A discussion about the Banning of Alfred

[Erik Rutins]

I've seen a lot of folks in the other thread claim repeatedly that there was no real issue with Alfred, that he was only a bit rough around the edges, that his rudeness was only perceived by some with thin skins, etc. When I banned Alfred, I thought it would be very clear to every active member of the community that he had been engaging in what amounts to bullying and certainly was not the civil behavior that we require on this forum.

I recognize Alfred's positive contributions to the forum. He is clearly highly intelligent and knows the game very, very well. I said as much to him and have said that to others here. I'm sure many wish that he would still be here contributing constructively. However, Alfred as with all of us is a package deal and he seemed to be at least more recently unable to contribute without frequently being rude to other members. The ban was only for a week and I meant what I said - if he just responds to my e-mails and confirms he is willing to follow the forum rules, his account will be reinstated and he'll have a second chance. Also, just to be clear about another point of some conjecture, Alfred was not on the WITP-AE team and never participated in the development (unless "Alfred" is an alias for someone else, but I don't think so).

No poster, no matter how long they've been here or how helpful they've been, is above the forum rules.

I think it's also important to note that I received multiple messages from various forum members reporting Alfred's behavior. In addition, while some forum members stood up for Alfred after the ban and asked me to reconsider, more sent me messages which were grateful that something was being done, in roughly a 2:1 ratio in favor of the ban. In the recent discussions, the PMs I've received in favor of enforcing the forum rules and the principles I've explained are running about 10:1 in favor of neutral enforcement of the rules. For what it's worth, while this is non-scientific, I think it's important to note that there are many here who felt that the community was dealing with some real problems before any enforcement action was taken.

We always reserve the right to go straight to a ban if the case for it is clear enough, but as I posted in the other thread, we strongly prefer to explain the issue and give a chance for a course correction. In hindsight, that's what I should have done as clearly, despite hearing from fellow community members who saw the same things I did, some folks still believe there was no "there" there. So better late than never. Here are some examples that I shared with Alfred in an e-mail explaining the reason for the ban to him:

-----

(note these are excerpts from an e-mail I wrote to Alfred, so the "you" here means Alfred)

Let's take a look at a couple of past threads:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5094598

In this one, HansBolter first posts a rude reply and you post a polite one. I've spoken with Hans separately after watching him do the same in more recent threads.

Tanaka then replies with exasperation to HansBolter, quoting his rude post to make it clear who he was responding to. He also mentions that his searches have not turned up an answer.

You then return in Post #8 and accuse Tanaka of either calling you a liar (which he did not), being lazy/incompetent or having low comprehension skills. You then proceed to further belittle and ridicule him in another paragraph and multiple points.

I will note again that his frustrations were directed at Hans, who responded initially by ridiculing him, but you responded as if he had attacked you. He did not, but you sure did attack him.

Of course, it's not your first encounter with Tanaka. In looking back, I came across this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5075689

In your initial reply, you decided this time to start out with ridicule in Post #4. He ignored that and responded politely.

By the time we get to Post #17, his issue has been answered and the thread is on its way to a positive conclusion, but then you jump in again in an accusatory fashion, once again attributing a variety of negative traits to him and closing by questioning whether he graduated high school.

After that, he responds with a series of personal insults. Not a surprise as he has been comprehensively insulted by you in the previous post and per our forum moderation that puts the responsibility on you. Yet in Post #24, you play the victim and others support you in this despite the clear chain of cause and effect showing that you started the insults and thus created the problem.

Or this one, where Professor Chaos actually tries to self-deprecate in his initial post to disarm any negative reply:

fb.asp?m=5095998

Your reply, while mild compared to some above, still includes a slap by calling him an opinionated polemicist easily disarmed by facts and then concluding by saying he is an exemplar of cherry-picking results to support a narrative. Take out those two sentences and the rest of your reply is excellent, but you for whatever reason had to throw those in.

He decides to let that go, but Castor Troy jumps in in Post #112 with a rude reply to you that also includes a politically charged meme after you once again threw a few rocks towards Professor Chaos' post. Mind_Messing then jumps in to insult both Castor Troy and Dili.

It's worth noting that the thread only derailed and went personal after your insulting reply.

