Jeff Ream Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 19 minutes ago, Bluzes said: If me going off the rails is why threads are closed is pathetic. You and I and everyone on DCP think this is important. The folks that don't think this is important is DCI. If folks stop attaching me personally I will react in kind and have proved that's what I am about. If bulling me is the reason threads are closed stop bullying me. It's not up to me to make folks grow up they put the target n my back and they know how to fix it, not me. Actually no it’s not pathetic. Read the guidelines. bullying you A) isn’t happening and B) taking things way off topic IS grounds for closing things. Your non ending Rants about your views on how government, business etc should or shouldn’t do closed the Hopkins thread. It’s an online chat forum and you’re taking peoples opinions of you way to seriously in ways that affect your posts which only compounds the problem. i use my real name I don’t hide behind a screen name. I don’t care if I meet people from here or not and I could give a #### if people like me or not. As a result I’m not the reason threads derail and get closed, because like they said in A New Hope, I stay on target. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bluzes said: . Closing threads is an arbitrary thing I have no say in that. The mods make their own decisions. Not so arbitrary. We had a discussion about music rights in a thread that had nothing to do with music rights. I’m sure that was part of the reason that one was closed but it went off the rails couple of times before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: If this timeline is accurate, then DCI looks really bad. Also, given that the Arsenal employee who broke the rule no longer works for the corps, shouldn't DCI consider reinstating their application? I mean, he was gone within 24 hrs. of DCI notifying the corps of the infraction. I'm quite serious: (1) Shouldn't DCI take into account that the offending employee is no longer at the corps? (2) That said, would Arsenal have any interest in fielding a corps without their founding director? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 16 minutes ago, Bluzes said: It's simple don't make it personal, leave the issues to the issues and leave anything out about what others may think about me personally, don't paint pictures that the DCP collective consciousness are a bunch of sick puppies because I post here. In other words, act like a respectable adult and I will do the same. Who's derailing the posts, not me it's your childish attitude about where threads need to go. I’m going to do something I’ve never done before. im going to publicly admit Ive reported you for detailing topics and deviating from the guidelines 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: The statement contains fraudulent claims regarding how DCI handled the situation. Does this statement ring true or is he reading more into this then he should? Fraudulent is a strong word that sometimes leads to legal action. Where do you think this is headed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 10 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: If this timeline is accurate, then DCI looks really bad. Also, given that the Arsenal employee who broke the rule no longer works for the corps, shouldn't DCI consider reinstating their application? I mean, he was gone within 24 hrs. of DCI notifying the corps of the infraction. The key is he said he emailed dci but didn’t post those Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Bluzes said: Does this statement ring true or is he reading more into this then he should? Fraudulent is a strong word that sometimes leads to legal action. Where do you think this is headed? The line you quoted (with "fraudulent") is his not mine. (Just wanted to make sure that was clear.) Edited January 17, 2019 by N.E. Brigand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: Actually no it’s not pathetic. Read the guidelines. Can't you just find it in your heart to leave me be? I am already off to asking real questions about the directors' intentions, isn' that what's this thread is about, who is really derailing it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Spatzzz said: The content may not have been wrong but the method most certainly was. It wasn't handled in an appropriate and professional manner and that is what makes it wrong. Here is how he SHOULD have handled it. - Sent out social media post offering reduced fees to PIO and OC members. Full stop. -Approached DCI directly to voice his concerns over the current state of member care within the activity and offered HIS support to help clean things up. Had he done this he would have won fans of the public and at DCI. Surely people here understand basic business protocol when it comes to the use of social media. 55 minutes ago, DCIat14 said: ...because how dare he (and we as a community) admit our current state of member care in two corps not active (1 suspended, 1 in hiatus), as well as many others, is not up to par. How dare we admit that these adults are placed in a position of trust and it is their responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of every marching member on that field. DCI is well aware o the state of current member care and DCI has chosen to sit on their thumbs & spin instead of taking action. I can think of a particular corps specifically whose director was ON THE DCI BOD! Conflict of interest? Perhaps. Regardless, sweeping crumbs under a rug doesn't get rid of the crumbs...and burning the house down for a speck of dust is just crazy. "Actions speak louder than words, and sometimes inaction speaks louder than both of them" This type of situation has played out in other sanctioning bodies. NASCAR for example has a policy that any team owner, crew member, driver can approach the governing body directly and discuss any grievence; NASCAR will listen intently and respectfully to that grievence. However, NASCAR also has a media policy; if the team owner, crew member, driver mouths off to the media as airs out a grievence that could harm the brand they are whacked hard with a fine or suspension. The difference here is that NASCAR punishes the individual person who did the media thing not the entire team like DCI just did. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said: The key is he said he emailed dci but didn’t post those Has DCI disputed his timeline or argued that his emails make him look worse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.