoting: babel OK maybe 'libellous' is pushing it but my god Jon what you said was beyond the pale and I won't give any thought from now on to anything you have to say.
Quoting: babel Hal . . . I'm sorry, but with your last post you've just disappeared under my radar. It's really not worth me responding to.
As predicted by...
Quoting: daecrist Every time someone points out what an ass you're making of yourself you chalk it up to the very character assassination you're so fond of practicing yourself and then refuse to listen to their points.
Take your ball and go home.
|
majin_fett
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 16:19 · Edited by: majin_fett
This really isn't to cause a problem or anything, but what does PD #7 have to do with any of this? I'm confused.
EDIT: Sorry, I'll post PD #7 as I have seen it, in case there's a modified set of Prime Directives and I found an archived set.
All work for and by OTF members is the property of Outpost 10F and cannot be used on any other site without the explicit written permission of the creator and Outpost 10F.
* Hence, all OTF pages are copyrighted.
Any member found "stealing" work for use on other sites will be, if found guilty, demoted or even suspended from the Outpost.
* By submitting/creating original material in an OTF related endeavour, the owner of the basic intellectual rights to that creation allows OTF to use said material, and continue to do so even after he/she has left the community.
* OTF reserves the right to edit/modify works submitted by the creator.
|
