# are yearly subscriptions refundable??



## ex royal now flyer (20 Mar 2005)

At the risk of getting a verbal warning I feel compelled to ask this question.  I am becoming increasingly annoyed by the number of users getting verbal warnings for what seems to be petty things.  I view the posts of every member who gets a verbal warning and I fail to see offensive comments or statements in these posts so is it simply a matter of moderators getting upset if someone offers a different view.  Thus my questions is:

If someone gets a verbal warning for expressing their opinion's, or worse get banned from the forum, do they get a refund.  Does the $30 fee not give the user some flexibility to voice their opinions or concerns without the fear of being censored.  Censorship starts at home and if someone does not like a comment or post they do not have to respond to it.  

Just a question before I think about committing $30 for a t-shirt


----------



## Cpl.Banks (20 Mar 2005)

Usually the moderators who issue these warnings have good reason, they dont just do it for kicks, you are 110% encouraged to voice your oppinion BUT you cannot go about saying racial comments, sexist comments, disrespect for any branch of the CF (ooops). I suggest you read the rules of conduct of this site before paying 30$, like any other forum there are rules and they are there for a reason. Good luck hope this helped
UBIQUE!!!!


----------



## winchable (20 Mar 2005)

Flyer, if you have some specific examples of where you feel the warning system is used improperly don't hesitate to point them out, but lately I've noticed any complaints about the staff behaviour has been far to general and subjective to really do anything about it. Generally there is a lot more to the story then what appears on the board, alot of the time we have to clean things up because they were offensive and reflected poorly on the site.

Subscribers are not exempt from the rules, if they do pay for the subscription and break guidelines then they will face the warning system.

Refunds might be possible, but as I understand it (and I will endeavour to find the thread) the cost of subscription covers the cost of the tshirt and the shipping so if they were to get a refund it would most likely not be for the full amount they originally paid.


----------



## Duke (20 Mar 2005)

I would hope my subscription doesn't give me license to be a rectal aperture. I'm new, want to be a part of army.ca and would appreciate any guidance before stepping in fecal matter!

Duke


----------



## winchable (20 Mar 2005)

Best advice I can think of pretend as if you're having an actual conversation in real life with a complete stranger in front of a crowd of people which include your grandmother, mother and boss.

If people behaved the same way they do on the internet in real life, the world would explode in a matter of moments because: "U IZ STEPPING UP IN ME GRILL N GEORGE BUSH IZ A MORON"
Social contracts don't seem to apply here for some people, which neccessitates moderation (much to the chagrin of a few)

Common sense will get you by just fine.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (20 Mar 2005)

Becoming a subscriber doesn't change the rules... all users, subscribers and staff must adhere to the conduct guidelines. If you become a subscriber and decide to cancel it at any time, you can do that quickly and easily. The initial subscription fee primarily covers the shirt and sticker being mailed out, however if you truly want a 100% "reversal" then the simply ship those back the the payment will be fully refunded.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## the 48th regulator (20 Mar 2005)

I was a bit disappointed with my subscription.

I put on my T-shirt, and headed over to the R.C.M.I (http://www.rcmi.org/eng/pub/9/page1.asp?t=9&p=1)   , up by University avenue and they turned me away.   I even tried to hand them one of my stickers..but no go.

bah..I am just going to say cheeky things on this board and get my moneys worth...

tess


----------



## Lexi (20 Mar 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> "U IZ STEPPING UP IN ME GRILL N GEORGE BUSH IZ A MORON"









 I'm so sorry but...  THAT was funny.


----------



## Burrows (20 Mar 2005)

You will never be warned for voicing your opinion.  You would be warned for things that violate the code of conduct.  Such as swearing, flaming other members, harassment.  etc.


----------



## ex royal now flyer (21 Mar 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> Flyer, if you have some specific examples of where you feel the warning system is used improperly don't hesitate to point them out, but lately I've noticed any complaints about the staff behaviour has been far to general and subjective to really do anything about it. Generally there is a lot more to the story then what appears on the board, alot of the time we have to clean things up because they were offensive and reflected poorly on the site.
> 
> Subscribers are not exempt from the rules, if they do pay for the subscription and break guidelines then they will face the warning system.



First, let me clarify that I do not think that a subscription should allow members to be exempt from the rules.   It was a poorly worded sentence and not my intent to imply that money can circumvent the regulations.   My concerns are not pointed towards the rules, but rather, the way in which they are applied.   My apologies to all for my grammatical and style errors.     :-[   

Che, I am sending you a PM to give you a specific example of what fuelled my original post.   I would hate to pubically embarass or implicate anyone of wrongdoing.


