I will use this topic to explain certain (apparently less than obvious) RULES about how this BBS works.

It is possible to over-react. It is possible to react in the wrong manner. It is possible to use the BBS to air problems in a way that disrupts the normal use of the BBS.

EXAMPLE ONE: Person A posts something insulting to Person B. Person B posts an insult in reply.

WHAT'S WRONG? The rules say no insults. Two wrongs do not make a right. You have NO right to post an insult because you were insulted.

WHAT DO TO? You DO have the right to complain to SVC or SPP and ask to have the insults deleted and the offender admonished (and for repeat offenses, suspended for various times.

EXMAPLE TWO: Person A posts something insulting to Person B. Person B complains that I did not delete the insult.

WHAT'S WRONG? Maybe something, maybe nothing. Most likely, you didn't email me (or you did so during a time I could not get to my Email) and I didn't notice because I don't read that topic (or can't read much on the home dial-up).

WHAT TO DO? Report the problem by Email and wait for my reply to your Email. If you ask me to delete it and I say I'm not going because I don't agree it's a violation, you can calm down and deal or leave, as you wish.

EXAMPLE THREE: Person A posts something insulting to Person B. Person B demands the right to post an insulting reply to Person A and that it remain posted for the same number of hours that Person A's insult was on the board.

WHAT'S WRONG? Person B violated the rules by posting an insult. Person B has NO RIGHT to post an insult and does NOT get to make up new BBS rules about equal time for being insulting.

WHAT TO DO? Email your report of the rules violation as above.

EXAMPLE FOUR: Somebody has a complaint about somebody (an ADB employee or contractor, or a convention official, or a retailer, or whoever) not getting something done fast enough. He posts "reminders" in many topics unrelated to the issue.

WHAT IS WRONG? This is a misuse of the board, and confuses the hell out of everybody else in the other topics. (What does a Federation Aegis Frigate -- FFA -- have to do with Star Fleet Assault?) It is NEVER a good way to handle a situation and it makes YOU the bad guy.

WHAT TO DO? Email the person in question about not doing the job he undertook or which ADB assigned him. If you don't like his first three answers, email him again and CC someone (or more than someone) at ADB and note in your email to the person who had disappointed you that you have CCed the company about this.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 08, 2008 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Somebody posted: "They closed the topic so I will post this here, but expect the powers that be to delete it...."

OH COME ON.

You already know you're breaking rules, so why are you breaking rules? If you know we're going to delete it, don't post it!

How about this? Any time that happens, it's a seven day suspension because you already admitted you knew not to do it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Misuse of Information: Yet another way to get suspended

Continuing a heated discussion offline without the consent of both
parties is considered a misuse of the information on the BBS. Rule 6
states: Nothing from this BBS can be posted to any other forum without
permission from ADB, Inc. Such permission can never be given to
unauthorized sites. No one is authorized to copy email addresses from
this BBS and use them for unsolicited email.

What to do if you receive unwanted email.

Tell the person you do not want him to email you again. If he does, set a filter to block his email. If the situation persists,
contact Jean and she will deal with the situation. Do not escalate the
argument as ADB is not going to be the arbitrator in a private war.

Consequences for continuing to send unwanted email.

The consequences for continuing to send unpleasant emails can be
suspension from the BBS. In addition, the offended person may choose to
report you to your IP provider.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, December 16, 2008 - 06:07 pm: Edit

The following was posted today by a user, and is reposted here with our replies:

USER: Okay, this is getting crazy. Some people are allowed to post, but not links.
ADB: Because the articles he posted links to were biased and tended to cause flame wars. For what it's worth, the other 1499 users didn't post inflammatory links and are allowed to post links.

USER: Some messages get edited to remove the content;
ADB: Only when the content violates the BBS rules. Note that it's actually easier to delete the content than the whole message. When a violation is posted, we delete it. If that "empties out" the entire post, we sometimes go delete that blank post, and other times leave it so the poster knows he crossed a line and broke a rule.

