Banned User

[BMCM Deane Smith]

It happened yesterday ... 3/30/07 ... so your inference using the the last few days is incorrect. I wonder if others have shared in the same fate as it takes two to tango, or have a urinating contest. There have been some ugly words directed towards Bill. But since I haven't seen a link to the "Rules", other than what was listed in the thread, I assumed they haven't been promulgated but have been applied to some earlier postings ... making that an ex post facto application of the unpromulgated rules and applicable punishments, very similiar to an incident over a decade ago.

I'm not a moderator, just a reader ... and it wasn't my call to make.

Joe...First, this situation is nothing like your example. Let's not muddy the waters.

After I saw the above comment by Joe, I thought I would created a thread and open this issue up for discussion. As some know, Bill Wells was banned from the board for 30 days. He is the first user that has been banned since the board started. This was not an easy decision for admin (5 chiefs) to make, but sometimes we have to make tough decisions.

The "Rules" that you speak of Joe will be posted to an appropriate part of this site as soon as we can. Bill was warned several times by several different members of admin and he decided not to change the type of posts he was making. Other members of the board have also been warned, but as of this morning only Bill has been banned. Admin doesn't want to ban anyone, but we will for the betterment of this board.

So, what do you think? Did admin make the right decision? Did we overreact? Did we act too quickley? Too tough? What do you think?

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

OK, I'll start.....

First off, I would say that you "suspended" him for 30 days, rather than "banned" him... just my choice of words, no big deal.

Second off, and I have said this on military.com as well, if I were running the show (never have, never will) I think I would do things this way...

First suspension = 10 days suspension

I would then keep doubling the suspension... e.g.

2nd = 20 days suspension

3rd = 40 days

4th = 80 days

5th = 160 days

6th = see ya next year

In my own mind, that would be enough to get anyones (well most) attention.

I think 30 days may be a little hard for the first offense. What did all those get that choose to do verbal battle with Bill? Even a warning? I bet not.

I find this almost humorous that Dennis gave good advise early on about making a decision to reply, or not to reply to Bill, and yet even Dennis choose to reply...

Choosing which battles you want to fall on your sword for, as we've all heard from time to time was clearly not followed here.

I had no problems with Bills posts.... I don't think Joe did.. and obviously neither did several others that choose not to reply... you decide.

As for any members that left because of Bills posts, in my opinion did so in a childish "temper tandrum" manner. They will be back.

Wray.. :cool:

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Deane,

The facts are:

The rules are not promulgated
The punishments are not promulgated
The others who engaged in the negativity are not punished for their participation. This includes you Deane.

The first two were exactly what happened a little over a decade ago.

Hey, if the "admin" deems my participation in those threads added to the negativity ... fine, I'll stand down for the punishment periods.

I viewed those who left using Bill as an excuse was just like the kid on the playground who said If he is playing, I'm taking my ball and go home.

As adults, we have a choice of responding or not responding.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Although, I wasn't part of the decision-making process that suspended Bill, I agree with the action.

It's true that we coud have ignored his posts and moved on to something else. But, as Stuart wrote, that might lead one of the non-Chief readers to believe that we agreed.

I also think that those who left the board showed poor judgement. I wouldn't abandon my Mess because I didn't like its loudest member.

I'll have the rules clearly posted by the end of the weekend, but posted or not, suspension was not unreasonable.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Dennis,

By all means if one disagree's and wants to state so as to squelch the position that all agree ... it can be done with civility.

I'll have the rules clearly posted by the end of the weekend, but posted or not, suspension was not unreasonable.

It will be viewed as unreasonable if the other participants remain.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

It's true that we coud have ignored his posts and moved on to something else. But, as Stuart wrote, that might lead one of the non-Chief readers to believe that we agreed.

Key word... MIGHT

That is a big assumption on your part.

Of course they (the non members) may have been smart enough to understand what was being accomplished by not replying...

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Deane Smith]

What did all those get that choose to do verbal battle with Bill? Even a warning? I bet not.

The others who engaged in the negativity are not punished for their participation. This includes you Deane.
[/list]

Wray...warnings were sent out...I sent them out. You'll just have to trust what admin is doing is fair/reasonable. Admin (by position) serves as our Chief of the Mess.

Joe...I have a terrible memory, please remind me what I wasn't punished for.

[BMC John Phillips III]

The first two were exactly what happened a little over a decade ago.

Hey, if the "admin" deems my participation in those threads added to the negativity ... fine, I'll stand down for the punishment periods.

Joe, first off, I would say that no matter how many times you have disagreed with people here, you have done it tactfully and carried yourself in a manner that Chiefs (retired or not) should. So I don't think you are in any jeopardy of being "banned" or punished.