----------



## winchable (21 Mar 2005)

Of course, my PM box is always open.

Cheers


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (21 Mar 2005)

Just want to add one more thing to this conversation, and that is that Verbal Warnings are the lightest form of warning. When on verbal, you can do everything you could previously do, except edit your own posts, for one week. The idea here is that users on warning will pause for a moment before they hit the Post button, knowing they can't revise, retract or otherwise change the comments they are about to make.

Per my instructions, the Staff give out verbals fairly readily. This is not done as a "power trip" or anything of that nature. Rather, it's done to help identify (both to the warned user and to others) what behaviour is counter to the Conduct Guidelines in a clear, but unobtrusive way. That is, I'd rather place someone on a Verbal Warning (which is nothing more than a minor inconvenience to the user) than wait until things get really out of hand. It would be unfair of us as Staff to suddenly ban someone and say they've had it coming for weeks. This approach lets everyone know early on when things are starting to go wrong, and allows corrective action to be taken without being too heavy handed.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Infanteer (21 Mar 2005)

As well, warnings are discussed by staff members - ususally the decision to give someone one of them is based upon the decision of more the one mod.


----------



## dutchie (21 Mar 2005)

I feel left out! How come I haven't had a verbal warning yet!? :crybaby: 

It's not fair, Infanteer/Che/Mike/Burrows!   :'(

I feel harrassed.   
In all seriousness, as someone who has not strayed from controversy on this forum, and been rewarded with some very heated debate in return, I have managed to avoid disciplinary action. I've pissed a lot of people off here (hello Wes), but I feel I have (mostly) obeyed the rules. I don't know if it's luck, skill, or Mod indifference, but I have avoided that wee-wee slap somehow. I can honestly state that I feel that the Mods do a great job, for the most part. Yes, mistakes have been made (IMHO), but that's life. When we get a member here who has never made a mistake, then let him (or her) roast the Mods for their conduct. Unless you fit that category, or until mistakes are common, then I suggest you STFU. Perhaps those that have a problem with the Mods would like to start paying them so they can dedicate even more of their time? I thought not. 

Ex Royal, this was not directed specifically at you, but more at others that have whined and complained after they were (rightly) reprimanded.

ps- I'm not arse kissing here, I could care less what the Mods, Mike, et all think of me, namely because they don't know who I am. I humbly suggest others take a similar attitude.


----------



## ex royal now flyer (21 Mar 2005)

Caesar,

As I stated in my last post my concern was based on how the rules are applied.  I found it surprising that a warning was given to a member with whom I have had enjoyed very intelligent banter with over the past few months in a myriad of topics.  Not once have I critisized the moderators and there was no intended malice towards them in my orginal post.  I did, however, have some pointed questions towards the warning system which I addressed with a PM to "Che" earlier in the day.  It was a PM since a specific incident was referred to and I did not see the need to publicly embarass or harass anyone.  Nevertheless, Che addressed my question and I am totally satisfied with the response that I was given.

My main concern was based on the fact that by the time a member has been given a warning, the offensive comment has been edited.  Upon reading the affected member's last posts I could not find anything that I deemed offensive.  Thus, I was left wondering what the member did to deserve a warning and posed my question to a moderator.  I also posed the question regarding the "legitimacy" (for the lack of a better word) of warning someone after they engage in a "pissing" contest with a member or a moderator using the PM feature.       

We all make mistakes and I make my share of them.  I also take responsibilty for my actions and stand by the comments that I make in this forum.  I asked legitimate questions to which I received satisfying answers.  I would suggest that if you are not going to specifically direct your comments to me, then don't.  If you are then at least tell me to STFU directly.


----------



## dutchie (21 Mar 2005)

ex royal now flyer said:
			
		

> I would suggest that if you are not going to specifically direct your comments to me, then don't.



I didn't.



			
				ex royal now flyer said:
			
		

> If you are then at least tell me to STFU directly.



I will, when the time comes.   

