Trevor has been given a time out.

[immortal_suby]

Maybe I just missed something, but this seems excessive and the whole event seems overly dramatized.

Two months seems like a lot for a first time offender...or even a second time offender. On nabisco, for every thing you do wrong, you get points. Personal attacks don't get two months unless it's at least the third ban for the same offense.

You are missing some due to posts that were moved to the admin area. This action was taken after multiple warnings. Some of the posts that were moved are actually back in place now.

Unfortunately, if Trevor doesn't come back, this forum and the SVX network in general will have lost a very large source of SVX intricate knowledge. I understand the rules that were broken here, but it is going to be a very difficult loss.

Indeed it will, but we have to enforce the rules evenly - technical knowledge and experience does not give you the right to break the posting rules.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by ensteele

Yes, you missed something.

I probably didn't miss anything, but maybe I feel this issue was given undue attention.

Many of us long timers have broken the rules plenty of times, myself included with the hurling of personal insults and other caveats rooted in anger and with provocative intent.
I personally do not recall ever being issued any warning, possibly due to the fact most minor conflicts involving myself resolve themselves quickly, but to the point and from what I've seen regarding the whole Trevor versus Harvey Quick Change issue seemed fairly tame in comparison. I guess from my perspective measures appear to have been enacted in prejudice, ample "fair warning" and ensuing said disobedience or otherwise.

A request if you please, as it is apparent Trevor holds enough sway on the forum to be permitted his own temporary banishment thread (or perhaps it is standard procedure just rarely witnessed), I would like to read from the horse's mouth if you will the exacting terms excluded from public review, and pertinent content in question verbatim.

I would look for it myself, but it appears to have been removed to a secret location.

[joe62890]

I had something smart to say but I figure I'll reserve my comments to myself. Stuff happens plain and simple. He'll be back in a month or two and hopefully things will be normal. There's no need for us to run rampage through our own village.

[b3lha]

Two months without Trevor

I really hope he decides to come back after two months and doesn't disappear for a couple of years like he did after the Porter speaker cable fight.

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by Manarius

Two months seems like a lot for a first time offender...or even a second time offender. On nabisco, for every thing you do wrong, you get points. Personal attacks don't get two months unless it's at least the third ban for the same offense.

This isnt the first, second, or even really the 10th time we have talked to Trevor. This has been going on long before I became an Admin here.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

I probably didn't miss anything, but maybe I feel this issue was given undue attention.

Many of us long timers have broken the rules plenty of times, myself included with the hurling of personal insults and other caveats rooted in anger and with provocative intent.
I personally do not recall ever being issued any warning, possibly due to the fact most minor conflicts involving myself resolve themselves quickly, but to the point and from what I've seen regarding the whole Trevor versus Harvey Quick Change issue seemed fairly tame in comparison. I guess from my perspective measures appear to have been enacted in prejudice, ample "fair warning" and ensuing said disobedience or otherwise.

A request if you please, as it is apparent Trevor holds enough sway on the forum to be permitted his own temporary banishment thread (or perhaps it is standard procedure just rarely witnessed), I would like to read from the horse's mouth if you will the exacting terms excluded from public review, and pertinent content in question verbatim.

I would look for it myself, but it appears to have been removed to a secret location.

We prefer to let most conflicts work themselves out. And most do, as you have pointed out. But some just perpetuate themselves relentlessly regardless of Admin/Mod internvention. This is one of those cases.

It wasnt so much that Trevor was challenging Harvey's work, as it was the manner in which he chose to do that. I few simple sentences removed from so many of his posts would have changed the tone entirely.

The parts you would have missed would be the endless chains of private messages between several of the Admins/Mods and Trevor. How he handled himself in those leaves a lot to be desired as well.

We posted this message, not because he has sway, but rather as a way to inform the membership. We did the same thing with Budfreak and Benebob. It is standard procedure and rarely seen, as we rarely ban people.

Originally Posted by b3lha

Two months without Trevor

I really hope he decides to come back after two months and doesn't disappear for a couple of years like he did after the Porter speaker cable fight.

I hope he comes back too, without the snide comments. But this statement goes to show just how long this has been going on. Porter hasn't been here in years.

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

I probably didn't miss anything, but maybe I feel this issue was given undue attention.

It does seem from your approach here that you have missed, or not read through, quite a lot. To keep matters simple Earl informed the general membership using the most recent disregard of the rules and of the advice of moderators. In fact and in practice this situation of personal animosity has been polluting the forums with negativity for far too long.

