A question for MT members

[Matt Stone]

It is no secret that Robert is a good friend of mine. By happy coincidence, I find myself again in the same part of the world that he resides in, and look forward to a reunion sooner than later.

It is also no secret (though perhaps forgtotten by most) that a huge, painful conflict erupted some time back due to Robert's desire to keep things more honest than friendly. Whatever. It resulted in quite a few people "jumping ship" from MT to find fora that were more dedicated to truth than friendliness.

Certainly, Dr. Gyi's background is old news. It is well known among MAists that are well educated in the "current events" of the MA community. It is likely, however, that very few of the hordes of newbies students are as informed as others. That is precisely why such issues need, from time to time, to be revisited. People like Gyi, Calkins (whose actual skills have yet, to my knowledge, been verified or attacked; it was only his spurious claims that were the subject of discussion, if memory serves...), Sacharnoski, Goninan, etc., periodically need the lessons learned from their example to be refreshed in everyone's memory, lest another person fall victim to the falsehoods being presented as fact.

This revisitation could be handled many ways. I would guess that, not having seen Gyi's history discussed here on MT personally, that Robert was unaware of its prior discussion. So he posted a question and information to back it up. I would submit that it took two posts due to the length of the information he presented as substantiation for his question. Perhaps not, but that was my first impression.

The Calkins threads did, indeed, go on nearly forever, and the mods were pretty much hands off the entire time. Occasionally warnings were given to keep the discussion "polite and friendly," but the internet raping of Calkins' story was allowed to continue. Fine.

Robert submitted a two post thread regarding the background of Gyi, and it was locked. That's what I saw transpire. The 39 posts in this thread took place while I was sleeping, so imagine my surprise at the fire started by the two post thread I'd seen before I went beddy-bye...

As for other specific points, allow me to address them via quotes:

Most likely because after your cowardly retreat you prove your cowardice by coming back here and starting the same **** that you know is against the rules. As a member, not staff ... just go away - PERMANENTLY.

The emphasis added is mine, but would imply to me upon first reading that the person making the comment was, in fact, staff, and was trying very unsuccessfully to separate personal from pseudo-professional actions. All I can say is that that person, should I ever find out their true identity, no longer warrants my respect nor tolerance. Disappointing for such a "professional" staff to behave in such an unprofessional, backbiting, juvenile manner. Didn't even bother to identify him/herself for fear of public reprisal...

This ... is ... not ... bullshido ... nor ... any ... other ... fraud-busting ... site!!!

So, let me get it straight, we are or are not allowed to address issues concerning potential frauds and their behavior, in either question or statement form, for the use of the board as a whole? Are we to simply sit back and do nothing? I am a Bullshido member, and though I very much enjoy that forum, they don't always go about their stated purpose in the best way possible. They taint their own work by the behavior of several of their other members, both on Bullshido and on other fora. Robert simply posted a question backed up by text copied from a site that provided the background research that was the substantive basis for the question. That's not allowed??? :idunno:

Dr. Gyi lied about his military record, that is a matter of public record. I am sick of hearing about it.

I'm so glad that someone has reached their tolerance level on the dissemination of information that, though public record, remains unknown to some. Sounds far more personal than "professional."

Why was it locked? Simply because he is not a member here and therefore cannot attempt to defend himself or retract his past statements.

Please, cite the specific portion of MT rules that prohibits discussion of the actions, public and published, of non-members. I simply don't care to go look myself, to be honest. I'd then submit that, if such a policy does exist, it should be far more equally applied when discussions, regardless of length (since Robert's thread must certainly mark a record in short thread life) and regardless of content, are started regarding non-members. If it cannot be applied equally without regard to content, it is an unfair and prohibitive policy.

Calkins was and continued to lie after being confronted offline, by me.

And of course you are the final authority in life for Calkins, and surely he was going to turn over a new leaf after confrontation by you? Hardly. Don't overestimate your position in the cosmos... He'll likely continue to lie, since at least three fora (MT, Bullshido, and E-budo) have content regarding his claims.

