Caution new members!

Shop deals on ebay
xelexo
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Gold Refining Forum

Help Support Gold Refining Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Refining Rick said:
Well, I do pray. Often and with passion. I will pray for you Todd. God speed on your recovery.

Please. Lets not slide into insulting others beliefs. My God is far from imaginary to me.

Rick
Click to expand...
While you have every right to believe as you wish, there's a very good reason why RELIGION has no place on this board. It is highly controversial and divisive, and is often offensive to those who have totally different beliefs. We are seeing ample evidence of this, today, in world affairs.

In general, people do not enjoy hearing the unfounded beliefs of others, which is often the cause of considerable dissension. That, needless to say, has a way of disrupting the board, taking energy away from its intended purpose.

You can easily avoid being the recipient of comments you find unkind by not making mention of your religious views. I highly recommend that in the future you observe that level of behavior. If you wish to pray, do it privately, without making mention to others.

Harold
 
Note that spaceships membership on this board has been withdrawn. He has a history of repeatedly being disruptive and failing to observe board rules. That won't be tolerated. If he returns, and I expect he will, he will be, once again, deleted from the board. If he persists, a report will be placed with his ISP.

Membership on this board is not a right--it's a privilege, granted to those who agree to observe the rules set forth by administration.

Harold
 
Harold you know I respect you and your views but I find that this decision on banning Spaceships a little difficult to understand, I admit I know him personally and he can be a little headstrong but his knowledge of e scrap and values of the same were of outstanding value to the majority of members of the forum who work on this type of material, never been my strong point unless in big volumes, and he tried to pass on his hard earned knowledge much the same as you did when the forum was a little smaller and with many fewer members.
I am not trying to cause ripples or trouble but if spaceships was banned why not the others who made similar quasi religious remarks, I follow no religion but believe it is up to everyone to follow their own god and religion but not to force it on others and I'm happy not to cause problems over others views or beliefs, that was why the no religion , politics rules were sensibly put in place.
As you know I'm aware of incidents elsewhere which recieved in my opinion the correct action but this seems a little unfair, we need discipline and rules but also flexibility that allow odd strays from the right path to be tolerated, maybe a warning or comment from a mod by PM, but banning seems a little harsh for an off the cuff comment with no malice intended.
If I'm wrong in my views I will happily accept your decision but some clarity about this may set the record straight not just for me but others who may feel the same, it cannot be one rule for one and a different rule for others, we are a brotherhood of scientists against a very hostile outside world who would love to see us forced to cease our activities as we mess with dangerous chemicals and toxic wastes.
The bottom line, we stand or fall together, we need to be united and scientific, we need clear guidance and leadership, we don't need disunity or squabbles ruining this forum, we have to move forward and that means e scrap for most members or visitors as they can get it free or cheaply, with spaceships gone one of our most knowledgable members, who shares, is missing, I can see no logic in this decision for the forum as a whole.
 
I am not speaking for Harold and am speaking only for myself. I like Jon, I really do. People have to know where the boundaries are to function in polite society. Jon does not have anger issues, he has boundary issues. He's passionate about things and it gets him into trouble because he doesn't know when to stop for his own good. The police will let you collect many speeding tickets but eventually, they will revoke your licences to drive. If it were one thing with a space of time before the next thing, it may not seem so bad. When Jon gets something in his mind, he will doggedly not give up on it.
 
I will not get involved in the issue regarding Spaceships. I would, however, like to know what has happened to Todd. If he posted something after 22 May and I missed it, I am sorry.

Past time for coffee.
 
Nick you said it in a way I would not be able to due to poor command of english. I am torn as Harold is a dear friend of mine, somebody I do hold in special place in my heart but somehow I feel that Jon should get chance to come back. He was not as disruptive as other people who got banned, I mean that he is now in the same category as people who were outright disruptive like dr whose name better not to be mentioned & co.
 
