[wingspan33]

I am assuming the PM would be to the suspect.
I am assuming the suspect would be given password access to the MCF.
The suspect could copy and paste any discussion posts anywhere on Internet or private file.
The discussion would not be very secure as "private" if suspect decided to copy and publish any or all of the proceedings.
Would suspect be able to post in open forum during the proceedings?

Joe,

Thank you for responding.

1) You are correct about to whom the PM would be sent.

2) I figured that the person making the complaint would be allowed to "testify" during the MCF "hearing". I also think that they should be able to post to non-complaint related topics in the usual way until the hearing was concluded. However, if they posted further negative/complaining messages to other threads (during the hearing) then it would be best to end their active participation in the over all web site/forum. Good comment! I hadn't thought about that detail.

3) If the complainant participates in the hearing then it would be hard to stop them from copying and pasting to other web sites. There could be a rule specified that such conduct is not allowed during the process. But the result of the process should include the basic complaint and the decision of the Board. Posting the content of the "hearing" to a thread during or after the hearing would, again, be close to the same as putting the whole (negative) issue on the front page - which is what we are trying to avoid. So, another good observation Joe. A rule about not rehashing the hearing on the front page of the US Hawks should be part of the the processes' detailed instructions (these would not need to be included in the Terms of Service agreement).

4) The complainant, as described above, would be able to post elsewhere on the US Hawks as long as those posts where not complaint related (or separate complaints of their own). Again, Joe, thanks for the clarifying observation. Details such as this could/should be included as a "sticky" topic in the Member Complaint Forum.

Thanks for the response Joe!

[Bill Cummings]

Allow me to pull the lid back farther on the can of worms:
Suppose a complaint is valid. Sequestering the complaint
hinders brainstorming the best corrective action.

[wingspan33]

Allow me to pull the lid back farther on the can of worms:
Suppose a complaint is valid. Sequestering the complaint
hinders brainstorming the best corrective action.

Thanks Bill,

The idea with the Member Complaint Forum is that a (significant) complaint being made about a US Hawks member, or some US Hawks policy, would initially be communicated (PM'd) directly to one or all members of the Advisory Board. That would trigger the opening of an investigation or hearing about the validity of the complaint. Every member of the Board would be expected to participate (over some number of days or even a couple weeks if need be) in evaluating the complaint. That's where the brainstorming comes in. I think that five people putting their heads together should be enough to reach a fair result. If a member of the Board is part of the complaint, then that Board member could "testify" but they would have to be recused from the final decision on the matter.

If you're thinking that everyone looking at a completely public hearing/investigation of the complaint (taking place on the front page) would allow more brainstorming and a better result, then I would tend to disagree. At least I think the negative effects would be worse than conducting private deliberations. I can't imagine the general US Hawks membership enjoying the multiple weeks of Red's open and public complaints about Bob's Wall of Shame. I'd say the same about Grisham's weeks long complaint postings. I see that kind of public content as driving semi active, and possible new, members away from the US Hawks.

The US Hawks is not supposed to publicize complains of one type or another against a fellow member, or against the US Hawks' policies. We're supposed to "Promote, Protect and Serve Recreational Hang Gliding". Weeks/months long public gripe sessions undermine the more positive goals of the US Hawks.

Bill, if I haven't answered fully, or properly understood your concerns, then please post a follow up.

[Bill Cummings]

Maybe an open brainstorming of the actual conduct not permitted, a warning procedure, a discipline procedure, that would handle complaints is the way to go. Not actually front page an actual complaint.


Would it be a bad idea in light of our recent problem to ask for input on how the Hawks should remedy the next uproar?

It may not require mentioning Michael Grisham as the specific need for some type of disciplinary procedure because anyone that was paying attention that has the best interests of the Hawks in mind already knows that something must be done.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Good comments all around.   

Keeping people on their good behavior is an eternal problem when dealing with human beings. We're never going to solve that problem, so we can just do our best to keep it managable.

