Uechi-Ryu.com

Why was I the only one singled out John?

Why threaten me?

Was I the only one breaking forum rules?

It appears to me that the enforcement of the rules continues to be onesided.

My warning occured after pointing out to another forum member that they are breaking the rules. Yes a violation of the rules. I realise I could be banned for this.

Apparently it's not the rules you break but who breaks them , as George has not been publicly threatened with any form of discipline.

I do believe the new rules require people who feel dissed to take the discussion off line to deal directly with the source. Have I misread the rules?


The double standard I is see not driven by rank but view point. My view point has never been popular with some people on the forum. They would rather I keep my opinion to myself.


Many view the site arbitrator's role as one of a hatchet man and honestly believe your active on the forums at GEM's request to rid it of decenting voices.Mine being one of them. Many of the emails I've received indicate many members feel this and are wary of engaging you in a mediators role.

I'm hoping this perception of your purpose is incorrect. Here is a test case for you, a chance for you to show us your impartial approach to judicating the forums.

Why was George not threatened with banishment if he too broke the rules?

***John please not the comments about the hatchetman are not aimed at you or your character, but rather offered to let you know that you have not won the trust of all on the forums, no offence is intended, please take the comment as it was intended and do not twist it against me***

Laird

Laird.

As owner of the site, I feel it is my duty to point out inappropriate comments, which I hopefully did in a non-threatening manner and without intimidating or ridiculing anyone.

This situation is something I had taken off-line numerous times and I thought was resolved. (In keeping with long established protocol.)

When it came up again after a calm period of time, I pointed out that these comments target a specific group of readers, (Uechi practitioners who interpret the system in a different manner from the poster) who, unlike what was stated in the comment (tagline), do not jump into the thread with the claimed intention of whining and complaining about the quoted passages preceding the comment.

In my judgment, these comments aren't addressed to me, since I agree with a majority of the "realist" points of view. Since I haven't seen any of those "other" people, who are "expected" to high jack the thread with a counter and therefore ignorant point of view, I find such comments to be a violation of common sense and the site's rules.

If I violated any rule of the forums, I would fully expect "oldfist" to treat me in the same manner as you or anyone else moderating or just posting to this site.

In my estimation, posts should not intimidate or ridicule a segment of the martial art community, regardless of how we may disagree with that group's training and teaching methods or the reasons why they elect to train in the manner they choose.

I would not extend this protection to a group that is doing something illegal, fraudulent or using the martial arts to cover up cult-like activities.

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"

Laird, I have inserted my last post on Van's forum re your question above. The New Rules listed here on the VSD forum apply to all the forums. As I referred to in the above it is my judgement that you went too far regarding the following:

CC13. .... Absolutely avoid escalating to a higher level of unfriendly conflict.

CC14. Avoid online uncooperative and disrespectful behavior directed at a moderator or the site owner (e.g. in debate or possibly regarding a previous judgment of a moderator or the site owner).

Furthermore, since you asked "I wonder how long I’ll be banished this time?", I told you exactly what your status was regarding the current warning according to:

Section II. Uechi-ryu Forum Disciplinary Guidelines for Posters (GP1-GP7)
GP1. If a forum moderator determines that a poster has violated one or more of CC1-CC14 in Section I, he/she may give the poster a warning or delete the post or ban the poster depending on the severity of the violation, and this judgment is completely up to the discretion of the moderator of the forum.

GP2. A poster may be asked to edit a post or it may be determined that the post is a severe enough violation that it must be (and is) deleted immediately.

GP3. A request to edit a post may or may not constitute a warning depending on the nature of the post.

GP4. The deletion of a post will constitute an automatic warning.

GP5. Generally, a poster will receive two warnings before being banned, and the third warning will constitute an automatic banning from the forum. However, it is possible that the violation is so severe that it constitutes an automatic banning.

GP6. Generally, the length of the first banning will be two weeks, the length of the second banning will be one month, and the third banning will be for life. However, it is possible that the violation is so severe that it constitutes an automatic banning for life.

GP7. These rules and guidelines will be applied and enforced by each forum moderator (possibly in consultation with the site arbitrator or the site owner) according to his/her good judgment, which will be final in all cases. This means that a violator that receives a disciplinary action (e.g. a warning, request to edit, deletion of a post, or banning) should not attempt to debate his/her disciplinary status. Since it is not possible to specify in advance the exact consequences of every type of violation, the judgments of the moderators and the site owner will constitute the precise definition of the standards of conduct for this site. So, please pay close attention to the leadership, their acceptable conduct.