Because he continued to lie, you appear to sanction the continued discussion to "out" him. After 5 pages of Google searches for both "Maung Gyi" and "Bando," and combinations thereof, I'll admit I find it interesting that there is nearly no mention of Gyi's prior storyline other than on the site that maintains the history of his questionable background. It would appear he is no longer presenting himself as the war hero he once did. Does that mean so long as a person with a previous history as a fraud turns over a "new leaf," and stops the blatantly inappropriate behavior (at least that which can be determined solely via the internet), they are no longer viable topics of discussion? What if a complete newbie, uninformed and looking for information to better decide what art to study, asked about Gyi's past? Would that thread be locked within two posts as well? Please clarify...

This thread is inappropriate, if you had an issue with something my staff did, you should have come to me, you know how to reach me. Whining, as you admit, in public is disruptive, petulent, and beneath you. Attacking my staff is a major no no and tends to piss me off.

#1) Some people, myself included, like to know what is going on "behind the scenes," and some people, myself included, prefer public answers rather than private ones. There are too many that aspire to be the "great and powerful OZ," and sometimes things are better handled above board and out in the open. Light illuminates all things...

#2) Getting "pissed off" because someone questions the staff... Is it really that infuriating to have the staff questioned, or is it because she's your wife? Just curious if you get as torqued if another mod is questioned harshly about their actions...

I'm not sure if other responses were crafted while I've been crafting this one, checking my resources, and editing what I write. If there were, fine. I'll address them as well if I feel the need.

Bottom line... I don't see that Robert did anything wrong, nor do I see that his initial thread needed to be locked. Moved, perhaps, but not locked.

Pax.

 

[Cruentus]

I'm going to reply to this briefly, then I am not looking back, because it is no use argueing this matter with people who will refuse to understand. Plus, I don't behave well outside of my element (the armoury) anyways.

What some of you need to understand is that the "fraudbusting" stuff as it is usually done in the forums is unprofessional. Some of us, at least me anyways, want Martialtalk to have a level of professionalism that will keep this site above many of the others out there, and that will invite the professional martial artist as well as the novice to participate in productive discussions. Fraudbusting impedes this goal, and stiffles productivity.

Yet, I understand that there is a place for it simply to to get the information out there if it is not available, which is why we have the proper sections for it. I know some of you think that it is your personal responsability to fight for the integrity and purity of the arts by running to every thread near a subject of someone who you feel may have been dishonest, and spamming and hijacking the hell out of it with all the nasty details of the perceived wrongdoing. I know that some of you feel that you are doing a noble thing by informing the public. Unfortunatily, you are mistaken. What you need to realize is that the ends DO NOT justify the means. You also need to realize that people have a personal responsability to background check and research the instructors in which they choose to train under before spending their money. Either the individual will do their due dilligence, or they won't; and no amount of fraudbusting spam will change that.

It is noble to make information public, provided that it is true information, and provided that this is done so in a professional manner. Spamming the forums with a Fruad busting agenda, whatever the intent, is not only not professional, but is ineffective and destructive to productive discourse.

Funny how when I say that I will reply briefly, it never ends up brief.

Oh well, you either get the point or you don't...

and if you don't, then I am sorry that I can't help you further.

Paul

P.S. RR, this is not directed only at you; I am just expressing my views on the matter. :asian:

 

[Seig]

I am taking the time to reply to you, even though the conversation was between Robert and I. This is my final word on the matter at hand.

It is no secret that Robert is a good friend of mine. By happy coincidence, I find myself again in the same part of the world that he resides in, and look forward to a reunion sooner than later.

I respect Robert, but what has this to do with the conversation?

It is also no secret (though perhaps forgtotten by most) that a huge, painful conflict erupted some time back due to Robert's desire to keep things more honest than friendly. Whatever. It resulted in quite a few people "jumping ship" from MT to find fora that were more dedicated to truth than friendliness.

Yes, you are right, that did happen. It seems that a whole bunch of people could not fathom our tag line "Martial Talk - Friendly Discussion about the Martial Arts"

Certainly, Dr. Gyi's background is old news. It is well known among MAists that are well educated in the "current events" of the MA community. It is likely, however, that very few of the hordes of newbies students are as informed as others. That is precisely why such issues need, from time to time, to be revisited.