If there's one area where we might need some help, it's with topic proliferation (also known as "spamming"). I think we can always tolerate a few heated topics as long as they don't become the only thing visible. I think some of our members enjoy the fact that they get to see real discussions with real differences of opinion. That's healthy and it's what's missing on the eggshell forums.

One solution to the topic proliferation problem is merging of topics. The Forum gives moderator's the ability to merge topics pretty easily. When topics are merged, all of the posts are shuffled together by date. The only thing I don't like about it is the posts may appear out of context. It's not too bad if it's done quickly because there may only be one or a few posts in the new topic that get merged in. But if there are a lot of posts, it gives a worse result.

With those thoughts in mind, maybe we could come up with a merging policy when there are too many duplicate topics.

[Bill Cummings]

The Situation with Michael Grisham
1) I agree with Scott. MG’s posts make the Hawks forum look bad.
Something like a time out is needed to chill this behavior.
MG’s Cease and Desist post was technically flawed as is the wording of the Hawks Rules.
The Hawks need to post up front what is permitted and what is not as completely as possible.
A complaint procedure must be followed to avoid a temporary Time Out with possible Banning.
A Time Out and discipline procedure should be included in the Terms of Agreement while registering.
2) Joe was correct when he pointed out that MG admitted his intent of generating tenfold negative matter.
3) Scott agreed as Joe pointed out that delaying is likely to create a bigger problem.
3) Bob recognized as I do that keeping track of differing topics is hard. Combining such a shot gun pattern into one bullet hole would allow for an easier focus while researching.
4) Bob’s idea of listing each Board Member’s suggestion to find a commonly support action to be put on the table for a motion and vote is a good idea. (Which has inspired me to make this post.)
5) Bob states that we need to have a stated policy. (I agree.) Bob also states that we need to be firm and professional as we can be. (I agree.) I also agree that we want our history of posts to speak well of us.
(I agree.)
6) Scott’s Idea of publicly posting a Time Out so that the public could investigate on their own. (I agree is a good idea.)
7) Scott is correct when suggesting that the Board Members assume what would be now 4/5th of the responsibility for the direction of the Hawks voting on issues. It will disarm to a large degree the dyed in the wool Bob bashers. (This assumes that Bob will not invoke justifiable bashing.)
8) Joe has stated that MG needs a time out. (I will agree after the Hawks perfect the rules.)
9) Scott likes the idea of First Step being put in the Free Speech Zone. (I will agree after the Hawks perfect the rules.) Scott also would like to create a Member Complaint Forum. Joe has pointed out a way that some one could circumvent the privacy aspect of such a forum. (Until this post I had been misreading the word Forum as form.) Another idea of requiring more ID information to be able to post to more places than the Free Speech Zone. (This may require some more brainstorming.) Further, members not following the complaint procedure maybe subject to discipline.

10) Scott,

“Thank you for responding.

1) You are correct about to whom the PM would be sent.

2) I figured that the person making the complaint would be allowed to "testify" during the MCF "hearing". I also think that they should be able to post to non-complaint related topics in the usual way until the hearing was concluded. However, if they posted further negative/complaining messages to other threads (during the hearing) then it would be best to end their active participation in the over all web site/forum. Good comment! I hadn't thought about that detail.

3) If the complainant participates in the hearing then it would be hard to stop them from copying and pasting to other web sites. There could be a rule specified that such conduct is not allowed during the process. But the result of the process should include the basic complaint and the decision of the Board. Posting the content of the "hearing" to a thread during or after the hearing would, again, be close to the same as putting the whole (negative) issue on the front page - which is what we are trying to avoid. So, another good observation Joe. A rule about not rehashing the hearing on the front page of the US Hawks should be part of the the processes' detailed instructions (these would not need to be included in the Terms of Service agreement).

