yeah but they don't need to give it a dozen or more times in a single feedback thread. that's not feedback, that's badgering the site owner.
It's Clutch's site and Clutch can do as he feels is right. Clutch has been very patient and generous in giving people second chances (as with kevC, I saw that post telling someone to kill himself, it was disgusting). I also like that Clutch makes his decisions not based on several members ganging up against one member, but based on facts. The facts here are: Clutch gave bobbythegreat a chance to post a sincere apology. bobbythegreat did not post a sincere apology, instead expressly refused to apologize to the poster whose child he insulted, and in fact attacked that poster again in his "apology". The remorse shown was about "breaking the rules", not about the complete lack of human decency towards a child with a handicap. The conditions under which Clutch gave the second chance were not fulfilled, but instead it became clear that the poster has not really understood what got him banned in the first place and feels no remorse about it, instead acts as if he is the victim. Whether Clutch takes into account that longstanding respected members such as B-Bob have expressed their disappointment (and resulting disengagement) is up to him. But if the reinstatement was based on the condition of a sincere apology, then I would say that this requirement has most definitely not been fulfilled, on the contrary. It's Clutch's call what to do next. Badgering him about it is wrong and will not help.
Agree with most of your post, but feel like the badgering is a natural response due to an extreme lack of initial feedback from Clutch. There was a good amount of displeasure over his decision at first, but people still politely (or semi-politely, but within the rules) asked why Bobby was brought back and wanted to know what went into Clutch's decision making. Granville asking Clutch for a response multiple times (on this board and per email etc) during Bobby's ban and afterwards but not receiving any answer looked like a terrible move to many people here and added fuel to the outrage. I know Clutch owns this site and doesn't have to explain any of his decisions, but he shouldn't be surprised if this kind of behaviour leads to people becoming fed up and believing they'd have to take drastic measures to make justice happen. And even then it didn't get better, as Clutch didn't really respond to numerous ppl pointing out that Bobby never apologized and learned absolutely nothing from this ordeal, instead immediately blaming Granville again and arrogantly mocking everyone who called for his ban. While I know that many went overboard with their reactions, I understand their feelings and know it's disheartening to see how this thing was handled by Clutch.
We are all only here because Clutch puts in a lot of effort and time to keep the site up and running. Clutch has a family and a business to run and may not be able to respond to everything immediately. One may disagree with individual decisions or response times, but the truth is, Clutch owes us nothing. And he certainly doesn't have to put up with people attacking or mocking him in a hostile tone - even less so when some of those people are the exact ones who should be thankful to even still be on the board themselves.
Did some people cross the line? Yes. Can Clutch ban or allow whoever he wants because it is his site? Yes. I understand agree with all of that. I am extremely grateful that he created this site and managed it well enough to still be the site out there despite the huge amount of growth. That isn't an easy thing to do. Clutch works hard despite all of his other duties and responsibilities. My only hope would have been some understanding that people's passions became inflamed because of how much they care about this site, and how much they don't want it tarnished by BTG and the type of antics he directed at the special needs family member of Granville. I disagreed with bringing BTG back, but I am glad that Clutch provided an explanation. I was impressed that Clutch had it in him to give BTG another chance when it is something I wouldn't have been prepared to do. I thought that the discussions and anger would be something that people expressed because they needed to get it off of their chests. Often after that things calm down. But it is communication that members felt needed to happen to help keep the site we all care about working as well as it can. I thought airing it all out would help but then a bunch of folks were banned for voicing their displeasure. I disagree with that particularly in the case of Kev-C. I didn't think he crossed any line. In the end, I understand that my opinions on the matter aren't the ones that count. It is those of Clutch. I respect that. I do think it's wrong for other posters to say that if people dislike a decision by Clutch they should all leave. While Clutch has created and maintains this site it is the whole community that keeps it going. The community isn't just made up of one person or one trait. So if people disagree with one particular thing about the website, they can still care and want the site to be a quality, fun, site to visit and in which they can participate. Surely if BTG can be accepted back to the site after his non-apology "apology". Then people who stepped over the line just trying to make the site a better place should be let back in as well. I mean why lose some quality posters in an effort to keep one who at best only muddies the waters, and we've seen what he does at worst. That's just my opinion and my opinion is definitely not the one that counts. I respect that. I just felt I should make it known because of how much I like the site.
