No, he is not blocked from the Members Only category. [quote=ājast, post:56, topic:18749ā]
I donāt think I see what you seeā¦
[/quote]
Do you have an option for an expanded view of the profile? I know others during the meeting mentioned seeing the flag counts - which are usually on the top left of the profile pageā¦
The second screen shot is what I know everyone can see, because I see it still when I am not logged in.
Could you share where you see the flags - so others know how to view them, please?
Also, hereās the link to the users stats that Art has on his screen shotā¦ (Thanks! I forgot to include that earlierā¦)
Iām looking in the rules, and I donāt see how āharassmentā and āviolation of excellenceā are in any way related. If anything applies, I would say that Anti-Harassment Policy #4 applies to your statement about āBrave enough to say that to my faceā, implying physical harm if Walter did so.
Reading the PM (posted on Walterās webpage) between you and him, all I see are two people who are bickering at each other. Nothing in this private exchange seems to warrant the actions taken by the BoD.
I feel a formal vote of No Confidence is needed against the 4 BoD members who voted for this motion. It saddens me that weāve come down to this sort of heavy-handed action against a proven positive contributor to DMS.
(edit: I did intend to attend the BoD meeting, as I had an item on the agenda. I forgot. )
Brad, you seem like a good guy, and I appreciate your willingness to step up and volunteer at DMS. But I would caution you, that judging the people here on the basis of their forum posts is very misleading, Folks are rising up in Walterās defense, because we know him personally, have participated in his contributions to the Space. Likewise, the underlying stories are seldom posted to Talk, yet many of us are very aware of the personality conflicts and problems that underpin many issues that appear publicly as something other than what they are. This is one of them.
Thereās no way you can know that, and I doubt youāve had the chance to get to know Walter. Heās feisty, opinionated, and ready to help people when asked, teach, share, etc. In short, he is a credit to DMS. His forum postings donāt remove or diminish that fact. Being perfect, is not a requirement of membership - if it was, none of us would be here.
I would recommend stepping away from these things, until youāve been here a while. Only then, will you know enough about all the players, to see the game for what it is.
IF I can see āan expanded view of the profileā, I either donāt know how to get there, or I cannot remember.
I can see everything I posted as a browser who is not logged in.
I am 99% sure heās quoting from the BOD Minutes, rather than something found in Talk.
And thatās fine, but the interactions on this forum are a public face of this organization.
And thatās fine, but youāre trying to justify his behavior because, rightly or wrongly, you believe that his value to the space outweighs behavior that is, frankly, completely inexcusable.
The fact of the matter is that my interactions with him have been completely and totally negative. And Iām not the only one who feels that way.
Perhaps you find his behavior to be appropriate. I have no idea. But I donāt. Iāve been on boards of nonprofits before, as well as corporate boards. Iāve worked in leadership roles for more than a decade, leading diverse international teams. And I can tell you, uncategorically, Iāve never been part of any organization, for-profit or non-profit, that would tolerate and excuse his behavior. Itās readily apparent that heās been censured in the past, and said actions have mattered to him not one iota. Because heās not altered his behavior. I have fired people for doing less than he has.
I disagree wholeheartedly. You canāt cleave the parts of him you like from the parts you donāt. His helpfulness in one area does not offset his behavior in others.
I donāt think I, nor anyone, is asking for perfection. I do think, however, that a basic level of civility isnāt beyond the requirements of membership.
Rules 4 and 11 of the code of conduct speak clearly to this:
'4. Donāt merely respect each other; be excellent to each other.
'11. Harmful behavior, harrassment, stalking, theft, hazing, and otherwise being the opposite of excellent is unaccecptable.
I appreciate the advice, but I respectfully donāt think thatās going to happen. Iāve spent my entire life working in high-performance organizations, and I donāt believe in settling for the status quo ever. I donāt make excuses for myself and I donāt expect anyone else to make excuses for me. If Iām deficient, I correct it, apologize, and move on. I expect everyone else to hold themselves to that level of conduct.
I donāt believe that Walterās complaint against me was anything other than retaliatory, but if he actually believe that I threatened him, I sincerely apologize. That was not the intent of my statement, nor did I anticipate him (or anyone) receiving it that way.
That being said, the actions of those who believe that his positive qualities outweigh his negatives is troubling to me. Excusing negative behavior because of positive contribution is how things used to work. Sexual harassment was excused because the harasser was valuable. Threatening behavior, angry outbursts, yelling and screaming, etc., was tolerated so long as the employee was still productive.
Walterās behavior toward new members was terrible. Thereās no excusing it. I find it troubling that there are people who are willing to tolerate it and hand-wave it away. The fact that he is unapologetic about it tells me that heās not planning on changing it anytime soon. Itās the behavior of a bully, and I donāt believe that bullies should be tolerated anywhere, least of all at a member-supported charitable organization.