4) The complainant, as described above, would be able to post elsewhere on the US Hawks as long as those posts where not complaint related (or separate complaints of their own). Again, Joe, thanks for the clarifying observation. Details such as this could/should be included as a "sticky" topic in the Member Complaint Forum."

(I agree.)
11) Bill suggests opening up the creation of the Hawks discipline procedure to public comment.
12) Bob

“With those thoughts in mind, maybe we could come up with a merging policy when there are too many duplicate topics. “

Board members should look at these ideas so far and figure out which should be the place to start and then make a motion.

[wingspan33]

The Situation with Michael Grisham
1) I agree with Scott. MG’s posts make the Hawks forum look bad.
Something like a time out is needed to chill this behavior.
MG’s Cease and Desist post was technically flawed as is the wording of the Hawks Rules.
The Hawks need to post up front what is permitted and what is not as completely as possible.
A complaint procedure must be followed to avoid a temporary Time Out with possible Banning.
A Time Out and discipline procedure should be included in the Terms of Agreement while registering.
1) Joe was correct when he pointed out that MG admitted his intent of generating tenfold negative matter.
2) Scott agreed as Joe pointed out that delaying is likely to create a bigger problem.

Bill and All, I've let this issue rest a few days. One reason is that Bill's post above this one had SOOOOO much included it was hard to address it without making a VERY large post using quotes and the answers. What I've decided to do is take Bill's post in smaller sections.

At this point Grisham seems to have timed himself out. He's had not posts, negative or otherwise, for a number of days (two weeks?). So the matter of what to do with members posting serial posts with complaints about The US Hawks or one of its members seems to have disappeared for now. That doesn't mean we don't need a policy (and rule changes) for possible future events.

A lot of the above quoted text is about how different Board members feel about one member's repeated negative posts.

Ways to solve such a problem (regardless of who initiates the problem) include creating a Time Out Rule which would not be the same as banning someone. Another suggestion involves how to warn an offender or possible offender.

The suggestion I've put forward is to put an effective warning in the Terms of Service section which every member must read before being granted membership.

My idea is to describe that, in case of some complaint about a fellow US Hawks member or some policy of the US Hawks, a member must follow a Complaint Procedure.

That complaint procedure would include PMing one or all Board members with the details of the complaint/problem. The Board would then open a Topic in the (private) Member Complaint Forum, where the complaint would be considered. The complaint would be finalized by a vote by the Board on the validity of the complaint and the best way to resolve the complaint if it is found to be valid. The complaining party should be able to participate in this process. While this process is taking place posting publicly to the US Hawks web site with associated negative complaint posts (by the complaining party) would not be allowed. If the complaining party did so anyway, the process would require that they then only be allowed to post in the Free Speech Zone.

So by putting a "complaint policy" statement in the Terms of Service Agreement takes care of the way a "warning" is issued. This way a person becoming a member is automatically informed/warned about the proper way to present one or more complaints. The Terms of Service Agreement would state that failing to follow the complaint procedures may result in the maximum penalty of swift membership revocation. More moderate penalties may include being limited to post only to the Free Speech Zone or a temporary revocation of the member's ability to post anywhere on the US Hawks web site.

To avoid making the Terms of Service agreement overly long many details of the complaint procedures could be included in a "Sticky" topic in the Member Complaint Forum.

My plan takes care of the "How To Warn" problems and creates a "Fair Procedure" that keeps one or more negative topics and/or posts off the Front Page of the US Hawks.

.

.

[wingspan33]

. . .
3) Bob recognized as I do that keeping track of differing topics is hard. Combining such a shot gun pattern into one bullet hole would allow for an easier focus while researching.
4) Bob’s idea of listing each Board Member’s suggestion to find a commonly support action to be put on the table for a motion and vote is a good idea. (Which has inspired me to make this post.)
5) Bob states that we need to have a stated policy. (I agree.) Bob also states that we need to be firm and professional as we can be. (I agree.) I also agree that we want our history of posts to speak well of us. (I agree.)
6) Scott’s Idea of publicly posting a Time Out so that the public could investigate on their own. (I agree is a good idea.)
7) Scott is correct when suggesting that the Board Members assume what would be now 4/5th of the responsibility for the direction of the Hawks voting on issues. It will disarm to a large degree the dyed in the wool Bob bashers. (This assumes that Bob will not invoke justifiable bashing.)