Probably because many people enjoy the board without him here and are trying to do something to bring themselves more entertainment and remove a hateful, racist poster who brings down the quality of every conversation on the board. Is this really the philosophy you live by? Don't argue for anything? If people are racists or bigots, just walk away and say/do nothing? Sure, at the end of the day, if it doesn't work, then the alternative is to leave and move on. But to not even try to make things better first? That just seems stupid.
Well, because they love the forum. Because cutting and running isn't the proper response to everything a person doesn't like in life. Life would be awful if that were the case. The vast majority of the time, it's better to stay and offer feedback on how to improve things. I think everyone appreciates this is Clutch's site and all decisions are his to make. At the same time, Clutch has proven over the years he values feedback. This is why (strong) opinions are being given. We want what is best for the forum. My 100% certain opinion is cutting him off improved the forum dramatically and allowing him back was the absolute wrong decision. I don't think me saying this will hurt Clutch's feelings or can be construed as harrasment. Clutch some suggestions: Extend the ban to one year. Permanently limit his posts to 5-10 per day. (This might be the best compromise). An obvious one (that probably won't change much) is to permanently prevent creating new threads. P.S: If the ignore function actually eliminated any evidence of him being here, that would be great. But, unfortunately, it can't.
The new ignore function does work quite well. E.g., I haven't seen any New Yorker/Sweet Lou posts in a while.
The problem is when the person you put on ignore posts relentlessly and tirelessly, he can still hijack threads because I am forced to read reply-after-reply-after-reply-after-reply to him. It took me a bit to figure out what was going on. This is why I suggested a limit of 5-10 posts/day. On 99.9% of posters, ignore works just fine. This is the one exception.
He purposefully provoked Clutch yesterday afternoon wrt his religion by starting a thread in the Hangout, it's still the Top thread in the Hangout. Apparently this was a childish attempt to test Clutch -- wrt hate speech. Then he viciously (and with extreme cowardice of internet anonymity) attacked Clutch behind the scenes on Facebook, extending a sharper provocation from his Hangout thread. Clutch explained it in another Petition thread. @DreamShook, I get where you are coming from wrt Clutch should say nothing. But allow me to say that I don't like your use of the word "should." He got attacked behind the scenes....and there really is no one to speak for him by highlighting reasons for his actions. Staying quiet when you're personally being mocked, denigrated and attacked with cowardice stealth is a tremendous power that I'm sure you deal with daily, and have great inner power to summon, surprisingly strengthened while under a constant burden that you never asked for. Guys like you are an inspiration to white guys like me, when I fall into self-pity for comparatively minor things. (And I say that from reading a D&D post you recently made that I'll never forget, regarding burden. Thx for the lesson.) From my seats, Clutch exhibits the ability to summon that inner power, as well. Forgive his moments of defending himself against vicious stealth attacks that no one else sees, as you might ask for on some days, too.
No. Disagreement is fine, but if they so vehemently disagree with Clutch that they are to the point where they are going to report him to the Rockets, then perhaps they should leave.
There are posters I respect that expressed their opinions (so not criticizing that) but it devolved into a mob-like contest of who could express the most moral outrage (despite some dubious posting habits of their own) culminating in threats and declarations to turn this site into the Rockets. It reads (and read) very uncomfortably and certainly as a whole not as an attempt to provide feedback to improve the site. And once certain folks started declaring they were going to try and hurt the site, it was way, way over the line.
Thank you. I had not seen that. Yep, that crosses the line. I get it. I thought there was more than one person banned, though. I don't know which one that was from FB. I don't think it would be all of them.