Your statement that "this issue" was given undue attention would not be taking into account all that has gone before and which has been taking 80% of moderators time to handle because of one man's unwillingness to comply with the rules that over a thousand others are happy to comply with and which keep this Forum a friendly place to visit.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Many of us long timers have broken the rules plenty of times, myself included with the hurling of personal insults and other caveats rooted in anger and with provocative intent.

Thank you for noticing this. We like to steer the ship with a light hand and not interfere where it is not necessary, so with sensible people we know it can be sorted by itself or with a small reminder about the Posting Rules.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

I personally do not recall ever being issued any warning, possibly due to the fact most minor conflicts involving myself resolve themselves quickly, but to the point and from what I've seen regarding the whole Trevor versus Harvey Quick Change issue seemed fairly tame in comparison. I guess from my perspective measures appear to have been enacted in prejudice, ample "fair warning" and ensuing said disobedience or otherwise.

We don't like to give out any more warnings or sanctions than are strictly necessary. In this case warnings were given. Read the rules about how warnings operate. Latitude was given. Advice was disregarded.

A policeman will give you a ticket for doing 100 in a 60 zone. Is he prejudiced, or is he merely applying the law where a rule was broken?

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

A request if you please, as it is apparent Trevor holds enough sway on the forum to be permitted his own temporary banishment thread (or perhaps it is standard procedure just rarely witnessed), I would like to read from the horse's mouth if you will the exacting terms excluded from public review, and pertinent content in question verbatim.

As Immortal mentioned above some of the posts have been reinstated where they were so that people can judge for themselves. Other material that has been pulled from public view will remain pulled. Earl has clearly and concisely outlined the rules that were broken in the hope that other members will understand the rules, their application and their universality in relation to all posters, no matter how senior, no matter how technical, no matter how valuable to the Network.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

I would look for it myself, but it appears to have been removed to a secret location.

Posts that break the posting guidelines can be deleted or be removed. This will continue to be operated. They are generally retained on the Admin forum, which is not open to the general membership. Nothing secret about it. If people posted within the guidelines taking posts out of public view would not be necessary.

If you want to read more Nik, read all the New Shift Kit Developed thread in Mod Mania from the start, not just the last few pages.

Joe

[dcarrb]

Thanks from this casual participant to the Administrators for making what I know what was a tough call. These "personality conflicts" are sometimes impossible to avoid, and do get tiresome. It's one thing to have a minor dust-up with another poster from time to time, but this thing has been going on for years. Here's hoping for positive future contributions from all concerned.

dcb

[NapaBavarian]

Originally Posted by DarknessofDeath

i dont know where you source out your funny pictures...or any of your pictures for that matter...but you get them in on threads a lot, Alan ~
-hopefully doing final installs this saturday and tune in a couple of saturdays. will post stuff/pics up for the svx group (and only the svx group) after that ~

ebaumsworld

[TomsSVX]

*bites tongue*

There has been ample review of the situation. As someone who has been under the gun by Harvey for rebutting the QC, i understand Trevor's frustration. I also can understand Harvey's frustration as Trevor *did*step out of line with the whole "Faster" bit on SVXWorldForums. But this kind of double dipping by moderators in easily noticeable attempts to silence his attitude and his statements is FAR out of line. I understand that there is the ability to have clear and coherent communication between boards with regards to issues as such as we see here.

I know the rules, I know you guys do a good job of keeping a hands-off approach but this was nothing of the sort. It was a direct shot at Trevor which absolutely instigated a reaction that left a lot to be desired.

Trevor is a stubborn guy, as is Harvey, this is why they butt heads so easily. But there were clear and apparent sides being taken by some which I have noticed to be exceedingly inappropriate.

The way you look at a painting, changes its whole meaning...

Tom

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

*bites tongue*

There has been ample review of the situation. As someone who has been under the gun by Harvey for rebutting the QC, i understand Trevor's frustration. I also can understand Harvey's frustration as Trevor *did*step out of line with the whole "Faster" bit on SVXWorldForums. But this kind of double dipping by moderators in easily noticeable attempts to silence his attitude and his statements is FAR out of line. I understand that there is the ability to have clear and coherent communication between boards with regards to issues as such as we see here.

I don't follow what you mean by double dipping.

Silence his statements? No. Go back, re-read the threads. They can debate whatever they want, whenever they want, for however long they want so long as respect is used. Respect was clearly not used in many, many posts.

This ban really has nothing to do with this whole "Faster" thing. And everything to do with the way Trevor conducted himself here. Remember those poetry threads? Clearly a stab at the staff and an attempt at baiting. Rules prohibit baiting, it's there in plain text for all to see. There was a LOT of disrespect in the poetry threads, another rule broken.