USER: some messages get vanished entirely with no warning or notification
ADB: Only when the content violates the BBS rules. We often send people an Email when they break a rule, but sometimes we just leave the post to tell them that. We have a lot to do and often do what is easiest.

USER: but it's a bannable offense to repost them.
ADB: Yes, because the violated the BBS rules. If something is deleted because it broke a rule, why would reposting it be ok? Why would reposting it NOT receive a greater punishment than the original post. Think of it this way. You walked on the grass where the sign said do not walk on grass and were warned. You then, deliberately, walk on the grass again. Wanna guess what's going to happen? and whose fault it is?

USER: It's allowed to make political arguments, but only if you follow them with "but that's politics and we aren't allowed to discuss it."
ADB: Politics are banned because people cannot discuss them without misbehaving. People are NOT allowed to "make political arguments" no matter what they follow them with, but many people note that the conversation cannot proceed in that direction due to the "no politics" rule.

USER: Why even have a BBS at all? Just have a web log.
ADB: We have a weblog (two of them) but we also enjoy and benefit from the calm and respectful posts of the 1500 users who do not fine the rules unreasonable. Fifteen hundred users seem to be able to use the BBS without breaking the rules. Since the rules are here to promote a friendly exchange of views, and 1500 people accept the rules and post here frequently, it’s clear that the rules are good, fair, not simply accepted but fully supported by users who WANT rules to keep people from making trouble. The rules are here to keep everybody friendly.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Mike Powers has been "banned for life" from the BBS, SFBOL, the forum, all tournaments, and all other SFU activities, by a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors.

He will, we have no doubt, continue to sneak back in under fake names, pretend to be "new" guy who doesn't know the rules, cause trouble, waste our time, make your lives miserable, and generally behave like a two-year-old spoiled brat. We could take "security" steps to keep him out but these would inconvenience every one on the BBS every single day. When you see this jerk show up, let us know to ban him again.

The charges and specifications against Mike Powers include:

10/10/07: Mike gets the plug pulled on a conversation in ST Fans for being rude. He is warned that his behavior is not acceptable.

1/18/08: Mike is banned from the Kingdom topic for saying "The King said X and therefore..." when in fact the King had said quite the opposite. He did this twice, and clearly was being deliberate. Mike is, again, warned that his behavior is not acceptable in polite company.

1/22/08: Mike Powers posts on copyrights are deleted after a series of exchanges where Mike doesn’t get it about copyright being the law and you don’t get to re-write the law because you don’t like it. Mike is warned (again) that his behavior is unacceptable.

7/13/08: Mike is told to stay out of the Kingdom (again) after posting in the topic after being banned from it, and for being deliberately rude and insulting (again). Mike is warned (again) that his behavior is unacceptable.

7/14/08: Mike sends an email saying he is quitting the BBS after being banned from the Kingdom topic.

7/28/08: Mike Powers posts several posts on the BBS, returns and deletes them. SVC mentions publicly he doesn’t know why Mike is doing it.  Jean questions him about what is going on. Mike tells her not to use a particular email address for him again and that the matter is resolved. The disappearing posts stop. Mike is warned (again) that his behavior is unacceptable.

7/31/08: Mike does limited posting on the BBS despite having said he was leaving.

9/17/08 Earliest post by "Richard F. Smith", a fake name used by Mike Powers who is pretending to be a "new" user. Such registration is fraud and an offense of the highest order. "Richard F. Smith" makes numerous posts which are rude, offensive, upset other users, and violate the rules.

9/27/08: Mike Powers posts on BoardGameGeek slamming Fed Commander and SVC for "banning people for disagreeing with him” (such charge being an outright lie). Most people point out on that forum that Mike is off-base.

12/12/08: “Smith” gets several offensive posts whic violate the rules deleted. Jean Emails "Smith" to explain why. We did not know at the time that "Smith" was Mike Powers using a fake name to cause trouble. He was, clearly, making a deliberate attempt to get himself suspended.