I have noted that the amount of Sniping has been greatly reduced over the past few week's
I fully back Harold's decision and think the board exhibits less hostile behaviour as a hole.
Some time's people can not avoid friction as it is in there nature and they do very well at the expense of others.
In a garden you can not let one plant over shadow others with less aggressive tendency's.
 
nickvc said:
Harold you know I respect you and your views but I find that this decision on banning Spaceships a little difficult to understand, I admit I know him personally and he can be a little headstrong but his knowledge of e scrap and values of the same were of outstanding value to the majority of members of the forum who work on this type of material, never been my strong point unless in big volumes, and he tried to pass on his hard earned knowledge much the same as you did when the forum was a little smaller and with many fewer members.
I am not trying to cause ripples or trouble but if spaceships was banned why not the others who made similar quasi religious remarks, I follow no religion but believe it is up to everyone to follow their own god and religion but not to force it on others and I'm happy not to cause problems over others views or beliefs, that was why the no religion , politics rules were sensibly put in place.
As you know I'm aware of incidents elsewhere which recieved in my opinion the correct action but this seems a little unfair, we need discipline and rules but also flexibility that allow odd strays from the right path to be tolerated, maybe a warning or comment from a mod by PM, but banning seems a little harsh for an off the cuff comment with no malice intended.
If I'm wrong in my views I will happily accept your decision but some clarity about this may set the record straight not just for me but others who may feel the same, it cannot be one rule for one and a different rule for others, we are a brotherhood of scientists against a very hostile outside world who would love to see us forced to cease our activities as we mess with dangerous chemicals and toxic wastes.
The bottom line, we stand or fall together, we need to be united and scientific, we need clear guidance and leadership, we don't need disunity or squabbles ruining this forum, we have to move forward and that means e scrap for most members or visitors as they can get it free or cheaply, with spaceships gone one of our most knowledgable members, who shares, is missing, I can see no logic in this decision for the forum as a whole.
Click to expand...

Nick

Thank you for posting this & I agree with each point I underlined in your above post - this banning of Jon has been bothering me from the moment I saw it had happened & I have been trying to figure out how to address it with out causing conflict here on the open forum

I have been a member of this forum for going well onto 6 years now & in that time I have watched Harold ban a lot of people & I have agreed - completely - with each & every one of those banning's because (1) the member was in "clear" violation of forum rules & (2) the member was given fair warning - in the thread of the violation - thereby giving the member opportunity to apologize &/or get back in line --- the banning then ONLY took place if the member persisted down the path causing disruption that brought on the need for a warning in the first place (& for that matter it gave other members opportunity to weigh in on the issue)

Nether of these things took place with this banning (of Jon) & as a result it is my opinion that this banning is wrong --- flat out wrong --- which I have in fact discussed privately with a couple of the moderators & a few other of our long term active contributing members

Harold --- I need you to know that my opinion of your banning of Jon is flat out wrong has nothing to do with my taking a side in what I know is a personal conflict between you & Jon

Though it is true that I like Jon & even consider him a friend - if it was a question of choosing a side based on who I consider a greater friend - I would without question have to side with you --- & that is because "in large part" I OWE much of my knowledge & success in the field of refining to all the help you personally gave back when I first joined this forum --- & I have told Jon as much & that I would not allow the personal conflict between the two of you be a deciding factor in my own choice to consider each of you as a friend

With that said - my opinion that this banning is wrong is based on nothing other then the two above mentioned points

This "off the cuff" comment made by Jon - used as a reason for banning him
Haha me neither. I gave up with imaginary friends when I was but a mere boy
Click to expand...

is weak at best - very weak --- it is weak because off the cuff remarks like this are made all the time here on the forum (whether religious or other wise) & they never lead to the outright banning of a member - especially if/when made by a long standing active "contributing" member !

They only become a problem if they continue down a path of a back & forth continuing comments that becomes disruptive which is ALWAYS then dealt with by a warning from a moderator asking the involved members to chill out --- banning then ONLY happens when the involved member(s) persist down the path ignoring the warning

In fact - I can post links to a fair number of threads where comments like this have resulted in conflicting disruptive activity - wherein "more then one" moderator has had to step in & ask that the involved members chill out - AND - when the members "did not" heed the warning & persisted in the conflict - it resulted in the thread being locked - AND - no one got banned --- this has happened often enough that I should not have to post links - but will if need be

In this situation - "after" Jon posted his off the cuff remark - Refining Rick actually posted a reply that could have lead to an on going disruption &/or conflict - but the fact is that Jon actually put an and to it when he posted
I was making an observation, and I don't recall you commenting on this thread Rick until now unless I'm mistaken? You're entitled to you opinions as am I. Let's leave it at that.
Click to expand...

So Jon actually policed the situation in the best interest of the forum before it became a matter of disruptive conflict

Dave - as a moderator - then issued a warning (which wasn't even really needed - as Jon had already said "lets leave it at that") to which Jon replied
Roger that Dave. Message received and understood.
Click to expand...