Or this one:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4997335

...where Tanaka once again is looking for help and in Post #9, you once again jump to insults. What a surprise that after insulting him, he returns the favor and once again the thread derails further. The following insults then result in your detractors and your defenders going after each other, but the clear beginning is again an unprovoked insult by you. This is how a community gets torn apart.

-----

Perhaps there is a point in the more distant past where all this began which I have not seen. Perhaps if we follow the chain all the way back to the beginning, this starts with someone else. If any of you have such evidence, please provide it to me. I acknowledge that my decision was limited by the time I had to look back through Alfred's old posts to see if there was a pattern and the fact that I had not been active in this sub-forum for years before I responded to that moderation request.

However, I did afterwards speak with Admiral Dadman who is the community moderator, to make sure I hadn't missed anything and he confirmed my impressions - that he has seen more frequent rudeness from Alfred in recent times. Dadman also now knows that any future insults, from anyone, he can escalate to me for action beyond warnings and I've asked him to make sure the rules are neutrally enforced. I've had this same discussion now with Edmon.

Bottom line is that the first insult gets the bulk of the punishment and that we do not moderate things we missed months ago, but we take history into account for new and current moderation decisions.

-----

The history above is why Alfred received a one week ban instead of just a warning. In hindsight, I should have laid this all out and given the warning.

Regarding the other elements of that entire event, relating to Markshot, I spoke about this before but I'll repeat it again. I think Mark was trying to establish his bona fides with a hard-core wargaming community by referencing his past work with us on other projects. Mark has been a very helpful beta tester, rising to the level of something like an auxiliary dev team member on some of the Panther Games titles we published in the distant past. However, that didn't give him any special status or put him above the rules. He just didn't have the history Alfred did, so I warned him about going to personal insults and ended up exchanging more e-mails with him in that week than I had in the previous ten years while discussing all this.

I think Mark is a decent guy who was shocked at the reception he got here and was one of many who have felt that way in recent times, as some who contributed to the threads then and now have publicly stated. I didn't appreciate the perception Mark created that he had some kind of special status or that we were somehow corrupt. None of that was true, but when a community member in good standing tells me that a post or thread needs moderating, I do pay attention and investigate. It's what I saw there rather than the fact that Mark was reporting it that resulted in action being taken.

Ok, that's hopefully enough to finally put this to bed.

In summary, Alfred earned his ban. I'm sorry, but I don't want to hear any more about how he was not rude or only rude after being attacked. If you read the threads above, you'll see that he was quite capable of being objectively rude, without provocation.

Also, in respect for the community I should have laid out all the evidence, warned Alfred and banned him the next time he violated those forum rules. I recognize that as a result of going right to the one week ban, I left part of the community behind in terms of creating consensus. This is why as I explained in the other thread, we're going to try hard to explain and warn before banning and locking.

Regards,

- Erik

[John 3rd]

Thank You Erik. Appreciate the clarification and examples.

[KenchiSulla]

Clear, sincerely hope we can now move on...

[pbiggar]

Thanks Erik for the clarification and for having the difficult conversations necessary to improve the level of discourse.

[Maallon]

Thanks Erik, I for my part appreciate that you often just take the time to write those detailed explanation.
This is not something that is necessarily natural in gaming forums and also one of the reasons I like the matrix forum.

I also hope that we can finally put the issue to rest and would be happy if we can get as much transparency as possible in the future if a thread is locked or someone is banned.

[actrade]

What I find very telling is that in the last linked thread, Evoken, who goes above and beyond to try and help Tanaka, proves Alfred wrong while others suggest a bug is the culprit. Funny how when a bully gets punched in the mouth, he often runs away.

[Yaab]

The question remains who owns Alfred posts, especially his long detailed guides?

[mind_messing]

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality"

No poster, no matter how long they've been here or how helpful they've been, is above the forum rules.

This is a wonderful sentiment.

It would be good to see it be just more than warm words.

The last thread which you've linked (https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4997335) is an excellent example of where I'd like to see some action taken.

Alfred has received a week ban for "rudeness". Is there any plans to made moderation decisions on outright attacks, such as:
- "a jerk" (post 10)
- "a powertripping narcist that enjoys belittling newcomers" (post 11)
- implied possession of a "smooth brain". Read: Lissencephaly (post 13)
- a "narcistic jerker" (post 31)
- referred to as "google search boy" (post 45)
- subject to aspersions involving child abuse and needing mental help (post 49)

Perhaps you're looking for a finer vintage. Here's a nice reference to other forumites as "monkeys". One would have hoped for some more consideration around such language given recent events, but, alas, it seems not.