On #3, Keeping track of different topics -

With 5 Advisory Board members it should not be all that hard to notice a member who is violating the Member Complaint Process (i.e., posting negative complaint posts to the public sections of the US Hawks web site). The "warning" about complaints in the Terms of Service Agreement would tend to lessen Flaming of the Front Page with complaint posts/topics. Of course, research would be involved in hearing a member's complaint in the private Member Complaint Forum.

On #4 -

Not that my idea is a "be all, end all" solution, but I started with wanting to simply ban Grisham just to stop the negativity. But we needed to give him a warning. So I thought of having a warning included in the Terms of Service Agreement. I think Bill thought of a Time Out involving a member only being able to post in the Free Speech Zone. I like that option if or when a member fails to follow my suggested Member Complaint Process. I think Joe sees the Grisham situation as a negative. It follows that Joe would think the same about some other member doing something similar. I feel that I have moderated my position and accepted and included other Board member's ideas into my thinking on the subject.

I would admit however that I have the most conflict with Bob. He doesn't like the idea of a Time Out because others (on other sites) could call it "Banning" and that makes the US Hawks (and/or Bob) as bad as Jack or Davis. Bob also really values Freedom of Speech, which is limited by not being able to complain openly and freely - in a public space.

But the US Hawks is not just Bob K. It is a group of hang gliding enthusiasts who have a generally positive and friendly place to communicate and to "Promote, Protect and Serve Recreational Hang Gliding". One member's "problems" do not have to be every members' problem. The community can remain positive and friendly while one members' complaint or complaints are addressed in a private and respectful manner. The resolution can/should even be made public so there's no "sweeping of problems under the carpet", so to speak.

Under #4 then, how long do we toss ideas back and forth? I think the Board has been talking about this general problem since January. I've made a suggested course of action based on more than my own perspective and favor hearing simple, to the point, responses and criticisms and even modifications that could make it better and/or simpler.

As for #5 -

I go right along with this position. That's why my idea has a stated policy - as included in the Terms of Service Agreement and as explained further in the "Sticky" topic in the Member Complaint Forum.

#6 -

I do think that defining a TIME OUT, regarding a member in violation of the complaint rules, placed in a public post, is the right way to go. People coming here to see why someone was "banned" would find the TIME OUT topic and realize somebody was lying to them. Who looks bad then? Not the US Hawks.

#7 -

If I'm reading you right, Bill, then you're talking about a member's complaint that is about a member of the Board. And in that case that Board member would be recused from voting on the resolution of the member's complaint.

And I would also say that if some member of the Board did something that deserved a complaint, then I hope the other Board members would resolve the issue by reprimanding, to one degree or another, the offending Board member.

.

.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I just wanted to say that I am very proud of the way the Board responded to all of the recent challenges.

Thank you.



With regard to the future ... it might be good to just empower the moderator (currently me) with the ability to use "good judgement" subject to review by the Board. Police are empowered to make arrests on the spot, but those arrests are subject to review and disciplinary action if unjustified.

I make this suggestion because I felt a bit timid in acting because I didn't want to overstep my authority ... because my authority isn't clear.

[Bill Cummings]

As Scott pointed out there could be copyright problems with our changing the Boiler Plate Rules.
Perhaps the Hawks should state a memorandum of understanding that we have chosen to additionally be guided
by libelous statements and deformation of character when the Board determines that disciplinary procedures
needs to be applied to a member.
What steps in the disciplinary procedure can we agree on?