People like Gyi, Calkins (whose actual skills have yet, to my knowledge, been verified or attacked; it was only his spurious claims that were the subject of discussion, if memory serves...), Sacharnoski, Goninan, etc., periodically need the lessons learned from their example to be refreshed in everyone's memory, lest another person fall victim to the falsehoods being presented as fact.

That may very well be, but there is a time and a place for that and while this may have been the time, it was certainly in the wrong place.

This revisitation could be handled many ways. I would guess that, not having seen Gyi's history discussed here on MT personally, that Robert was unaware of its prior discussion.

Nice try, if it happened on MT, Robert is aware of it.

So he posted a question and information to back it up.
I would submit that it took two posts due to the length of the information he presented as substantiation for his question. Perhaps not, but that was my first impression.

Another good try. One does not back up a question, one backs up a statement.

The Calkins threads did, indeed, go on nearly forever, and the mods were pretty much hands off the entire time. Occasionally warnings were given to keep the discussion "polite and friendly," but the internet raping of Calkins' story was allowed to continue. Fine.

Again, Calkins was a member here and able to defend himself. His continued claims gave ground to more responses. Unfortunately, most of them were negative.

Robert submitted a two post thread regarding the background of Gyi, and it was locked. That's what I saw transpire. The 39 posts in this thread took place while I was sleeping, so imagine my surprise at the fire started by the two post thread I'd seen before I went beddy-bye...

Are you familiar with the saying "Beating a Dead Horse?" That was what was happening. Now, I will cede that if Gyi was having a seminar about military tactics, things may have been allowed to progress differently. That is not the case.

As for other specific points, allow me to address them via quotes:



The emphasis added is mine, but would imply to me upon first reading that the person making the comment was, in fact, staff, and was trying very unsuccessfully to separate personal from pseudo-professional actions. All I can say is that that person, should I ever find out their true identity, no longer warrants my respect nor tolerance. Disappointing for such a "professional" staff to behave in such an unprofessional, backbiting, juvenile manner. Didn't even bother to identify him/herself for fear of public reprisal...

Wrong, oh omnipotent one. The staff member who did it forgot to sign her name, so I did it for her, at her request.

So, let me get it straight, we are or are not allowed to address issues concerning potential frauds and their behavior, in either question or statement form, for the use of the board as a whole? Are we to simply sit back and do nothing?

You are allowed to address issues, there is a specific forum for it The Great Debate. What you are not allowed to do is hijack a thread to do it. Robert could have very easily said, "Please see here" and posted a link to it.

I am a Bullshido member, and though I very much enjoy that forum, they don't always go about their stated purpose in the best way possible. They taint their own work by the behavior of several of their other members, both on Bullshido and on other fora. Robert simply posted a question backed up by text copied from a site that provided the background research that was the substantive basis for the question. That's not allowed??? :idunno:

Asked and answered.

I'm so glad that someone has reached their tolerance level on the dissemination of information that, though public record, remains unknown to some. Sounds far more personal than "professional."

I am so glad you feel that way. When YOU deal with the same issue from the same people repeatedly, and it is usually less than a dozen of them, that tend to dissuade conversation from some of the other 4000 members of MT, I must weigh the opinions of the few against the opinions of the many. I am not a crusade to bring the word, the way, and the light to the entire world.

Please, cite the specific portion of MT rules that prohibits discussion of the actions, public and published, of non-members. I simply don't care to go look myself, to be honest.

Then you are in violation of MT's terms of service.
But here is the bottome line "MartialTalk is not a forum dedicated to credential checks or outing frauds. Our goal is to provide a friendly, and an open area to exchange ideas, share thoughts, relax and network. Activities that disrupt our primary focus are not encouraged." In the past, we have allowed members that make fantastic claims to try and defend themselves. Either they can or they cannot. If the cannot, they usually wind up committing a bannable offense or fall into the "excessively disruptive category"; either way they are gone.

