Dragon

[TracyP]

If You are reading this, you have probably seen the PM from Steve. Is it time to initiate a suspension of two weeks for Dragon? I am not implying, I am simply asking your opinion.

 

[Travis Porter]

Yep, read Steve's PM. The jury I sat on last year had an idiot it, but that is not the topic.

I have no reservations if you want to suspend Dragon. Kill all the lawyers is from Shakespeare, but it doesn't matter. Shouldn't have been posted.

It does seem like Steve is on the hunt though.

 

[TracyP]

Yep, read Steve's PM. The jury I sat on last year had an idiot it, but that is not the topic.

I have no reservations if you want to suspend Dragon. Kill all the lawyers is from Shakespeare, but it doesn't matter. Shouldn't have been posted.

It does seem like Steve is on the hunt though.

Yes [STRIKE]sir[/STRIKE] :rotflm: Travis, I believe he is on the hunt too. That is the reason for this thread.

 

[ScottM]

Dragon has had more then enough fair warning. I be believe it is time for a "time out" for him.

On Steve Coles I believe he wants Doug's job.

 

[Tar Heel]

I agree with you Scott about Steve wanting Doug's job. That, IMHO, would not be good.

Dragon has had more then enough fair warning. I be believe it is time for a "time out" for him.

On Steve Coles I believe he wants Doug's job.

 

[Travis Porter]

I agree with you Scott about Steve wanting Doug's job. That, IMHO, would not be good.

+1

 

[Douglas Robinson]

I agree with suspending Dragon. I do not think Steve wants my job. He does want us to do our jobs differently. Striker's comments have merit, hence Dragon's suspension.

FWIW most of us and Steve will be at David's farewell dinner maybe we should take a moment and talk together.

Doug

 

[Tar Heel]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, overall, I believe this board has done a very adequate job. I also think Steve is a "you need to do it my way" type of person. The fact that we haven't, necessarily, done it his way, doesn't mean that we should. He has a super strict moderation philosophy that, IMHO, should be relaxed a bit. We had three mods taking part in the thread in question with, seemingly, no concern over the content. According to Steve's rant, they should not be allowed to do that. Dragon's response, to me, falls in the gray area. It is certainly not a black or white issue as to whether it violated site posting policy. The gray areas are always the most difficult to deal with. He was not ranting, being malicious, or otherwise baiting the mods. He was stating an opinion over a ridiculous jury award. These type things happen in life and people talk about them. Someone, using a very rigid moderation philosophy, would have a problem with it. It is interesting to note that it only after Steve's post that it seemed to become a problem. I'm not defending Dragon because he certainly has been quilty in the past. I just don't think this is quite as blatant a violation as most seem to think. As I said, gray is hard to deal with.

And I still believe Steve would like to have Doug's job.

I agree with suspending Dragon. I do not think Steve wants my job. He does want us to do our jobs differently. Striker's comments have merit, hence Dragon's suspension.

FWIW most of us and Steve will be at David's farewell dinner maybe we should take a moment and talk together.

Doug

 

[Travis Porter]

Well.... Maybe he doesn't want Doug's job, but he might be wanting Tracy's so he can be king of the moderators.

 

[Douglas Robinson]

First, speaking from experience, unless you have read the entire trial transcript, you can never tell if a jury verdict is valid or not. And sometimes event then you can't. Having litigated I can absolutely tell you with confidence that reporters get a lot of their information wrong.

Second, Steve and I have talked, I do not believe he wants to be president. He does miss the site programming.

Third I believe that this thread should have been put into moderation sooner. At the very least to get an idea if fuurther moderation was warrented. There are multiple violations in this thread and the moderators should ahve been quicker instead of posting to the thread.

Fourth, I do not always agree with Steve, but I do here.

BTW: Just stating an opinion is not a valid excuse for violateing the policies.

 

[McRabbet]

I was away most of the day and missed the thread (Froglip's re-opening of the Ryobi saw injury trial) until nearly 9:00 PM tonight when I logged in. I've spent the last 90 minutes reading all of the threads and agree that Dragon must be suspended for his actions. As for Steve, he is frustrated because (I believe) he sees many of these posts in Black and White and in the old days, he would act unilaterally. He doesn't like to operate in Committee mode -- in some ways, I agree that we do beat some issues to death without taking needed or even precautionary action. And in a few cases, we have over-reacted and done some pre-emptive moderation when it was not warranted.

I also believe that Tracy does need to proceed with a positive announcement to the membership urging everyone to keep the website on track with good woodworking threads and to remind everyone that the Off Topic forum is for non-woodworking topics. We encourage members to report on topics of interest, but it has been abused by a few that lead discussions that violate our policies by getting into politics, guns, violence or other prohibited areas. Guys, we need to remember our silent majority -- they are getting disgruntled because of the lag time between a bad thread or post and decisive moderator action. I don't want to see us taking pre-emptive action, but we should not delay moderating clear policy violations as soon as they appear.

One last point, I would welcome Steve to the Board if he decides to run and is elected, but remember that the Board elects the Officers and the majority rules.

 

[scsmith42]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, overall, I believe this board has done a very adequate job. I also think Steve is a "you need to do it my way" type of person. The fact that we haven't, necessarily, done it his way, doesn't mean that we should. He has a super strict moderation philosophy that, IMHO, should be relaxed a bit. We had three mods taking part in the thread in question with, seemingly, no concern over the content. According to Steve's rant, they should not be allowed to do that. Dragon's response, to me, falls in the gray area. It is certainly not a black or white issue as to whether it violated site posting policy. The gray areas are always the most difficult to deal with. He was not ranting, being malicious, or otherwise baiting the mods. He was stating an opinion over a ridiculous jury award. These type things happen in life and people talk about them. Someone, using a very rigid moderation philosophy, would have a problem with it. It is interesting to note that it only after Steve's post that it seemed to become a problem. I'm not defending Dragon because he certainly has been quilty in the past. I just don't think this is quite as blatant a violation as most seem to think. As I said, gray is hard to deal with.

And I still believe Steve would like to have Doug's job.

I don't know about Steve wanting Doug's job, but I must say that I admire thre rest of Stuart's comments above and I concur 100%. I also agree with Doug's comments about reporters getting a lot of facts wrong, but have personally seen attorneys strike potential jury members solely because they were experienced in the subject matter on trial, presumably because they felt that a SME would be harmful to their cause.

Although personally I would not have voted to suspend Dragon, I do support the majority opinions here and Tracy's actions 100%. I must have missed the post that "went over the edge".

In many ways I wish that I did not have the business needs that are preventing me from running for an additional term. I have thoroughly enjoyed the interaction with all of the BOD members over this past year, as well as being able to contribute my thoughts and suggestions regarding the operations of North Carolina Woodworker. I will miss that opportunity, as well as our interaction. You all have been great to work with, and I really appreciate the fact that we do not have any "cliques", etc; everybody seems very comfortable in expressing their thoughts, listening to others, and then selecting the best overall course of action.

In closing, presuming that Steve returns to the BOD I would counsel all that irrespective of the fact that he founded North Carolina Woodworker, we have become an independant organization and as our 501C3 becomes a reality your responsibilities are towards the organization, even when that is contrary to the founder's wishes.

Scott

 

[Douglas Robinson]

If Steve does run he will have to learn to function within the 7 person BoD construct. This is no longer the one man show it was under his sole leadership. He may find that hard.

What has been one of the best things about being on this BoD is that everyone of you has, IMO, acted on what your personally felt was the best interest of the organization. For that I say thank you.

Doug