If you'd like something fresh off the press, perhaps revisit your community and moderation discussion. Plenty there that can be quite firmly pointed to as breaking the rules outright, and even rudeness or bullying under your own definition.

There are also other, clear cases, of non-application of the moderation process in other threads that you have linked, including (but not limited to) political content.

Again, not within the rules.

Again, not actioned.

More than willing to give the benefit of the doubt in terms of taking time to understand the issues and read the room, but this is simply not an issue where a neat line can be drawn under it.

Bottom line is that the first insult gets the bulk of the punishment and that we do not moderate things we missed months ago, but we take history into account for new and current moderation decisions.

Ah, quelle surprise.

Ok, that's hopefully enough to finally put this to bed.

To be frank, not for me.

There's a fundamental issue of equity in applying the moderation policy here that is being overlooked.

Enforcement of the moderating policy should not be based on ones overall popularity with the forum (nor, needless to say, proximity to senior Matrix figures).

To have banned Alfred and then attempt to draw a line under the entire affair and start fresh is, candidly, shambolic.

To have banned Alfred for "rudeness" (which - despite what others would argue - is largely subjective) when there are many more significant issues at play displays a monumental laxity towards moderation. The phrase "re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind.

In summary, Alfred earned his ban.

If that's your view, for such "rudeness", then I can certainly provide a list of forum users equally deserving of a ban, myself included.

It's an indication of how strong my views are that I'm certainly content with you to start with me.

In an ironic twist I also not a half hour ago got a notification that I've been with Matrix for 9 years.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: actrade

What I find very telling is that in the last linked thread, Evoken, who goes above and beyond to try and help Tanaka, proves Alfred wrong while others suggest a bug is the culprit. Funny how when a bully gets punched in the mouth, he often runs away.

Close reading of AndyMac's subsequent post would reveal that not to be the case.

ORIGINAL: Yaab

The question remains who owns Alfred posts, especially his long detailed guides?

I bet you're fun at funerals.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It would be good to see it be just more than warm words.

It really is.

If you'd like something fresh off the press, perhaps revisit your community and moderation discussion. Plenty there that can be quite firmly pointed to as breaking the rules outright, and even rudeness or bullying under your own definition.

As you can see in my latest post, I'm giving that thread a temporary waiver in order to let the community as a whole get some steam out, but that waiver is not permanent nor does it apply elsewhere.

There are also other, clear cases, of non-application of the moderation process in other threads that you have linked, including (but not limited to) political content.

We don't necro-moderate, in other words, digging things up from the distant past and then taking action. I fully recognize that there was relatively little moderation in recent years and I'm sure many examples can be brought up that violate the rules. Examples will be taken into consideration for future action where a pattern of behavior is clear, but we try to act on things within 24-48 hours of the infraction.

We tried it the other way in the past and it really only leads to more problems. This is generally recognized across a lot of forums.

Bottom line is that the first insult gets the bulk of the punishment and that we do not moderate things we missed months ago, but we take history into account for new and current moderation decisions.

Ah, quelle surprise.

Well, I've explained this before, so I'm sure it's not a surprise, but "who started it" matters. That doesn't make the later insults within the rules, but as I explained that's why Mark got a warning (no previous history of rule violations, first infraction), but Alfred got a ban (extensive history of similar behavior).

Enforcement of the moderating policy should not be based on ones overall popularity with the forum (nor, needless to say, proximity to senior Matrix figures).

Good news for you then is that it's not.

To have banned Alfred for "rudeness" (which - despite what others would argue - is largely subjective) when there are many more significant issues at play displays a monumental laxity towards moderation. The phrase "re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind.

It was rudeness, period. I think you're well out on a limb claiming otherwise.

If that's your view, for such "rudeness", then I can certainly provide a list of forum users equally deserving of a ban, myself included.
It's an indication of how strong my views are that I'm certainly content with you to start with me.
In an ironic twist I also not a half hour ago got a notification that I've been with Matrix for 9 years.

I don't really understand this desire to martyr yourself. The only way you'll get a ban is if you break the rules and keep breaking them. Doesn't matter whether you are my best friend, we'll enforce the rules.

