Disruption in the political forum.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trent Rock said:
I understand troll scrutiny for new PA posters
Nit picking the rules to regular posters in The PA with 100's of posts is ridiculous
Click to expand...

I've never understood this idea. It's flawed for two reasons. First, how do we decide who qualifies for "good old boy" status and permission to ignore the rules; keep in mind that this would have to be done without a perception of politcal bias. Second, the older, experienced members should set the example for the new members; afterall, who else can the new members look to to see a model of proper conduct? No. If anything, the experienced members should be held to a higher standard.
 
hornshwangler said:
I seldom, if ever post in the Political forum as a result of Gollnick's unique approach of enforcing his interpretation of the rules. Personally, I find him obnoxious and, as others have stated previously, condescending and rude.
Click to expand...

Pretty much seconded. Having rules is fine. Browbeating someone to death because they violated 1157:3.9(a) of the rules goes a bit too far- be consistent, and don't overstep your bounds.

I read Political from time to time, and if I could put Gollnick on ignore, I would. It would make a much more pleasurable reading experience.
 
shotgunner11 said:
...the constantly changing "rules according to Gollnick".
Click to expand...

The rules are not according to Gollnick, they are according to Spark and they haven't changed since Spark posted them. I have tried to be consistent, but I am human and I don't necessarily even read every post or even every thread. If anything, I have relaxed over time. So, the characterize the rules as "constantly changing" is, I think, quite incorrect.
 
The hypocracy evident in the way you "point out" these rules has been well documented in the links in this thread.
 
hornschwangler and Sword and Shield, one of the points brought out by all these threads, which was not clear to many members, is that while Gollnick is a moderator (of the balisong forum) he is NOT a moderator of the Political Arena.

Whatever he may have instructed you can be taken as a suggestion which you are as free to ignore as if it came frtom any ordinary member. But if Ken Cox, Bronco, or mycroftt tell you something, please comply, as they are the moderators of the Political Arena.

This doesn't mean that what Gollnick wrote is wrong, only that it is a suggestion, not an order, and should not discourage you from participating there.
 
Well, that's part of the problem. Chuck regularly conducts himself as a moderator in Political even though he is not one, and many discouraged members have said they were under the impression that he was a moderator based solely on his heavy-handed conduct.

Over and over again Chuck has steadfastly refused to exercise anything remotely resembling judgment. Why, there simply is no way to know who is a legitimate poster and who is not, according to Chuck -- despite the fact that one may look at post history, context of the thread, follow-ups by the original poster and participants, etc. No, in the World According to Chuck, no one can know anything -- accept Chuck, of course, who is there to harass anyone who does not meet his selectively enforced standards.

Point this out, and Chuck will tell you, "Why, I am not perfect. I simply don't want people to post and run." Of course, it isn't that simple; Chuck's behavior is not nearly so reasonable, as has been abundantly demonstrated in the links provided.

I'll say it again: Chuck Gollnick must cease and desist in conducting himself as an overzealous self-appointed moderator in a forum where he is NOT one.
 
So I do go to PA to read, and started my first post a few days ago, have been a member for 1.5yrs, and I assumed Gollnick was a mod in the forum untilPhil pointed it out.

I have also kept from speaking there because I too was afraid he would take issue. He does alot to turn an interesting forum into a tedious one.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
But if Ken Cox, Bronco, or mycroftt tell you something, please comply, as they are the moderators of the Political Arena.
Click to expand...

This is totally fine by me. I've made it 4 years with nary a hint of trouble, and keeping clear of the mods is part of that. However, it grinds my gears, just a little, that I can't put a moderator on ignore when they are posting in a forum where they are not the listed moderator. I've seen this on other forums, and it's a touch I like very much.
 
As I have frequently pointed out, with the exception of two cases where I banned site-wide spammers, the accusation that I have acted as a moderator in the politcal forum is patently untrue and a lie. Anyone who repeatedly pushes the accusation that -- with the two aforemention exceptions -- I have acted as a moderator in the politcal forum is a liar and the truth is not in him.

Anyone who assumes -- depite my posts explicitly pointing out that I am not a moderator on the politcal forum and despite the fact that I am not on the official list of moderators for that forum -- that I am a moderator on that forum is either just too dense to believe my posts and/or too lazy to check the official list of moderators which is hardly hidden or secret. I have never, not once, not ever, said that I was a moderator on the politcal forum. I don't believe that I have ever implied that I am a moderator on the politcal forum (and, again, pointing out the rules is not exclusive to moderators but something every member can and should do). I have corrected that mistake whenever I have seen it (unless someone else already has).

I have now even spelled it out in my sig line; I hope that this is to Mr. Phil's satisfaction.
 
Last edited:
I've followed with interest the discussion in Political, here, and elsewhere regarding this topic.