I'd then submit that, if such a policy does exist, it should be far more equally applied when discussions, regardless of length (since Robert's thread must certainly mark a record in short thread life) and regardless of content, are started regarding non-members. If it cannot be applied equally without regard to content, it is an unfair and prohibitive policy.

It's a shame you feel that way. Robert has been around long enough to know how I run the board. He was also satisfied with my answers.

And of course you are the final authority in life for Calkins, and surely he was going to turn over a new leaf after confrontation by you? Hardly. Don't overestimate your position in the cosmos... He'll likely continue to lie, since at least three fora (MT, Bullshido, and E-budo) have content regarding his claims.

I'm wounded that you don't think the universe revolves around me. Don't be silly. I confronted him with his claims, offline and he insisted he was telling the truth. See, the difference here is the statement "offline", meaning not on the board. I also told him that if he continued, he wouldn't be here much longer. He did, he wasn't.

Because he continued to lie, you appear to sanction the continued discussion to "out" him.

No, he's gone and I simply forgot about him, like I do most people that are an abject pain in the ***.
{QUOTE] After 5 pages of Google searches for both "Maung Gyi" and "Bando," and combinations thereof, I'll admit I find it interesting that there is nearly no mention of Gyi's prior storyline other than on the site that maintains the history of his questionable background. It would appear he is no longer presenting himself as the war hero he once did. Does that mean so long as a person with a previous history as a fraud turns over a "new leaf," and stops the blatantly inappropriate behavior (at least that which can be determined solely via the internet), they are no longer viable topics of discussion? What if a complete newbie, uninformed and looking for information to better decide what art to study, asked about Gyi's past? Would that thread be locked within two posts as well? Please clarify... [/QUOTE]That's a fair question, here is the answer:
You say "see here", post a link to whereever maybe the great debate forum and don't hi-jack someone else's thread.

#1) Some people, myself included, like to know what is going on "behind the scenes," and some people, myself included, prefer public answers rather than private ones. There are too many that aspire to be the "great and powerful OZ," and sometimes things are better handled above board and out in the open. Light illuminates all things...

Some, not all. Again, it comes down to playing in the appropriate sandbox.

#2) Getting "pissed off" because someone questions the staff... Is it really that infuriating to have the staff questioned, or is it because she's your wife? Just curious if you get as torqued if another mod is questioned harshly about their actions...

Actually, I get pissed when any of my staff get attacked. The fact that she is my wife may does not color my judgement in the administration of this board. If she's wrong, she hears about it, as do the rest of the staff. In this instance, she was not wrong, she was following my instructions. I was on the phone with her from work and she read what was going on to me. I told her to lock the thread until I could look at it. But as usual, someone thinks they no more about the board than I do. Honestly, if you are going to try and take cheap shots at me, you can do better.

I'm not sure if other responses were crafted while I've been crafting this one, checking my resources, and editing what I write. If there were, fine. I'll address them as well if I feel the need.

Nope, this about a dead issue now.

Bottom line... I don't see that Robert did anything wrong, nor do I see that his initial thread needed to be locked. Moved, perhaps, but not locked.

Pax.

And that is why you are not on the staff, bottom line. Locking a thread is policy for hot topics that have been hashed to death until I can read them and evaluate them myself. Had people not gotten under the collar, I would have dealt with it as it was finally dealt with when I came home from working 12 hours with a 90 minute commute each way. Robert does not need you to defend him. He knows how to reach me directly and has in the past.
This discussion is over.

Seig
MT ADMIN

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

I'm on my way to bed. I have an early morning private followed by a MMA seminar at my school. I have a bunch of things I could say, but right now I want to ask only one question.

Why now? I have done a search on Dr. Gyi here on MT. There are 127 post refering to him in one way or another. I have made many post about him while you have been a member and not so much as a peep has come from you. In my posts there has never been any mention of any type of military history. And Gyi himself doesn't surf the net. Everything about Gyi on the net is posted by others and not him. So the question for now is what is the REAL PROBLEM?