12/15/08 “Smith” makes a point to ask Mike Grafton for a link. (Mike Grafton was banned from posting links because he was linking to inflamatory websites.) Mike Powers/Richard Smith was obviously trying to cause trouble and break the rules.

12/16/008: “Smith” makes a post in Financial Crisis that again questions deletions and is rude. He makes another rude post in RWM (violating rules). This post gets him suspended for 7 days. Jean discovers the fake identity and pushes this to 30 days.

12/16/08: Jean identifies "Smith" as Mike Powers, and calls SVC at home late at night while Leanna was recovering from surgery. "Smith" is publicly identified as Mike Powers. This unusual step was required because "Mike Powers" said not to email him and "Smith" said he doesn't read his Email. Jean refers his case to the Board of Directors as she cannot impose a harsher penalty.

12/17/08: The Board of Directors, instead of working on new products, takes time to review the file of his posts and offenses and notes that Mike Powers not only cannot behave, but is determined to deliberately misbehave, for no reason other than to cause as much trouble as possible, both for the company and for you, the customers. In order to protect the customers, and having exhausted all other avenues, Mike Powers is banned for life from all SFU activities.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 - 12:49 pm: Edit

Flamer Personality Disorder has now been identified as a mental illness. This is kind of dry humor but it's not really funny and we all know of this "type" on our own BBS.

http://amasci.com/weird/flamer.html

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 04:41 pm: Edit

JOE STEVENSON: Your behavior on the BBS Is unacceptable.

Your behavior on the BBS has driven away customers and is driving away more customers.

Your behavior on the BBS has caused 90% of the flamewars in the last year and is taking too much of my time and Jean's time.

You have contributed much to the game, but you have caused several times as much damage as you have created good. The cost-benefit ratio of keeping you around is too high.

This is not a "one last chance". You have had one last chance too many times. You have burned me too many times when I defended you to others and watched others leave when I refused to kick you out of the BBS.

One of the deepest regrets I have in my entire life is not stopping your return the last time you showed up, long after having been banned, and just started posting, without permission or apology or without asking if you could return. I thought you had grown up. I thought I could trust you. You abused that trust, betrayed it and betrayed me.

Do not EVER post on the BBS or the Forum again. This is a lifetime ban. There is no appeal. There is no reversal. If you post again, it will be deleted. Do not email me and ask if you can post. You cannot. This ban cannot and will not be reversed.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 04:41 pm: Edit

If anyone ever sees Joe Stevenson post on this BBS again, contact the management (myself, Steve Petrick, Leanna Cole, and/or Jean Sexton) immediately.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 12:18 pm: Edit

It is not ADB, Inc.'s policy to discuss disciplinary matters in public. However, since Paul Scott has chosen to take his case public, we will point out some factual errors in what he has posted elsewhere as a response to Jean Sexton's email to him.

Paul Scott states

---

Quote:

"Last year, in RAT 28 I was suspended from the BBS and not allowed to participate in RAT 28 because I was purportedly disruptive. My "disruptive behavior" at that time came from my publicly objecting to the suggestion from SVC (and contrary to the strong wishes of the Judge) that because of a communication problem, more players must be allowed to enter RAT 28 AND (importantly) they would get to do so with full knowledge of every ship selected by every player and with certain knowledge that the vast majority of opponents would not be a first round match."

---

---

Quote:

" About two months later, I was again suspended from the BBS and banned from all future RATs (pending submission of my 4 articles), for calling out publically Mike West for duplicitious posts in relation to a proposed FC rules change (the change to EM)."

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 02:03 pm: Edit

While Paul Scott's misbehavior shows a pattern, it is not the pattern for which he was punished, but the individual acts.

He was suspended from the BBS, temporarily, more than once, for misbehavior on the BBS. Anyone who misbehaves in the same way gets the same suspension; this was nothing special about Paul Scott. Anyone who does what he did would be suspended (on just about any BBS, not just ours) and no one who did that would NOT be suspended. Paul Scott has demanded that we apologize for and cancel the suspensions, but we cannot do that. They were correct, he earned them, and it would make it impossible to suspend anyone else who broke the rules. Paul Scott is not above the rules. There is nothing further to be done on this matter, as he is not currently under suspension. However, as he has been suspended before, as provided by the suspension procedure.