Regards,

- Erik

[Edmon]

Enforcement of the moderating policy should not be based on ones overall popularity with the forum (nor, needless to say, proximity to senior Matrix figures).

If rule violations happen in the future, anyone is welcome to message me and I assure you that every PM I get will be responded to and any violations investigated.

Though you know, I do hope to make some friends here eventually... as has become very clear, no-one in this forum subsection is close to me. So I hope that you'll all find that I can respond to any concerns without prejudice or bias going forward.

Regards,
Edmon

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Ok, that's hopefully enough to finally put this to bed.

To be frank, not for me.

To have banned Alfred and then attempt to draw a line under the entire affair and start fresh is, candidly, shambolic.

warspite1

We are talking about a guy that can come back anytime he chooses. It is his decision not to.

This latest post, after Erik is doing his best to draw a line under things, doesn't help Alfred or you. Genuinely, you need to get some perspective here. We are not talking about someone wrongly imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit. It's a war gaming forum and he over stepped the mark. He got a week's ban as a result. That's it.

What do you want to do? Keep going until you get a ban yourself? Why? m_m you need to do an Elsa and let it go.

I hope you can.

[Q-Ball]

Erik, I appreciate your explanation. Alfred was/is a valuded contributor to this forum in terms of knowledge, but I for one never understood why he felt the need to be so rude. It was just unnecessary. I mean, what's the downside to being polite?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Perhaps there is a point in the more distant past where all this began which I have not seen. Perhaps if we follow the chain all the way back to the beginning, this starts with someone else. If any of you have such evidence, please provide it to me. I acknowledge that my decision was limited by the time I had to look back through Alfred's old posts to see if there was a pattern and the fact that I had not been active in this sub-forum for years before I responded to that moderation request.

I don't have it. But I have something to the contrary. As I dug up earlier today, it didn't take long from when I joined these forums in March 2012 to have a negative interaction with Alfred (and people piling on in support of his antics) - literally in response to my first post(s) here. That was 10 years ago.

(Editing to add a blurb here)
I'm no spring chicken, but I'm certainly younger than the vast majority of posters here. And of a different socio-political persuasion, or at least from the most vocal posters. Speaking from my perceptions, it was often the same group of posters that would pile on and seem to take pleasure in berating someone for posting what could be characterized as a stupid question - often without even attempting to comprehend what the poster was asking.

Alfred wasn't always the ringleader, but having to preemptively discourage bullying and harassment was a constant drain on my personal resources in my first years here, and I'm sure less hardheaded individuals than myself (or those less inclined to deal with an internet stranger's BS) would have given up on the community. I'm glad that the issue of under-moderation is finally being handled.
(edit ends)

Anecdotally, I've noticed the same regarding worsening behavior over the years, particularly these past few. At the risk of divulging private information: during my time playing against Bullwinkle (who was close enough with Alfred to have exchanged personal emails as well as spent time together in the flesh), my interactions and frustrations with Alfred would sometimes come up during our PBEM exchanges. The Moose noticed that sometimes there were periods where the behavior was worse.


In the intervening years, he seemed to avoid engaging with me on similar matters. I assumed it was because I'd taken to meticulously documenting my questions/evidence with many screenshots and painstakingly explaining every step in the process, so there was no implicit knowledge required by readers - no opening for someone looking to poke holes to ridicule, rather than be constructive.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Ok, that's hopefully enough to finally put this to bed.

To be frank, not for me.

To have banned Alfred and then attempt to draw a line under the entire affair and start fresh is, candidly, shambolic.

warspite1

We are talking about a guy that can come back anytime he chooses. It is his decision not to.

This latest post, after Erik is doing his best to draw a line under things, doesn't help Alfred or you. Genuinely, you need to get some perspective here. We are not talking about someone wrongly imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit. It's a war gaming forum and he over stepped the mark. He got a week's ban as a result. That's it.

What do you want to do? Keep going until you get a ban yourself? Why? m_m you need to do an Elsa and let it go.

I hope you can.

Consider this.

Would you want to return to a forum that where, since you're departure, you have been publicly pilloried? Worse still, an exercise that has actively been empowered by the moderation team deciding on a course of non-enforcement to "let people get off steam".

I certainly wouldn't, and my current disgust is certainly a key motivating factor right now.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
We are talking about a guy that can come back anytime he chooses. It is his decision not to.