Second I have to say in regards to the decade ago thing....man, let it go, let it go. I know it's gonna keep coming up from time to time cause there's gonna be another discussion where it just seems to fit. But seriously, until the Master Chief involved joins this forum and says - hey let's talk about this, my opinion is that we should let it go.

Third, given that example and applying to this situation doesn't really fit in my mind anyway. Why is it that as Chiefs, Senior Chiefs and Master Chiefs (former, active, retired, etc.) that we even need a defined set of rules to play by? Are we not Chiefly enough to figure out wrong from right? Can we not recognize when we are crossing the line? OK, maybe not always, but collectively and with the help of Admin we certainly should be able to. I know, I crossed the line before (even if it was just my little toe) Admin pulled me back and I didn't cross it again, at least not the same line. So why is that so hard for one person? Oh maybe this board not having clearly defined rules was part of "his lesson" and when he comes back from "vacation" he will tell us how perfectly his master plan worked and we will all be smarter.

Finally - to answer Deane's questions:
"So, what do you think? Did admin make the right decision? Did we overreact? Did we act too quickley? Too tough? What do you think?"

If anything admin acted too slowly, it was evident that this individual was here with one purpose (disguised as education) which was to spread hate and discontent. The action was overdue, although I am still not sure what the straw that broke the camel's back was - as I have stopped reading one individuals posts.

[BMCM Gary Keen (RET)]

First I would like to say that this is not a thread that should be open to the public. This is a conversation for the Chief's Mess without any "little flies on the wall". Actually I think the entire board should be password protected. However since that is not happening let me say this about rules. We are Chief Petty Officers!!!! I don't think we need any stinking rules!!!! An email from the administrators asking us to stop a certain behavior should be enough to get our attention. I believe that posting on this board is a privelege. The owner of the board has a right to ask me to stop posting in a certain manner, and if I fail to do that he has the right to suspend or ban me any time he wants to. I also think that it is ok for any member to not read any postings by BMCM Gary Keen. If you don't like my style my advise to you is to pass on reading my posts, then you will not be offended by what I say. The only problem I have with any of the posts made on this board is that they are made public. Anyone can read them. I believe that anyone posting or reading here should be registered. I like the idea that at least an attempt is made to control who posts here. I would also like to see that done about the readers.
Just my thoughts
Also how about attaching a spell check program that can be used by the retired people.
Gary Keen

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Joe...I have a terrible memory, please remind me what I wasn't punished for.

Deane,

Apparently so do I. I went back to review the core values thread and meant Stuart. I'm must be thinking all you BMs look alike here :)

I am truely sorry for my mistake.

I hope everyone has noticed I haven't said whether I agree or disagree with the suspension ... I've only addressed the unfairness of punishing one when it takes two to have these urinating contests. I've supported decisions of others for a very long time, and I'll support this one.

Right now the perception of bullet three is reality. Will that perception remain? That is the admin's call.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Second I have to say in regards to the decade ago thing....man, let it go, let it go.

John,

Right and wrong never go out of style. Using your logic, there should be no discussion of anything happening in the past, say, slavery, or a host of other "wrong" topics in my viewpoint.

In Periods of History Introductory Lecture (http://http://www.usfca.edu/westciv/Introlect.html) I found the opening quotes and the opening paragraphs interesting ....

To be ignorant of what occurred before you
were born is to remain always a child.
Cicero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero)

History is philosophy learned from examples.
Paulilius Syrus
First century BCE

and

Often, whenever the study of history comes up in conversation, someone, inevitably, will say "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." But what does this mean? At a literal level, nothing, for history marches on and never looks back. However, if we think of history as a web, each part separate but connected each to each, with reverberations at one part of the web felt at the other corner, understanding the parts, the past, makes sense. History is remembering. Our memories of the past certainly affect how we respond to the present, how we understand the events of our time.

Bill's tagline ... history is everything ... certainly applies.

As I said John, right and wrong never go out of style. I am bound by my oath to support and defend the Constitution to view every ex post facto application as wrong, whether committed by a former commandant and a former MCPO-CG, or a group of moderators.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Also how about attaching a spell check program that can be used by the retired people.

Speak for yourself old man.... If you need a proof reader, I'll be glad to do it for you;)

Wray... :cool:

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

In case anyone needs a refresher, here's wikipedia's (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto) take on ex post facto.

Justaposing what ex post facto is with the posts by the suspended person after the thread establishing the rules, but not promulgating them, you can decide for yourself if the suspension was indeed an ex post facto application.

I could be wrong and the suspension is the chicken and egg analogy.

Would any of the Chief's out there stand for some CO establishing a rule then prosecuting a seaman for breaking the rule days before the promulgated instruction? Please tell me I have that all wrong and you would stand firm against the CO to protect the seaman from being prosecuted under a rule passed days after the offense.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Chicken and egg as far as I am concerned. We never felt a need for posted-rules until very recently.