Should he acknowledge that his behavior was completely unacceptable, apologize, outline a plan on how he intends to solve his issues, and then implement said plan, Iām more than willing to reexamine his behavior in a more positive light. But where I sit today, I see no reason to do so.
Walter is not an employee of DMS. Standards for employees are very different than community standards.
Honestly, you irritated a number of members with a lot of your posts because they appeared very entitled and negative about an organization they care about greatly. Instead of talking about you like a dog behind your back, like many were doing, Walter addressed you directly, after you so inappropriately went internet tough guy and told him to say it to your face, which is an implied threat. People at my workplace are fired for far less, so Iām not sure where you work where inappropriate language is a problem but threats are acceptable.
I canāt think of any part of my personal life, especially one I pay to participate in that requires the same level of discretion as my employer. If I do give other areas that same level, it is because I elect to do so as part of who I am, and how it reflects on me, not because I believe work is a litmus test for how I should interact with the world. Iām sure you do things on your personal time that are totally inappropriate if done at work.
This is a prime argument for taking punitive action against a member in an area where there is a problem, and leaving them alone in areas where this is not a problem. Which is exactly what happened.
The guy I know in person is a nice, knowledgeable dude.
The guy I know from Talk is an opinionated person who argues for sport, often seems to speak (type) without thinking, and lashes out when he gets mad enough. Recently Iāve been derided as āchildā and been obliquely accused of āhate speechā.
A few instances are not a big deal. You get mad, you cool down, and everything goes on. But the onslaught from this member is persistent and detrimental.
Or it speaks to how irritating your behavior was at the time. How do you think people who love something are going to react when you trash it constantly? Did you think youād get hugs and hearts and candy?
Let me clarify then. Iām speaking to the actions of the Board. With respect to you, so sorry, you were and are the aggressor here. You established the negative tone of your following posts with Walter, with statements like this one, which started the whole thing:
That was the first blood, and youāve self-servingly styled Walter as the aggressor here, and while Walter does suffer from āneed the last wordā syndrome (a trait which you evidently share with him), there is nothing aggressive or threatening about the man, nor in his posts. He states and strongly supports his positions, and sometimes wonāt let it go when he should. But you, a new member, introduced yourself to us, by angrily arguing over the lift fee (several of us agreed with your issue, but not the way you pursued a resolution). Youāve continued that posture right through today. And for the record, I did read the private messages you complained about, and found your complaint to be unfounded and bullshit. Walter had the class to take it private, and he tells it like he sees it. But there were no threats.
And I would suggest, with respect to āExcellenceā, you remove the log from your own eye, before picking the splinter out of Walterās or anyone elseās for that matter.
We are members of a self-governed, voluntary organization, not employees in a faceless corporation.
But ā¦ since weāre on that subject: How would your employer react to the implied threat of your very public post? Not very well, I suspect.
I agree with @Tapper and others. Youāre a new member, and many have noticed that you seem to feel like you know whatās best for us. While we accommodate your views, weāre certainly not bound to agree with all of them, and some of us have been around long enough to realize that the ānoobā is rehashing an old issue with no new ideas as to how to solve it. Boasting that youāve been involved in āleadership rolesā for more than a decade is a drop in the life-experience bucket to some of the DMS membership, so I wouldnāt be overly proud of that, either.
I do hope that youāll learn from this encounter and apply a little self-moderation, especially when more than one person tells you that youāre being a bit of an annoyance.
Walter contributes a significant amount in many ways to the Dallas Makerspace. This is not in question. However this doesnāt exempt him from consequences related to his other activities. Several board meetings ago I asked the room if anyone thought Talk was better with Walter. Nobody responded of the 30 or so people in the room (this was noted in the minutes). Dozens of times Iāve had people tell me how appalling Walter is on Talk and how helpful he is in person. Hence an action taken that affects Walter on Talk and not in any other way. If it would make you feel better we can remove more people from Talk for various reasons.
Several people have thanked me for voting in favor of blocking Walter on Talk. Until this thread, I havenāt heard a single objection. If the membership is indeed in favor of having Walterās block removed thatās of course a possibility. Nothing in the resolution said forever, it was left open ended.
For what itās worth I felt this would be no surprise coming from me. In my statement in 2016 I said āFostering a culture of friendliness and helpfulness.ā Messaging new members tell them youāre tired of their bitching is the exact opposite of that and is completely unacceptable (along with a history of complaints on Talk form others). I havenāt done much on this front unfortunately and Iāve let the membership down in many other ways. Sorry.
)
)
)