 

[RRouuselot]

1) It seems that a whole bunch of people could not fathom our tag line "Martial Talk - Friendly Discussion about the Martial Arts"
2) That may very well be, but there is a time and a place for that and while this may have been the time, it was certainly in the wrong place.
3) Nice try, if it happened on MT, Robert is aware of it.
4) Another good try. One does not back up a question, one backs up a statement.
5) Again, Calkins was a member here and able to defend himself. His continued claims gave ground to more responses. Unfortunately, most of them were negative.

6) Are you familiar with the saying "Beating a Dead Horse?" That was what was happening.
7) Now, I will cede that if Gyi was having a seminar about military tactics, things may have been allowed to progress differently. That is not the case.
8) Wrong, oh omnipotent one. The staff member who did it forgot to sign her name, so I did it for her, at her request.
9) You are allowed to address issues, there is a specific forum for it The Great Debate. What you are not allowed to do is hijack a thread to do it. Robert could have very easily said, "Please see here" and posted a link to it.
10) It's a shame you feel that way. Robert has been around long enough to know how I run the board. He was also satisfied with my answers.
11) Actually, I get pissed when any of my staff get attacked. The fact that she is my wife may does not color my judgement in the administration of this board. If she's wrong, she hears about it, as do the rest of the staff.
A) In this instance, she was not wrong, she was following my instructions. I was on the phone with her from work and she read what was going on to me. I told her to lock the thread until I could look at it. But as usual, someone thinks they no more about the board than I do. Honestly, if you are going to try and take cheap shots at me, you can do better.
Nope, this about a dead issue now.
12) And that is why you are not on the staff, bottom line. Locking a thread is policy for hot topics that have been hashed to death until I can read them and evaluate them myself. Had people not gotten under the collar, I would have dealt with it as it was finally dealt with when I came home from working 12 hours with a 90 minute commute each way. Robert does not need you to defend him. He knows how to reach me directly and has in the past.
This discussion is over.

Seig
MT ADMIN

1) Yes, and some people on MT have used that “tag line” as a defense when they post absolute crap and lie to our faces about it.
2) Yup, and it was moved to the “proper place” by your staff and then quickly locked AND while locked six posts from another thread were moved in.
3) To use your own words “Nice Try” but I DON’T know about every post on MT.
4) Again I will use your words “Nice Try” but I supplied a reference point for my question.
5) I seem to recall being able to discuss another liar and fake old Jack Sterns and he wasn’t a member here. It seems only when the person being discussed is connected to MT staff then the rules apply……Surely you realize that speed and intensity that action was taken the Dr. Gyi thread makes it look as if there is something a little more than MT policy being applied. I am sure more than a few MT members think so.
6) Two posts with no reply is beating a dead horse?
7) Gyi committed a felony and has lied about his experiences to gain notoriety in the MA……is this what the MA have come to? Excusing this type of dishonorable action……maybe some people feel it’s ok but I am willing to bet many others do not.
8) Funny how that just got added after it was mentioned here. Also, the language she used in her negative ding to me would hardly earn her the name “Blossoming Angel” that’s for sure. Where I come from ladies don’t use such language. Which is why I thought it came from a man. Having said that I owe Hartman an apology since I though it was he who had done it.
9) As stated above. It was moved and closed before there ever was a problem.
10) If you look at my original statement you will see I said it wasn’t a waste of time since I got the answers I was looking for…..meaning I got answers to questions about staff as well.
11) Attacked? In what way? A) Funny how all the Calkins’ threads didn’t receive the same swift actions that were so out of line that they required a phone call to you at work. However, I can see how the Gyi thread in TGD section was getting way out of line with absolutely not a single solitary reply anyone could see it was going to the hell in a hand basket and would require an emergency status phone call to you at work.
12) Which is why all those Calkins’ threads were locked so quickly…….some of those were open for over 3 months and were ironically shutdown only after I mentioned they were still open. The timing couldn’t have been more perfect.


I am sure more than a few people are looking at the closing of the Gyi threads with regards to the actions and timing of the staff and wondering if it wasn’t do to the fact that Gyi is connected to the MT staff that got the threads locked and closed so quickly as compared to other threads of similar nature that were allowed to remain open for months with hundreds of replies instead of mere hours with no replies.