[BMCM Gary Keen (RET)]

We are not dealing with Seaman here, we are dealing with adult Senior Enlisted people, and some even more senior!! If I had a Chief that broke a moral rule of some sort, I would not support him even though the rule was not written down. I support Bills right to post, and your right to read Bills posts, and your right to ingore Bills posts, but if Dennis, Deanne and other members of the Administrative board wrote him emails and asked him to tone things down and he didn't, I cannot support him in this matter. It is that simple. I always wanted to support people that were doing the right thing. If you want to live on the fence, sometimes you fall off the side you do not want to be on. When you mess with fire you get burned. Hopefully Bill will do his suspension and come back and continue to give us the benefit of his knowledge and experience. I still say that there is no need for a bunch of "stinking rules". It reminds me of the people that I told were wearing improper things on their uniform who replied that the uniform regs didn't say they were not authorized. Or the person that left me an email on Friday after I had departed for the day stating unless otherwise instructed I will not be here tomorrow for my duty day.
Gary

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I agree that we shouldn't have to have rules, but it wasn't until recently that we were challenged for not having rules. So, that brings us to where we are today.

The rules aren't crazy, they're pretty much commen sense and what most Chiefs should already know and live by. Unfortunelty, the recent events have lead us to rules & suspensions.

As a reminder, below are the rules that will be posted on the site. Again nothing crazy here...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respect the Coast Guard and what it stands for. If you have an issue with a current policy, procedure tactic... Bring a solution and not just a problem.

Certain things are simply off limits: I.e. Peoples families, religion, gender... Things that we all know would have got us in a fight when we were teenagers if someone said something negative about.

ADMIN is the Chief of the Mess. As such, should have full support in moving, round filing, admonishing, removing threads or members as admin see's fit. Admin consists of several individuals and we should all trust that there is a consensus amoung the staff before such action is taken.

The underlying theme is simple respect. Respect for the other members of the board. Respect for the Coast Guard. Respect for our country. Respect for change.

[BMC John Phillips III]

John,

Right and wrong never go out of style. Using your logic, there should be no discussion of anything happening in the past, say, slavery, or a host of other "wrong" topics in my viewpoint.

Joe? Seriously? You are starting to sound like the banned one with that "using your logic" statement then twisting what I said to suit your arguement. It might work if people were not able to go back and read what I wrote. I never said we needed to forget about it, I never said we should not have a knowledge of it. In fact, thanks to the Core Values thread, I think we all know more about it than we ever wanted to know (at least I know I feel that way). Again, if that dead horse is to come back to life it should be the horse getting to decide to turn away from the light, not us pulling him back from it just so we can kick him a couple dozen more times. A good argument or persuasive discussion would include a lot more examples than just one.

Think of it like this, when Ford model T's started rolling off the line, was there a speed limit? Or did they establish one well after they produced a couple hundred or thousand cars?

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Think of it like this, when Ford model T's started rolling off the line, was there a speed limit? Or did they establish one well after they produced a couple hundred or thousand cars?

JP3,

I will not try to put words in Joe's mouth here, but I interpret his issue with this decision as the police writing the speeding ticket for breaking the law the day before it went into effect.

Where I disagree with him on this issue is that the individual had been PM'd and e-mailed regarding his posts and then he continued to post in the manner he did.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

Also how about attaching a spell check program that can be used by the retired people.
Gary Keen

The Firefox web browser has a built in spell checker.
http://www.firefox2008.de/us/


I read "Let it go" as, "Lets move on". As was said, don't forget the past, learn from it. Some of us will have to agree to disagree. Haven't we all had arguments with friends or spouses where you just simply had to, Disagree? They are still your friend or spouse, that will not change. (hopefully)

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And John, ....speaking of letting things go........claiming that you know what someone's sole intent was, is a mighty big leap. .....And you don't want me to start making comparisons, because I remember lots of stuff.......I'm also going to add that it's a cheap shot, when someone isn't around to response to the allegations.If you need help tracking down some of his positve contributions to the board, I can point you in the right direction. As Gary pointed out, he has a wealth of knowledge and experience that he could have supplied.

Joe, several of the members of the admin staff sent warnings. Several of us were also involved the interactions. That slowed the process in our decision making. Some of us had to take the advice of others and stop responding. I'm willing to argue that it doesn't take two to tango. Sometimes, someone stays on the dance floor, long after the music is over. Sometimes they yell loud enough, and get a new partner. Warnings were issued to other people as well. For the most part, they seemed to have responded to them. Some people are going act civil, others never are. I think that Admin was beyond fair is this action.