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

I know the rules, I know you guys do a good job of keeping a hands-off approach but this was nothing of the sort. It was a direct shot at Trevor which absolutely instigated a reaction that left a lot to be desired.

Trevor is a stubborn guy, as is Harvey, this is why they butt heads so easily. But there were clear and apparent sides being taken by some which I have noticed to be exceedingly inappropriate.

The way you look at a painting, changes its whole meaning...

Tom

We had no part in this whole mess until Trevor decided to start calling Harvey names and not being respectful. The instigation was on Trevor's part, not the staff.

The entire QC thread was started here, by Trevor, not Harvey. Another mod pointed it out almost IMMEDIATELY that this was most likely an attempt to discredit Harvey.

Let me add, of all the people that voted on this matter, every single one of them agreed to this course of action. Nine people, nine! I would think if what you suggest is true, that at least one of them would have pointed that out.

[TomsSVX]

Whoa, I knew I was gonna get that. My apologies. I never said he didn't deserve the ban. He did step out of line. But in this case there was direct assault and then there was things you need to read between the lines to see.

I did not keep up to date with the QC thread as it was the same arguments being reiterated over and over again. While I don't dispute there was obvious heat coming from Trevor's posts, it was returned as well, just not as clearly.

There is not much I can say here without causing yet another up-roar. Trevor mishandled the situation, plain and simple, but I still believe there is more to be realized.

Chris, if you wish PM me and I will discuss my feelings there and not distort this further.

Tom

[svxistentialist]

Thanks Tom.

Your honest opinion is appreciated and valued, as is the opinion of anybody who cares to comment.

That, of course, does not make your opinion correct or accurate.

The only one who "took a shot" at Trevor was Trevor, the wound was self inflicted.

He was told the vendetta against Harvey had to stop. He was warned if he kept on keeping on we would move on the situation. We just got the two fingered salute in prose and in verse.

I'm not certain what exactly you mean by double dipping, but bringing any reference to co-operation between the other forum and this one into the picture here is a red herring. Trevor was given time out for breaking the rules of this Forum, not for anything he did or did not do elsewhere.

In case you are not totally clear on the background every Admin and Mod agreed that this time around it had gone too far and a time out was called for.

Against that I can speak for every man jack of them and tell you that nobody but nobody wants Trevor to leave, we all think too highly of him. We just want him to cease and desist from the Harvey baiting.

And if he can't see his way to doing that, he will be headbutting more than Harvey when he gets back.

Joe

[TomsSVX]

Originally Posted by svxistentialist

Thanks Tom.

Your honest opinion is appreciated and valued, as is the opinion of anybody who cares to comment.

That, of course, does not make your opinion correct or accurate.

The only one who "took a shot" at Trevor was Trevor, the wound was self inflicted.

He was told the vendetta against Harvey had to stop. He was warned if he kept on keeping on we would move on the situation. We just got the two fingered salute in prose and in verse.

I'm not certain what exactly you mean by double dipping, but bringing any reference to co-operation between the other forum and this one into the picture here is a red herring. Trevor was given time out for breaking the rules of this Forum, not for anything he did or did not do elsewhere.

In case you are not totally clear on the background every Admin and Mod agreed that this time around it had gone too far and a time out was called for.

Against that I can speak for every man jack of them and tell you that nobody but nobody wants Trevor to leave, we all think too highly of him. We just want him to cease and desist from the Harvey baiting.

And if he can't see his way to doing that, he will be headbutting more than Harvey when he gets back.

Joe

I know you all have to agree on the ban. Like I stated earlier, I do agree it was out of line and against the rules. I have my personal opinion of the entire situation that I will more than likely be crucified for if I post it publicly. So I reserve to keep it to myself unless you may wish to pry privately. It is good to know you think of him so highly, this is why I wish to pry here and ask you to take another look at the entire scenario and its results thus far.

Tom

[RSVX]

Thanks for your comments Tom.

First let me apologize if I came accross as harsh towards you or anyone for that matter, that was not my intention.

As I have told many, I appreciate and look foward to the input I receive from the membership.

YGPM, I am interested. :-)

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

I know you all have to agree on the ban.

Tom

This is not correct Tom. We don't all have to agree for a time out or a ban to happen.

In the past some Moderators have disagreed, but we work to democratic principles and will move on a majority decision.

My response and Chris's response coincided without knowing what the other was saying, and we both made the point about there being no uncertainty among the moderation board but that a time out was now called for.

Joe