So - as much as I can agree that "in the past" - Jon has pushed the envelope concerning conduct (as have others) this comment of his just flat out was NOT reason for banning him - or - at best was weak --- VERY weak --- especially when you take into consideration the contributions he has made to this forum as an "active contributing" member

So - like Nick, Pat & others I have discussed this with privately (I will leave it up to them to voice it here) I agree --- this banning needs to be further reconsidered as to whether this banning should stand as is - or - be reversed to allow Jon back

Kurt
 
Geo said:
I am not speaking for Harold and am speaking only for myself. I like Jon, I really do. People have to know where the boundaries are to function in polite society. Jon does not have anger issues, he has boundary issues. He's passionate about things and it gets him into trouble because he doesn't know when to stop for his own good. The police will let you collect many speeding tickets but eventually, they will revoke your licences to drive. If it were one thing with a space of time before the next thing, it may not seem so bad. When Jon gets something in his mind, he will doggedly not give up on it.
Click to expand...

Geo

I fully agree with you (as underlined above) & as we know Jon pushed that very envelope over on Kens forum (RPM) which resulted in your needing to ban him there - which I agree with completely - Jon stepped over the line on Kens forum - way over the line & he got what he disserved as a result

However - as a member of both forums - I can not in any way see where that conflict has bled over onto this forum & what took place on the RPM forum should have absolutely no bearing on the standing of a member here on this forum

Granted - Jon may make off the cuff remarks here - but such remarks are made "all the time" by other longstanding "active contributing" members here without it resulting in banning

In fact - as I pointed out in my last reply - I can post links to a good many threads where such remarks lead to disruptive conflict such that more then one moderator had to step in & ask that the involved members chill out - & when they didn't - the thread had to be locked to bring it to an end --- I am talking about threads where no one got banned

The reason for this is because the contributions - as active members - is taken into consideration - in other words the invested interest they have contributed to the building of this forum has earned them a bit more latitude then new members that come here thinking they can insist on their own self important attitude of entitlement & demand it in a rude manner

In no way am I defending Jon &/or the sometimes off the cuff remarks he makes - all I am saying is that if the remark Jon made was reason for banning him --- then there are many other members (& I believe I can include myself in this) that should have been banned - long before now

Kurt
 
justinhcase said:
I have noted that the amount of Sniping has been greatly reduced over the past few week's
I fully back Harold's decision and think the board exhibits less hostile behaviour as a hole.
Some time's people can not avoid friction as it is in there nature and they do very well at the expense of others.
In a garden you can not let one plant over shadow others with less aggressive tendency's.
Click to expand...

Not really true Justin - whether intended - or not - we see a bit of "Sniping" here in this thread :arrow: http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=23963#p253389

enough so (that whether intended - or not) Jerry (whether right or wrong in his conclusion) felt he needed to make this post :arrow: http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=23963&start=60#p254349

Kurt
 
This forum is not an isolated place on the net, what we do on other sites and in real life can and will have consequences of how he are seen here. If I scam people on eBay it will come back and hit my reputation here. Should we allow scammers here just because they haven't scammed anyone on the forum?

Banning is a blunt tool that is used both to punish members that doesn't behave but it is also used in preventive ways to keep those that we don't want here, like scammers and spammers.

What Jon did on Ken's forum resulted in a ban there and if I was in Harold's place I would have done the same. To say that we should totally ignore that incident is in my view stupid, because it showed a side of Jon that we don't want to have here on this forum. Once you have shown your true color you will have to behave better than most to remain a member.

To my knowledge Jon has been warned several times over his behavior here, some of it before I became one of the moderators.

Göran
 
You know, if you guys want to challenge Harolds' decisions, that's up to you. But just stop and think for a minute what this forum would be like if "He" Harold were to quit.
I mean he has stated before that he has nothing to gain by being here.
And these other forums I hear made mention of now and then, I am sure can not even begin to compare to the success this forum has enjoyed.
 
As long as there are humans involved in the governing of what other humans do, no matter what it may be, there will be inconsistency. Fact of life on planet Earth. It's how we deal with it that counts.
 
nickvc said:
As you know I'm aware of incidents elsewhere which recieved in my opinion the correct action but this seems a little unfair, we need discipline and rules but also flexibility that allow odd strays from the right path to be tolerated, maybe a warning or comment from a mod by PM, but banning seems a little harsh for an off the cuff comment with no malice intended.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your views, Nick.