Mr. Gollnick, I guess the question on everyone's mind here is: Do you plan to continue with the heavy-handed, long-winded reminders of posting rules in the Political forum?

It's a yes or no, isn't it?
 
You have conducted yourself as a moderator regardless of your denials; that is why so many people assumed you were one. Of course you have implied you were a moderator, by engaging in the sort of obnoxious behavior that only the most anal retentive of moderators would direct at other posters.

I will not be "satisfied" until you answer Guyon's question in the negative. I've had enough of your behavior and that is why I am among those speaking out about it now.

I will also accept your apology for accusing me of lying about you, should you choose to man up and offer it.
 
Sharp Phil said:
You have conducted yourself as a moderator regardless of your denials; that is why so many people assumed you were one. Of course you have implied you were a moderator, by engaging in the sort of obnoxious behavior that only the most anal retentive of moderators would direct at other posters.

I will not be "satisfied" until you answer Guyon's question in the affirmative. I've had enough of your behavior and that is why I am among those speaking out about it now.

I will also accept your apology for accusing me of lying about you, should you choose to man up and offer it.
Click to expand...

Seconded here!
 
Sharp Phil said:
Well, that's part of the problem. Chuck regularly conducts himself as a moderator in Political even though he is not one, and many discouraged members have said they were under the impression that he was a moderator based solely on his heavy-handed conduct.

Over and over again Chuck has steadfastly refused to exercise anything remotely resembling judgment. Why, there simply is no way to know who is a legitimate poster and who is not, according to Chuck -- despite the fact that one may look at post history, context of the thread, follow-ups by the original poster and participants, etc. No, in the World According to Chuck, no one can know anything -- accept Chuck, of course, who is there to harass anyone who does not meet his selectively enforced standards.

Point this out, and Chuck will tell you, "Why, I am not perfect. I simply don't want people to post and run." Of course, it isn't that simple; Chuck's behavior is not nearly so reasonable, as has been abundantly demonstrated in the links provided.

I'll say it again: Chuck Gollnick must cease and desist in conducting himself as an overzealous self-appointed moderator in a forum where he is NOT one.
Click to expand...

Phil, I apologize if I appear to be responding only to your posts on this issue, especially since we didn't really hit it off during our first exchanges a few weeks ago. For some reason I find your posts to be thought- and response-provoking. I want to point out, though, that Chuck's behavior is not unlike your own here. He speaks up about behavior that he thinks is inappropriate, just as you do. Whether his interpretation of the rules is overly pedantic or not is, in my view, immaterial. He has his pet peeve just as others, like myself, have had. I don't think that more should be made of it than is on its face - he chides and cajoles posters - so what?

I'm not seeing a lot of value in continuing this discussion at this point - although it's your call if you want to continue. The PA mods are unlikely to start infracting Chuck, and I don't know, but I think it's unlikely that Spark will either. Can we sit back and wait and see if Chuck mellows a bit after considering all the input that has been provided about his well-intentioned efforts to help improve the BladeForums experience?
 
mycroftt said:
I'm not seeing a lot of value in continuing this discussion at this point - although it's your call if you want to continue. The PA mods are unlikely to start infracting Chuck, and I don't know, but I think it's unlikely that Spark will either. Can we sit back and wait and see if Chuck mellows a bit after considering all the input that has been provided about his well-intentioned efforts to help improve the BladeForums experience?
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
Gollnick said:
As I have frequently pointed out, with the exception of two cases where I banned site-wide spammers, the accusation that I have acted as a moderator in the politcal forum is patently untrue and a lie. Anyone who repeatedly pushes the accusation that -- with the two aforemention exceptions -- I have acted as a moderator in the politcal forum is a liar and the truth is not in him.
Click to expand...

There you go with the legalese again. Perhaps you didn't act in an official capacity as a moderator, but you damn sure stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Why don't you just leave the moderation to real moderators of the political arena and let the rest of us enjoy the forum without your constant disruption?
 
mycroftt said:
Phil, I apologize if I appear to be responding only to your posts on this issue, especially since we didn't really hit it off during our first exchanges a few weeks ago. For some reason I find your posts to be thought- and response-provoking. I want to point out, though, that Chuck's behavior is not unlike your own here. He speaks up about behavior that he thinks is inappropriate, just as you do. Whether his interpretation of the rules is overly pedantic or not is, in my view, immaterial. He has his pet peeve just as others, like myself, have had. I don't think that more should be made of it than is on its face - he chides and cajoles posters - so what?

I'm not seeing a lot of value in continuing this discussion at this point - although it's your call if you want to continue. The PA mods are unlikely to start infracting Chuck, and I don't know, but I think it's unlikely that Spark will either. Can we sit back and wait and see if Chuck mellows a bit after considering all the input that has been provided about his well-intentioned efforts to help improve the BladeForums experience?
Click to expand...