This latest post, after Erik is doing his best to draw a line under things, doesn't help Alfred or you. Genuinely, you need to get some perspective here. We are not talking about someone wrongly imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit. It's a war gaming forum and he over stepped the mark. He got a week's ban as a result. That's it.

What do you want to do? Keep going until you get a ban yourself? Why? m_m you need to do an Elsa and let it go.

I hope you can.
warspite1

This. People can debate endlessly over how the ban was handled or whether Alfred's behavior merited a ban in the first place but it's pretty clear that on these two points, neither side is going to agree with the other and that further argument is pointless. Erik has stated several times that Alfred can return if he wishes to play by the rules, which is something he has chosen not to do. It seems like it's up to him to decide whether to maintain his position or modify his approach and come back. No amount of arguing here will resolve that issue because it's not in our power to change.

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I've seen a lot of folks in the other thread claim repeatedly that there was no real issue with Alfred, that he was only a bit rough around the edges, that his rudeness was only perceived by some with thin skins, etc. When I banned Alfred, I thought it would be very clear to every active member of the community that he had been engaging in what amounts to bullying and certainly was not the civil behavior that we require on this forum.

I recognize Alfred's positive contributions to the forum. He is clearly highly intelligent and knows the game very, very well. I said as much to him and have said that to others here. I'm sure many wish that he would still be here contributing constructively. However, Alfred as with all of us is a package deal and he seemed to be at least more recently unable to contribute without frequently being rude to other members. The ban was only for a week and I meant what I said - if he just responds to my e-mails and confirms he is willing to follow the forum rules, his account will be reinstated and he'll have a second chance. Also, just to be clear about another point of some conjecture, Alfred was not on the WITP-AE team and never participated in the development (unless "Alfred" is an alias for someone else, but I don't think so).

No poster, no matter how long they've been here or how helpful they've been, is above the forum rules.

I think it's also important to note that I received multiple messages from various forum members reporting Alfred's behavior. In addition, while some forum members stood up for Alfred after the ban and asked me to reconsider, more sent me messages which were grateful that something was being done, in roughly a 2:1 ratio in favor of the ban. In the recent discussions, the PMs I've received in favor of enforcing the forum rules and the principles I've explained are running about 10:1 in favor of neutral enforcement of the rules. For what it's worth, while this is non-scientific, I think it's important to note that there are many here who felt that the community was dealing with some real problems before any enforcement action was taken.

We always reserve the right to go straight to a ban if the case for it is clear enough, but as I posted in the other thread, we strongly prefer to explain the issue and give a chance for a course correction. In hindsight, that's what I should have done as clearly, despite hearing from fellow community members who saw the same things I did, some folks still believe there was no "there" there. So better late than never. Here are some examples that I shared with Alfred in an e-mail explaining the reason for the ban to him:

-----

(note these are excerpts from an e-mail I wrote to Alfred, so the "you" here means Alfred)

Let's take a look at a couple of past threads:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5094598

In this one, HansBolter first posts a rude reply and you post a polite one. I've spoken with Hans separately after watching him do the same in more recent threads.

Tanaka then replies with exasperation to HansBolter, quoting his rude post to make it clear who he was responding to. He also mentions that his searches have not turned up an answer.

You then return in Post #8 and accuse Tanaka of either calling you a liar (which he did not), being lazy/incompetent or having low comprehension skills. You then proceed to further belittle and ridicule him in another paragraph and multiple points.

I will note again that his frustrations were directed at Hans, who responded initially by ridiculing him, but you responded as if he had attacked you. He did not, but you sure did attack him.

Of course, it's not your first encounter with Tanaka. In looking back, I came across this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5075689

In your initial reply, you decided this time to start out with ridicule in Post #4. He ignored that and responded politely.

By the time we get to Post #17, his issue has been answered and the thread is on its way to a positive conclusion, but then you jump in again in an accusatory fashion, once again attributing a variety of negative traits to him and closing by questioning whether he graduated high school.

After that, he responds with a series of personal insults. Not a surprise as he has been comprehensively insulted by you in the previous post and per our forum moderation that puts the responsibility on you. Yet in Post #24, you play the victim and others support you in this despite the clear chain of cause and effect showing that you started the insults and thus created the problem.