It's simple, folks. I had several exchanges with that individual over the course of time. His response to me was that I was bullying---that I had no right to reign in those who refused to abide by the rules of the board---a fact reflected in his previous sig line. In his world, it's a badge of honor to be disrespectful, to ignore rules with which he might not agree. Unfortunately, this board ISN'T his world. In other words, when I tried to resolve issues (privately), I was, for lack of a better description, given the finger. He refused to heel, and he refused to live up to a commitment he made to another of the moderators, that he would abide by the rules of the board. He clearly was unable, and proved it time and again.

I am sick to death of hearing how much this guy contributed. I don't give a rats butt how much a guy contributes--when he is disorderly, refuses to abide by the simple rules we have, insults and otherwise directs readers, well beyond his level of authority, he needs to be reprimanded. If, in his mind, the required reprimand is bullying, he clearly is not of the quality that is expected of readers here. The only recourse is to remove him from the board. That's precisely what I did, and it's precisely what needed to be done.

I made it known, long ago, that this individual was the cause of my first absence from the board. He had a way of keeping things on the edge---with the accompanying acrimony---and I made the mistake (BIG MISTAKE) of not banning him when I should have, the result of my thinking that he was contributing, and, maybe, that would be a bit harsh. Turns out it would have been the best thing I could have done, and it SHOULD have been done. I apologize to each and every reader for that, and I won't let it happen again.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I do NOT regret removing him from the board, and would do the same thing again, TODAY. I would also file a complaint with his ISP, ensuring that he was put to some level of inconvenience. I will not have an individual come to this board and disrupt it as he did. I have an obligation to Noxx to keep this board running smoothly---an obligation I take very seriously. Until such time that I leave willingly, or that I am relieved of my position, those who prefer the fight to proper behavior have much to fear from me, as I won't tolerate individuals who can't, or won't, behave. I am not the least bit concerned with what they may have contributed. That doesn't buy ANYONE the right to misbehave.

Kurtak----I appreciate your thoughts, too, but in this case, I didn't make a mistake. I'd ban him again, in a heart beat, as he was warned by me in my second to last communication with him that the slightest misstep would be his last. He knew the price he'd pay, but he didn't think it would happen. I am a man of my word. If I pledge to ban someone, barring a good reason, he WILL be banned if he screws up. He did.

Göran

Thank you, sir! My hat is off to you for your incredible ability to see things as they are. You have earned my undying respect.

To all: Let this be a learning experience. This board does not, and will not, play favorites. In order to remain here, each reader will abide by the rules. This isn't a "good ol' boy" network, whereby some folks can get away with things, while others can't. The rules apply to everyone.

Harold

Edit:

One person, alone, will allow jon back on this board, and that person is Noxx. I will personally remove him time and again unless I am told otherwise by the boss.
 
kurtak said:
Harold --- I need you to know that my opinion of your banning of Jon is flat out wrong has nothing to do with my taking a side in what I know is a personal conflict between you & Jon
Click to expand...
The only conflict between jon and me is that he refused to behave. He was NOT blindsided. I contacted him, offering him the opportunity to explain why he shouldn't be banned. What I got in return was a smart comment about how it might make me happy. He showed no sign of remorse, nor has he ever shown any sign of willingness to cooperate with the rules of the board. To him, anything he wished to say was appropriate, and he made it clear that it was his right to voice his opinions as he saw fit. He had previously been forewarned that the next misstep would be his last. He thought that was a joke. It wasn't. If a reader hopes to get on my bad side, make light of my suggestion to behave. That will do it every time.


Harold
 
I only know a part of the story, but I know enough to have an opinion.

I liked Jon and until now I still do despite of his rebelious tendencies ("of all the spirits that deny, the scoffer is the least offensive to me", J.W.v.Goethe lets the Lord say in "Faust I")

BUT on a ship there is only ONE captain, who is responsible to keep the ship sailing, and that captain IS represented by the moderators. Jon did know this. He knew that he would be banned. He hazarded the consequences, while choosing his concept of honor, he sacrificed consciously his memberships for his convictions. I respect this. No need to regret anything on any side.

Harold did well and he deserves my loyalty just as this forum does. Saying so openly, is my concept of honor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top