 

[KenpoEMT]

Why on earth push the issue?

I don't mean to be rude in the least bit, but this thread seems to have devoled into near whining...(sorry about that, but that's what it looks like from out here)

It was moved and closed before there ever was a problem.

Foresight.

I've seen some of your posts, and they are usually pretty good. I don't quite understand the sudden animosity against MT. Admin made a decision, and I don't think they are going to back down...

I am sure more than a few people are looking at the closing of the Gyi threads with regards to the actions and timing of the staff and wondering if it wasn’t do to the fact that Gyi is connected to the MT staff that got the threads locked and closed so quickly as compared to other threads of similar nature that were allowed to remain open for months with hundreds of replies instead of mere hours with no replies.

Sorry man, but I trust that the mods are doing their level headed best to keep MT from becoming BT (BullTalk). I really don't see this as being a big deal, except for the fact that ya'll keep harping on it.

Honestly, your post was the first time I'd ever heard of Gyi. He really can't be such a large figure in Martial Arts as to warrant all of this, can he?

 

[RRouuselot]

1) I've seen some of your posts, and they are usually pretty good. I don't quite understand the sudden animosity against MT. Admin made a decision, and I don't think they are going to back down...
Sorry man, but I trust that the mods are doing their level headed best to keep MT from becoming BT (BullTalk). I really don't see this as being a big deal, except for the fact that ya'll keep harping on it.

1) As stated above. The Timing and motivation by the Mods seems suspect and bias given the fact that some MT staff are connected to Gyi.

 

[Matt Stone]

I am taking the time to reply to you, even though the conversation was between Robert and I. This is my final word on the matter at hand.

Oooh... I'm stunned by your authority. You're taking time for little old me? Gee golly wowsers...

I respect Robert, but what has this to do with the conversation?

Because I wanted it known, to any and all that read the thread, exactly where I stand. Not everyone reads every thread, though you imply below that somehow membership automatically confers knowledge of all topics discussed.

Yes, you are right, that did happen. It seems that a whole bunch of people could not fathom our tag line "Martial Talk - Friendly Discussion about the Martial Arts"

And, if I remember correctly, the policies regarding how blatant frauds were handled were rewritten after that fracas, and have been since employed to deal with questionable claims and people in ways that were not necessarily "friendly." But whatever...

That may very well be, but there is a time and a place for that and while this may have been the time, it was certainly in the wrong place.

So the post could have been moved and left alone. Instead, it was moved and locked "pending review."

Nice try, if it happened on MT, Robert is aware of it.

Because, certainly, he reads every thread, right? I ignore the bulk of the threads I see on this and other fora because for one reason or other they don't interest me. I'm guessing this is the case with most people, don't you agree?

Another good try. One does not back up a question, one backs up a statement.

Really? And you write the rules for asking questions too? Quite a load of responsibility for you, to govern all of humanity isn't it?

The question was asked, and information posted to support the substantive basis for the question. But whatever...

Again, Calkins was a member here and able to defend himself. His continued claims gave ground to more responses. Unfortunately, most of them were negative.

So if an individual, not a member, is asked about, it is against the rules to inquire regarding whatever members may know about that individual? Just trying to clarify...

Are you familiar with the saying "Beating a Dead Horse?" That was what was happening.

And action was taken without so much as a public note to state why the thread was locked. Robert says there were six posts added in that thread after it was locked. Due to the time difference between him, me, and "y'all," those posts must have been moved in and then removed before some folks had a chance to see them. A thread being locked without any apparent reason looks odd. But that's just me. Whatever...

Now, I will cede that if Gyi was having a seminar about military tactics, things may have been allowed to progress differently. That is not the case.

How would holding a seminar on military tactics, a subject, like martial arts, that does not require military experience, combat service, nor affiliation with the military to have knowledge of (only that such things lend credence to the legitimacy of the instructor and his/her knowledge), be any different pertaining to a question regarding the instructor's past claims? He could be teaching origami, Burmese cuisine, or how to file a 1040EZ form, and the past behavior, as an instructor, would still be pertinent. Some may not know, others may not care, but asking the question is still pertinent.