That comparison is not lost on me. The difference, as I see it, is that I exercise rational judgment when I criticize something, rather than a hypercritical and legalistic selective enforcement of the forum's rules in a manner appropriate only to a forum moderator. I've also never, to my knowledge, accused a legitimate poster of trollilng a forum simply becuase that poster dared to ask a question, post a quote or link, or otherwise fall short of the rigorous standards Chuck claims to (and only selectively) uphold(s). He has repeatedly said he sees no way to determine who is legitimate and who is not; he has rejected by implication the notion that we can ever judge a post in context; he has maintained his insistence on a dogmatic and zero-tolerance approach to hectoring the forum's participants, mindlessly, with the letter of the rules regardless of their purpose or spirit.

That is not what I do. You may dislike the content of my opinions but I have never pushed anyone around simply to push them around, which is most decidedly what Chuck has been attempting to do. The rules are meant to be a guide to promote substantive participation -- not a cudgel with which one self-appointed quasi-moderator may gratify himself and stroke his ego by browbeating others.

Your right that nothing likely will be done in an administrative capacity. At least Chuck's ability to harass others will be somewhat inhibited from this point forward.
 
Gollnick said:
I have never, not once, not ever, said that I was a moderator on the politcal forum. I don't believe that I have ever implied that I am a moderator on the politcal forum (and, again, pointing out the rules is not exclusive to moderators but something every member can and should do). I have corrected that mistake whenever I have seen it (unless someone else already has).
Click to expand...

Actions speak louder than words. Carry a clipboard on a job site, don't be surprised to see people think you're a foreman, even if you never say it. Wear scrubs and a white coat in a hospital, don't be surprised when people think you're a doctor. Point out the rules every time you perceive a rules violation, don't be shocked when people think you're a moderator.
 
mycroftt said:
Phil, I apologize if I appear to be responding only to your posts on this issue, especially since we didn't really hit it off during our first exchanges a few weeks ago. For some reason I find your posts to be thought- and response-provoking. I want to point out, though, that Chuck's behavior is not unlike your own here. He speaks up about behavior that he thinks is inappropriate, just as you do. Whether his interpretation of the rules is overly pedantic or not is, in my view, immaterial. He has his pet peeve just as others, like myself, have had. I don't think that more should be made of it than is on its face - he chides and cajoles posters - so what?

I'm not seeing a lot of value in continuing this discussion at this point - although it's your call if you want to continue. The PA mods are unlikely to start infracting Chuck, and I don't know, but I think it's unlikely that Spark will either. Can we sit back and wait and see if Chuck mellows a bit after considering all the input that has been provided about his well-intentioned efforts to help improve the BladeForums experience?
Click to expand...
Reasonable as always Moderator of the Political Forum mycroftt. The vast difference is that even though both are acting in a civilian capacity in the Political Arena (as evidenced by at least four public admissions of Gollnick that he is not moderating in the PA) only Sharp Phil is in risk of infractions for insults and poor form. As Sharp Phil pointed out elsewhere, only he is at risk of losing access to this forum, a product he has paid for. Gollnick is hiding behind the uniform to abuse other civilians.

As a moderator in his assigned forum, I'm sure he does a swell job. The times I've been in that forum have been as pleasant as on any other section of the knife sections. However, once off duty Gollnick takes the city Police cruiser over to Capitol Hill and beats civilians with a club for jaywalking... not to mention abuse the Moderators that are actually policing the Capitol.

To that last Quip Gollnick will be quick to say he doesn't hold anyone above the law including moderators. Oh yes I'm sure he feels he is completely justified in his actions.

Book burners also feel completely justified in quelling free thought and ideas.
Post number 54 and many like it over the years are one reason why I've initiated this crusade for justice. I think it is sad that important people like that are driven off by Gollnick's abuse. Quite ironic that Gollnick claims to be looking out for Bladeforums yet destroys it in the process...much like a book burner.

Posts 8 and 72 are also worth considering for their ramifications.

(since only members can see that link, I don't believe I've broken any rules, but if so as my first infraction, at least it will be for a good cause)
 
Last edited:
I will just say this and then move along...

I often read the political forum. I have wanted to post and/or participate but every time I am ready to, I stop because I think I may be verbally beat down by Gollnick. So I just read......and stay silent.

Thanks folks.
 
I've been stomped on once or twice, but I got through it with just a little flailing & whimpering. :) Don't bother me one bit, he is a sharp fella, well spoken, and conducts himself as a gentleman from what I've seen. Really no offense intended, but I must say I side with the "Get over it" guys, even though I also thought he was a moderator.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top