[JoeF]

The quote of policy as from an email from the administrator Rick Masters; I just forwarded you a copy of the email.

[Bill Cummings]

Could the first key stroke in the post's text area pop up a synopsis of the rules?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Could the first key stroke in the post's text area pop up a synopsis of the rules?

My boss has a saying: Anything is possible with code (software) that hasn't been written yet. So yes, it could be done exactly as you've described ... with enough work.

On the other hand, it would be relatively easy to put it in the Terms of Service that we've discussed in the past. We would just need to come up with the proper wording, so that's a good place to start.

I somewhat like the version posted on Sep 23, 2012 12:38 pm
https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1129&p=5239#p5239

The US Hawks has a policy that we do not allow attacks by anonymous members who do not give their names.

But it's not complete. Here's a suggestion:

It is U.S. Hawks policy that posts considered to be critical of others are not allowed to be posted by members who do not make their real names known in those posts. The consequences for violation of this policy will depend on the severity and frequency of the violation(s). These potential consequences include:

• A Warning
• Removal of the post
• Restriction to the "Free Speech Zone"
• Temporary Banning
• Permanent Banning
• Legal Action (both civil and criminal)

Thoughts??

[JoeF]

Removal of the post

; copy of post sent to poster with note:
Post a redact sans personal attacks, thanks.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Removal of the post

; copy of post sent to poster with note:
Post a redact sans personal attacks, thanks.

This could be a problem with spam attacks like the recent hawk891 vulgar attack.

1. Sending vulgar content via email could be a problem/risk.
2. Sending dozens, hundreds, or thousands of emails could be lots of work.
3. Sending large numbers of email could violate our hosting service agreement.

I like the notion that people should not lose their work, but we have to do it carefully.

[Bill Cummings]

Joe, please try that approach on Michael and we'll see how it works.

I do agree that it's a higher road to focus on the actions, but some people do have bad motives or conflicts of interest that can be best explained by criticisms of the person and by guesses of their motives.

I, for example, feel that Michael is currently motivated by extreme shame in how he failed to stand up for you on hanggliding.org. That's not a fact that's known to be absolutely true by me, but it is a useful concept in helping to understand Michael's current behavior. I don't know how that concept of mine could be shared and refined if I couldn't express it in writing.

If things were done as Joe suggests during the USHPA expulsion process it seems to me that presumed
Motivations wouldn’t have been an element that carried all the weight.
This is the reason I made the motion at the RGSA to remove the same language that USHPA uses for expulsion.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I think there are many aspects of this topic that may deserve further discussion, and I welcome that. But at this time I'd like to simply state what we're already doing so that it's properly represented in our terms of service. As mentioned in my earlier post, the current policy is stated (as far back as 2010) in various posts but it's not easy to find. So I'd like to simply add our current policy to the terms of service so that we won't have a repeat of the hawk891 fiasco.

With that thought in mind, here's my motion:

  I move that the U.S. Hawks should add the following text to our terms of service:

It is US Hawks policy that we do not allow attacks by anonymous members who do not use their verified real names. Anyone violating this rule may be restricted to the "Free Speech Zone" or banned altogether at the discretion of the moderator. The method of verifying the member's real name is at the moderator's discretion. All such moderator decisions must be reported to the Board and may be over-ruled by a majority decision of the U.S. Hawks Board at any time.

  

Note that this is a "stop gap" measure to protect us from future "hawk891" attacks. It was something that I used to do using my own judgement in the past. But as we move toward a permanent Board, these kinds of issues need to be better defined. You may also note that the position of "moderator" hasn't been formally defined in the U.S. Hawks organization. That's currently understood to be me, but as we continue to establish a permanent Board, that role should be defined.

I am hopeful that we can defer those discussions and pass something quickly now to deal with immediate threats to the forum.

Thanks.

[Bill Cummings]

I think there are many aspects of this topic that may deserve further discussion, and I welcome that. But at this time I'd like to simply state what we're already doing so that it's properly represented in our terms of service. As mentioned in my earlier post, the current policy is stated (as far back as 2010) in various posts but it's not easy to find. So I'd like to simply add our current policy to the terms of service so that we won't have a repeat of the hawk891 fiasco.

With that thought in mind, here's my motion:

  I move that the U.S. Hawks should add the following text to our terms of service:

It is US Hawks policy that we do not allow attacks by anonymous members who do not use their verified real names. Anyone violating this rule may be restricted to the "Free Speech Zone" or banned altogether at the discretion of the moderator. The method of verifying the member's real name is at the moderator's discretion. All such moderator decisions must be reported to the Board and may be over-ruled by a majority decision of the U.S. Hawks Board at any time.

  

Note that this is a "stop gap" measure to protect us from future "hawk891" attacks. It was something that I used to do using my own judgement in the past. But as we move toward a permanent Board, these kinds of issues need to be better defined. You may also note that the position of "moderator" hasn't been formally defined in the U.S. Hawks organization. That's currently understood to be me, but as we continue to establish a permanent Board, that role should be defined.

I am hopeful that we can defer those discussions and pass something quickly now to deal with immediate threats to the forum.

Thanks.

Sara rule.

[JoeF]

  I second the motion "Sara Rule" that has been just stated.  

[wingspan33]

May I vote first on this issue?

If so, I vote   YES   on the "Sara Rule"