Wrong, oh omnipotent one. The staff member who did it forgot to sign her name, so I did it for her, at her request.

Two things - #1) I think you may have meant omniscient (all knowing) as opposed to omnipotent (all powerful); #2) As of Robert's posting it was unsigned. The signing took place then, apparently, after the fact. But whatever...

Admitting it was a staff member makes it all that much more juvenile a comment. Nice to know that such school yard shots are taken behind the scenes by the staff members of such a "professional" forum.

You are allowed to address issues, there is a specific forum for it The Great Debate. What you are not allowed to do is hijack a thread to do it. Robert could have very easily said, "Please see here" and posted a link to it.

And Tess could have very easily moved the thread and left it alone rather than locking it outright.

I am so glad you feel that way. When YOU deal with the same issue from the same people repeatedly, and it is usually less than a dozen of them, that tend to dissuade conversation from some of the other 4000 members of MT, I must weigh the opinions of the few against the opinions of the many. I am not a crusade to bring the word, the way, and the light to the entire world.

Well, Mr. Spock, I admire your "good of the many" balanced against the "good of the few," but such a concept applies just as equally in the ongoing policing of the martial community. It becomes an issue of who is willing to stand their ground and refuse to accept all the BS that is propagated in the MA world, risking one's own reputation and name to do so, so that additional tens, hundreds, and in rare cases even thousands, of ignorant neophytes won't be defrauded, deluded, or otherwise vicimized by unscrupulous, unethical, and occasionally criminal, people.

But whatever... All it takes for MA fraud to continue is for enough people to turn a blind eye to it. Not just Gyi in this instance, but more importantly in the community at large. But whatever...

Then you are in violation of MT's terms of service.

Am I? Please cite the specific portion of MT rules that prohibits my asking the Admin Staff to clarify something for me...

But here is the bottome line "MartialTalk is not a forum dedicated to credential checks or outing frauds. Our goal is to provide a friendly, and an open area to exchange ideas, share thoughts, relax and network.

Not dedicated, but certainly not exclusive of such actions, wouldn't you agree? You'd have to; Calkins' thread is the most recent evidence of that being an accepted portion of MT experience. As far as "friendly," there are political discussions that have gotten so heated as to nearly come to blows... Is that "friendly," too? Have those threads been locked? Just curious, not that it matters...

Activities that disrupt our primary focus are not encouraged.

What was disruptive about two posts added to one thread, one thread of three across several fora, asking about the instructor of the seminar? The thread wasn't "hijacked," as the thread wasn't going anywhere in the first place! There weren't any other replies in the thread beyond Robert's... But whatever...

In the past, we have allowed members that make fantastic claims to try and defend themselves. Either they can or they cannot. If the cannot, they usually wind up committing a bannable offense or fall into the "excessively disruptive category"; either way they are gone.

So Gyi isn't a member. Fine. Admin could quite easily have stated "as so-and-so is not a member, and not present to defend their position, further discussion of this topic is prohibited." Then the thread could have been dealt with, moved, locked, whatever.

It's a shame you feel that way.

Yeah. Whatever...

No, he's gone and I simply forgot about him, like I do most people that are an abject pain in the ***.

Nice try at a dig, there. Almost, but not quite good enough. Made me smile, though. :ultracool

But as usual, someone thinks they no more about the board than I do. Honestly, if you are going to try and take cheap shots at me, you can do better.

If I was taking shots at you, there'd be no question. Don't imply I was. I simply asked if you were getting pissed because your wife was being questioned (not attacked, there's a difference). The fact that you took my question personally, as a "cheap shot," would indicate to me that I may have been closer to the mark than you admit. But whatever...

And that is why you are not on the staff, bottom line. Locking a thread is policy for hot topics that have been hashed to death until I can read them and evaluate them myself. Had people not gotten under the collar, I would have dealt with it as it was finally dealt with when I came home from working 12 hours with a 90 minute commute each way. Robert does not need you to defend him. He knows how to reach me directly and has in the past.