Or this one, where Professor Chaos actually tries to self-deprecate in his initial post to disarm any negative reply:

fb.asp?m=5095998

Your reply, while mild compared to some above, still includes a slap by calling him an opinionated polemicist easily disarmed by facts and then concluding by saying he is an exemplar of cherry-picking results to support a narrative. Take out those two sentences and the rest of your reply is excellent, but you for whatever reason had to throw those in.

He decides to let that go, but Castor Troy jumps in in Post #112 with a rude reply to you that also includes a politically charged meme after you once again threw a few rocks towards Professor Chaos' post. Mind_Messing then jumps in to insult both Castor Troy and Dili.

It's worth noting that the thread only derailed and went personal after your insulting reply.

Or this one:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4997335

...where Tanaka once again is looking for help and in Post #9, you once again jump to insults. What a surprise that after insulting him, he returns the favor and once again the thread derails further. The following insults then result in your detractors and your defenders going after each other, but the clear beginning is again an unprovoked insult by you. This is how a community gets torn apart.

-----

Perhaps there is a point in the more distant past where all this began which I have not seen. Perhaps if we follow the chain all the way back to the beginning, this starts with someone else. If any of you have such evidence, please provide it to me. I acknowledge that my decision was limited by the time I had to look back through Alfred's old posts to see if there was a pattern and the fact that I had not been active in this sub-forum for years before I responded to that moderation request.

However, I did afterwards speak with Admiral Dadman who is the community moderator, to make sure I hadn't missed anything and he confirmed my impressions - that he has seen more frequent rudeness from Alfred in recent times. Dadman also now knows that any future insults, from anyone, he can escalate to me for action beyond warnings and I've asked him to make sure the rules are neutrally enforced. I've had this same discussion now with Edmon.

Bottom line is that the first insult gets the bulk of the punishment and that we do not moderate things we missed months ago, but we take history into account for new and current moderation decisions.

-----

The history above is why Alfred received a one week ban instead of just a warning. In hindsight, I should have laid this all out and given the warning.

Regarding the other elements of that entire event, relating to Markshot, I spoke about this before but I'll repeat it again. I think Mark was trying to establish his bona fides with a hard-core wargaming community by referencing his past work with us on other projects. Mark has been a very helpful beta tester, rising to the level of something like an auxiliary dev team member on some of the Panther Games titles we published in the distant past. However, that didn't give him any special status or put him above the rules. He just didn't have the history Alfred did, so I warned him about going to personal insults and ended up exchanging more e-mails with him in that week than I had in the previous ten years while discussing all this.

I think Mark is a decent guy who was shocked at the reception he got here and was one of many who have felt that way in recent times, as some who contributed to the threads then and now have publicly stated. I didn't appreciate the perception Mark created that he had some kind of special status or that we were somehow corrupt. None of that was true, but when a community member in good standing tells me that a post or thread needs moderating, I do pay attention and investigate. It's what I saw there rather than the fact that Mark was reporting it that resulted in action being taken.

Ok, that's hopefully enough to finally put this to bed.

In summary, Alfred earned his ban. I'm sorry, but I don't want to hear any more about how he was not rude or only rude after being attacked. If you read the threads above, you'll see that he was quite capable of being objectively rude, without provocation.

Also, in respect for the community I should have laid out all the evidence, warned Alfred and banned him the next time he violated those forum rules. I recognize that as a result of going right to the one week ban, I left part of the community behind in terms of creating consensus. This is why as I explained in the other thread, we're going to try hard to explain and warn before banning and locking.

Regards,

- Erik

Thank you Erik, well stated....GP

[RangerJoe]

What is an "Elsa?" Are people using that term as an insult or to insinuate an insulting behavior? Or is it a suggestion that they become a fierce predator and prey on their enemies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NQh3pPv7o

[Edmon]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

What is an "Elsa?" Are people using that term as an insult or to insinuate an insulting behavior? Or is it a suggestion that they become a fierce predator and prey on their enemies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NQh3pPv7o

You've not watched Disney's Frozen?

It's worth a watch...

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Edmon

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

What is an "Elsa?" Are people using that term as an insult or to insinuate an insulting behavior? Or is it a suggestion that they become a fierce predator and prey on their enemies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NQh3pPv7o

You've not watched Disney's Frozen?

It's worth a watch...

No but I did watch "Born Free" which is still worth watching . . .

BTW, on another note, Walt Disney himself hired professional people to do nose art during WWII . . .