Again, my original post was not directed at you, but others who have, for lack of a better term, bi-tched and whined about 'the Mods'. Usually, this starts with one or more members going off the deep end with wacko comments ("Girls suck! The only girls in the Army should be in Wench Platoon") or they start slinging personal insults at each other ("Your a bag, Bloggins, so shut yer pie-hole"). It can take an otherwise interesting thread and send it right into the shitter. I am guilty of this in the past, but as I said, I was fortunate not to get slapped with a warning. I am merely trying to point out that the Mods are human, and that, with the exception of you and this thread, those that complain the loudest about the treatment from the Mods are usually deserving of said treatment, IMHO.


----------



## Burrows (22 Mar 2005)

Well said Caesar and thank you for defending us mods point of view.  The people who are warned make us out to seem like elitests who do whats fun for them.  But it brings us no joy in issuing a warning.


----------



## Pieman (22 Mar 2005)

> I'm not arse kissing here, I could care less what the Mods, Mike, et all think of me, namely because they don't know who I am. I humbly suggest others take a similar attitude.



Hear Hear. It is not productive to have a bunch of people posting to support someone else's doctrine in order to win their favour. Then the forum would be the equivalent of a bunch of old fogies sitting around and agreeing with each other. How exciting!..Anyway, I figured out a long time ago that the only opinion that really counts in this world is mine.  ;D (to me anyway)

I for one have been a fan of the warning system. Ever since it was established on this forum it has had a big positive impact. Mistakes can certainly happen. So long as it is not abused or used to enforce one's opinion/doctrine over another, then I see no problem.


----------



## Torlyn (22 Mar 2005)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I for one have been a fan of the warning system.



Dear Lord, Pieman...  Are you *AGREEING* with the mods??  I'm stunned...    However, I do echo your thoughts.  Took us a while, but we got it.  

T


----------



## dutchie (22 Mar 2005)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I for one have been a fan of the warning system. Ever since it was established on this forum it has had a big positive impact. Mistakes can certainly happen. So long as it is not abused or used to enforce one's opinion/doctrine over another, then I see no problem.



Exactly. Also, it's not as if the Mods are booting guys on first offences. The punishment, er, sorry, 'corrective action' is pretty slack. 

It's not like they take away your birthday for Heaven's sake.


----------



## Pieman (22 Mar 2005)

> Dear Lord, Pieman...   Are you *AGREEING* with the mods??   I'm stunned...


Meh, I don't always disagree with the actions the mods take. If they take action, it should be fair and impartial as possible, when I feel otherwise you will hear me bitch about it. Lately they have been doing quite well at that.

When I do disagree it is geared towards what some of their opinions are, or lack thereof. I look at them as any other member on this board. If the mods are to participate in the discussion, they are subject to the same rules of the game like everyone else IMHO.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Mar 2005)

Pieman said:
			
		

> When I do disagree it is geared towards what some of their opinions are, or lack thereof. I look at them as any other member on this board. If the mods are to participate in the discussion, they are subject to the same rules of the game like everyone else IMHO.



...and that is all we ask.  I don't know why some have assumed that because the Moderators all hold their own opinion and enjoy posting that their must be some sort of bias towards the way the board is policed.


----------



## Torlyn (22 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...and that is all we ask.  I don't know why some have assumed that because the Moderators all hold their own opinion and enjoy posting that their must be some sort of bias towards the way the board is policed.



Easy.  It's easier to blame the powers that be, rather than be introspective and realize that the point you are trying to make is invalid.  ie "Oh, well George Bush is only in Iraq for [insert: personal gain/oil/finish his father's fight/donald rumsfeld/cosmic alignment/tarot cards", and one of the mods say "prove it, or shut up".  Immediate response?  "Oh, the mods are abusing their powers, they must be part of the GWB conspiracy".  

I find it interesting that it only happens to you (the mods).  A few times, myself and a few others (pbi, Caesar, etc) have rapped the knuckles of a few posters, and we don't get the same reaction at all, and yet we're doing no more or less than you mods...   :

I still think Mike should relent and allow me to join the "dark side" of moderator land, but I guess I'll just wait my turn.  

T


----------



## winchable (22 Mar 2005)

> It's not like they take away your birthday for Heaven's sake.



Ooo-Don't think we haven't thought of that yet.

We've also raised enough money with subscriptions to buy a helicopter and fund our own private squad of er----

"Sie erwähnen nicht die Todes Gruppe"
"Ich ging nicht zum Herrn Bobbit"
"Wo Ihr Loyalitätlüge Herr Che?"
"Zum Beteiligten und zu den Moderatoren"


*Ahem*....
Nozink to zee here, go home to your children and wives


----------