I'm not "defending" him. I'm responding with my own comments to a public thread. I wasn't aware that this was a private affair that only he and you could engage in. I also wasn't aware that Gyi's background was a "hot topic." And I'm terribly sorry your 12 hour job is so taxing for you. During my 15 - 18 hour days I'll be sure to think about you...

This discussion is over.

Impressive. So powerful, your expression of finality. But whatever...

 

[shesulsa]

**MODERATOR NOTE**

THREAD LOCKED PENDING ADMIN REVIEW

G KETCHMARK / SHESULSA
MT SENIOR MODERATOR

 

[Bob Hubbard]

A couple of points. Not all, but a couple.

1: The posts that were added were posts that had according to my notes been removed from one of the seminar notices (not certain which one, there were 3), which were combined with Roberts comments concerning Gyi's background in TGD after the staff had first removed them to decide a course of action. A course that was approved by both myself and Seig. Splitting and merging is part of a moderators job, and we've been doing this for 4 years now.

2: The "Swift" action here involves a change of internal policies allowing each section to have greater ability to act. This comes from the mods having more experience with the tools and therefore having more freedom to act. A problem was reported, resolved, closed. There is nothing sinister about it. Our experience with the Calkins matter resulted in changes to how we handle certain things. The same action would have been handled if someone posted an Ashida Kim seminar notice and if someone else followed up with a list of why he's a fraud.

3: There were several procedural violations with what was posted in this case. As we said, fraud busting has long been against our policies. As a result of the Calkins issue, as well as 1 or 2 other ones, we created "The Great Debate". That is the ONLY place such stuff is allowed. As per posted policy, if found elsewhere it will be moved or removed at our staffs discretion. This was posted 5/10/2005 here. It is a new policy, a redirect should have been provided but wasn't.

4: Time line TGD forum created 5/05 Calkins banned 6/05, some threads locked. 8/05 Gyi threads start, remaining Calikins threads locked.

5: Staff 'favoritism' or 'protectionalism'.
Yes, we do tend to protect each other. That is what a team does. When it comes to areas of potential bias we have internal checks and balances to counter that. Case in point - The connection between myself and Tim Hartman. Tim is both friend, instructor and business partner with me. My judgment is in question in in such areas. That is why we have the Steering Board and an admin team. To help us deal with those situations where friend/lover/partner/teacher/enemy exist, without bias, in as fair a way as possible. I have the "Owner Card". I trust my staff to do what is right for the board, so it is a very dusty card. As to my ties to Dr. Gyi, I am not a student of his, we don't party together, we are not business associates. My ties to Datu Hartman are well known. Other than Tim Hartman (and by a thin tenuous thread) myself, who out of the 20+ member MT staff is Gyi associated with? 2 is not several. A few, but not several.

6: As to the whining about time, I envy you both, only working half days like you do. In the last few months I've had the pleasure of several 36 hour days. I'm certain somewhere the is an intern or MD who is envious of me only working part of the week as he entered his 48th hour awake and on call.

7: Simply put:
If you are going to engage in 'fact finding', 'friendly discussion' and 'information sharing' the majority of the board is for you.
If you are going to engage in 'fraud busting', 'fraud revealing', 'discussion of frauds', then please confine yourself to the "Debate" forum if you must do it at all.

"What do you know about XXX" is fact finding.
"Heres a list of his criminal actions" is 'fraud revealing'.

If you are going to quote other sources, do so within the "Fair Use" clause of the copyright laws and forum rules, or find your posts deleted. Citing your sources is also required.

The "If I don't put it in their section people wont find it" argument is lame. We have a search function. If people are too stupid to use a search tool and research things, then they deserve what they get. We are regularly spidered by Google, MSN, AOL and many other search engines. If you post it, it'll be findable.

8: I agree with Tim. Why now? For 4 years events with Dr. Gyi have been posted here, with minimal fuss if at all. All of the events I've been too have been well attended by LEO and Military. I've seen reference on some of those 'phony vet' sites that acknowledge he did legit instruct military. So, what's the real problem?


Thats my 2 cents here. This thread will be left locked until Seig reviews it and decides what to do with it.