Paul Scott was suspended from events for an unrelated matter (not keeping his promises to send his articles). He was NOT suspended from RATs for misbehavior on the BBS, but for not keeping his commitments and for not meeting his obligations. (Already barred from RAT 29 and later events, he was suspended from RAT 28 for the extreme nature of his personal attacks on an officer of the company; that was due not to his disagreeing with the company, but in making the attacks personal and abusive.)

If he sends in his articles (assuming they meet standards as his previous articles did), his suspension would be lifted. Indeed, if he would send in the articles right now (he claims they are complete) then he would be un-suspended, and Co5N would be re-sanctioned, and this whole mess (which he made) would end. It's entirely up to him.

It is sad that Paul Scott's poor (and unreasonable) reaction to our even-handed enforcement of the rules (rules that 98% of other users have no problem with) has led him to withholding the articles, which triggered the event suspension. It is Paul Scott who is linking the two very different suspensions, not ADB, Inc.

There is nothing ADB, Inc., can do here. We cannot apologize for suspending someone from the BBS who broke the BBS rules, and only Paul Scott can send in the articles to lift his event suspension. Many have encouraged him to do so, as we have.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 03, 2009 - 11:42 am: Edit

Carl Magnus Carlsson is permanently banned from the following topics: Liberals Only, Conservatives Only, Real World Military, Hypotetical Situations, and Global Climate Crisis, and all other non-game discussions.
There is no further appeal, and no violation will be tolerated.
It is clear that he cannot and will not behave, and will insist on continually misbehaving, and we simply cannot afford the time it takes to deal with his deliberate misbehavior.
We remind everyone that Carl has previously been banned from the entire BBS after an exhaustive process of warnings, reviews, and suspensions, and was allowed back in only on the basis that further misbehavior would not be tolerated.
If Carl continues to post in non-game discussions, he will be liable for a re-imposition of his previous lifetime suspension from the entire BBS.
Carl is already prohibited from going to the entire php Forum.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Friday, August 05, 2011 - 02:35 pm: Edit

Les LeBlanc's account has been deleted at his own request. This is a non-punative deletion. He remains in good standing and may return at any time so long as he agrees to follow the Board Posting Rules as documented to the left. (http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/board-rules.html)

Jean
WebMom

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 14, 2012 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Brandon Lally is banned from RWM (Real World Military) and all other non-gaming topics. This is a lifetime ban caused by his most recent (and totally incoherent) post (accusing me of not being me? totally delusional!).

There is no appeal. There will be no review. There will be no reinstatement.

Posting in those topics will result in an immediate suspension of posting privileges for the entire BBS at the usual escalations (7 days for the first violation, 30 days for the second, 365 days for the third, lifetime for the fourth).

This is by order of a 3-0 vote by the Board of Directors. It should be noted that had he posted something that vile on any other BBS run by people who care about the users, he would have been banned for life from their entire boards.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 09:52 am: Edit

Aaron Staley's account has been deleted at his own request. This is a non-punative deletion. He remains in good standing and may return at any time so long as he agrees to follow the Board Posting Rules as documented to the left. (http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/board-rules.html)

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Wednesday, March 28, 2012 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Justin Royter is now a member in good standing, so long as he follows the BBS rules.

Jean
WebMom

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Aaron Staley's suspension has been increased from seven days to three months. After his posts earned him a suspension, he refused to honor that. He posted again twice in a row and a third time later. His egregious verbal abuse of people and the company could not be ignored.

This is specifically not a banning. He will be allowed to post again in mid-May.

Jean
WebMom

By Jean Sexton Beddow (Jsexton) on Wednesday, July 20, 2022 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Joe Stevenson's ban has been lifted. He is permitted to post on both the BBS and FC Forum.

Jean
WebMom