As part of the Admin staff, I've been fielding the complains for awhile now. I've giving out the same advice that I wasn't taking myself, until recently. I don't think that anyone can lump anyone else into any tidy packages here. People choose to post, or not to post for their own reasons. Drawing conclusions that anyone not wanting to stick around is childish....isn't really fair. Some people just don't see the point. Some people don't see the need to open themselves up to ridicule. Why post if someone is just going to dissect it, or twist it to fit their needs?

[BMC John Phillips III]

And John, ....speaking of letting things go........claiming that you know what someone's sole intent was, is a mighty big leap.

I don't claim to know too much, but when I do claim to know something it's either cause I know I am 100% right or there is little or no chance that I can be proven wrong. So....

I'm also going to add that it's a cheap shot, when someone isn't around to response to the allegations.If you need help tracking down some of his positve contributions to the board, I can point you in the right direction.

No offense Master Chief, but reread that. The second part here and the first for below. Should someone really have to point me in the right direction to find positive contributions from anyone here? I guess it could be fun, kinda like that geocaching, I can get a gps and search for them myself. Point is, here to defend or not, the positive contributions were few and far between.

Some people just don't see the point. Some people don't see the need to open themselves up to ridicule. Why post if someone is just going to dissect it, or twist it to fit their needs?

Isn't this similar to what you told me was a big leap? Not to say I disagree, but you are speculating about other peoples motives. Something you cannot prove according to what you are telling me. I think you are right, but I think I am right too.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yes John, someone should have to point out the positive things to you, if you're claiming someone else's "sole" purpose was negative. You're not looking for the positive things.....just the negative ones.

And John......you're speculating about what someone else's intention was....... I'm stating the reasons other people told me, when I asked them, why they were leaving.
You're taking shots at someone who isn't here to respond. I defending those who are no longer here to respond.
Not similar.....very, very different.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Thank you Steve for realizing my arguement.

I could care less if someone is suspended for breaking a rule as long as they broke the rule after the rule was in effect.

The other main point of contention was allowing those who also contributed to the urinating contest to escape a similiar fate.

As far as my inquiring about the rules, I took my lead from the words in the "Round File" ... where you put things that violated the rules. My sole interest was to ensure my compliance within the established guidelines.

[BMC John Phillips III]

The other main point of contention was allowing those who also contributed to the urinating contest to escape a similiar fate.

Historically, isn't it always the Senior Person that pays the highest price?

we can play this ping pong game of before the rule after the rule all day, bottom line is before the offense there was no need for the rule, people were using common sense and respect as per the newly established, already being practiced "unwritten rules." Wow this is just like the Core Values application, maybe "history is everything."

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Historically, isn't it always the Senior Person that pays the highest price?

In a defined chain of command ... yes.

Why proclaim that individuals are responsible for their postings if you want the senior person to be the scapegoat in the discussion?

there was no need for the rule, people were using common sense and respect as per the newly established, already being practiced "unwritten rules." Wow this is just like the Core Values application, maybe "history is everything."

I'm glad you can see the irony and the high correlation between those two events. It shines through your facetious statement.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Wow this is just like the Core Values application, maybe "history is everything."

John...you're more like Bill than you realize. You won't let things go, you have to be the last to respond and making these type of "History is Everything" cracks is as Stu said "Taking shots at someone who isn't here to respond".

Give it some objective thought and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Bill's tagline ... history is everything ... certainly applies.


Deane, you are reading way too much into it. You shouldn't compare me to Bill as he might not appreciate the comparison and is not here to defend himself. I know I don't appreciate the comparison, but I can let it go.

I was responding to Joe Jester's comments of agreeing with Bill (see above).

Joe, have you ever seen a case of an innapropriate relationship where the two involved were not members of the same command and the senior person paid the higher price?

Just as you can use statistics to show anything you want, we can both use history to show whatever we want. That's my point; whether you want to consider it facetious or not is up to you.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

John,

To be honest, no.

I do remember where a MCPO married a jg [same command]. I remember a SCPO marrying a PO2 [different commands]. And a few times where PO's married other POs within the same command. These were larger commands where both members weren't in the same food chain at their level.

I remember re-writing the rules of the Mess [Open Mess] addressing the instances when an authorized member is married to an unauthorized member.

I wasn't privy to how either command handled those situations during the courtship.

I've read alot of Good Order and Discipline's where XO's and OPS were in inappropriate relationships.

As far as your last comment ... Just as you can use statistics to show anything you want, we can both use history to show whatever we want. That's my point; whether you want to consider it facetious or not is up to you. ...

Some written words do not reflect the emotion of the body language when face to face and therefore subject to an interpetation different that the author's intention. Emotes sometime help, but not in all instances.

If you take a contrarian position, you should provide evidence that your position is the superior position. To date, no one has done that.