Laird, if you had not asked your question, then I would not have mentioned these details.

In my judgement I saw two issues that needed to be addressed, and so I divided them into two parts: (1) your warning, and (2) moving the Tag Lines discussion to this thread. In my judgement, I saw no other violation of the rules, but wanted to provide an opportunity here for everyone on both sides of the issue (2) to discuss things and work out their concerns.

Thanks also for your last comment above. However, I don't take anything personally. I am just trying to apply the rules as objectively as possible, as I understand them, and to the best of my ability.

John

I don't think we intimidate or ridicule. That was never our intention.

The intention was always to stimulate awareness and realistic thinking when addressing the ‘reality component’ of our overall practice.

When you write these things George, you also must be fair and admit you have in fact outright insulted the ‘experts’ on my forum, as in the case of Patrick McCarthy. Why do you insist on a double standard?

It is your view and of some others, as stated, that all that is needed for defense is base traditional training as we have learned it, and that it will suffice in spite of ‘shortcuts’ by other ‘experts’

You are on record here George.

We have read opposing views, as I have presented over the years, by Blauer, Laur, Sonnon, and Rory Miller, in his publications you passed out at camp.

We have Scott

Blauer and Laur have written along similar lines

According to your views, then Scott and others are also ‘tag lining’ Martial artists and Uechi practitioners.



They are, most definitely, not.

The objective is to refine and polish our traditional tools with their hands on experience, much research and guidance from the real world. Something you also attempted to do with the introduction of a ‘real world, expert [police] at camp.

Then we have many readers embracing these concepts, [http://forums.uechi-ryu.com/viewtopic.php?t=13975] to wit



This is the logical approach by intelligent practitioners, a view shared by legions.

Exactly what we are trying to stimulate here.

Then we have this_

What should be a concern is what Neil posted.
Many lurkers have emailed me indicating they will not post, as they fear not being able to speak freely and warned and ridiculed.

Scott

These are the concerns others and I have passionately tackled for the past 8 years or so on my forum.

But that’s fine. I will try to choose my words more carefully.

_________________
Van

Please tell me where I can find any post where I insulted Pat McCarthy. I'll be most happy to delete it or edit it. You refer to this often, but I'm unable to find the post.

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"

I am on record for saying that Tomoyose taught that philosophy to me in the 50s, but my actual training and teaching over the past 4 decades should be proof that although I cherish the lessons taught by Kanei Uechi and Tomoyose, I was and am open minded to modern methods. Just remember. . . what is "hot" today will be "old" tomorrow.

There are too many examples of people performing incredible feats of self preservation who have absolutely no training for us to pinpoint exactly what we should teach in order to replicate that quality in our students. Therefore, even though you and I don't believe 100% of what I preached in the 60s, doesn't mean we should consider those who do believe this as being inferior teachers or delusional individuals.

And certainly for me or others to state such philosophy shouldn't be taken as an insult to teachers like Pat McCarthy, Scott Sonnon or Tony Blauer.

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"

Although this quote has been taken out of context, I suppose you have a point in using it to substantiate your argument about what you state are my views.

Actually, I wrote that I would prefer to teach something new (in the way of self defense) to someone who has practiced Uechi-ryu for 20 years than to a new student. Lets take students who practiced with me for 20+ years who take lessons in TC breathing techniques. . . Do you find these individuals picking up your methods faster than a new student?

Although "anecdotal", I would suspect both of us would prefer the 20 year veteran of traditional Uechi training. Look at all the senior people who has taken Tony Blauer's and other's programs and quickly rise to the top of the class. Although I respect Coach Sonnon's views, I have a right to disagree with them, based on my experiences.

Interpreting Coach's words literally and out of context, it would appear that he believes any martial art teacher who hasn't tested everything he/she instructs under quite strict combat conditions hasn't a clue regarding the effectiveness of his methods.

I suspect most teachers of martial arts have been involved with sport tournaments, myself included. (If memory serves me, I ran the first one in the USA at the Bavarian Hoffbrau in the early 60s. But of course, sport fighting then wasn't as good then as now, so perhaps I am the "obstinate curmudgeon" he speaks of. . . but I think not. But since you elected to post the quote as a way to justify your feeling that Scott is at odds with my philosophy, I suspect that maybe you may feel this to be true.

But even if Scott feels that I am a curmudgeon, well, that is OK. He says it with so much class and style that I really don't mind!

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"

99.9% of what you discuss is fantastic. I don't believe the quote above was referring to the 0.1% of your posts!



I saw this edited post as well and felt really good that a fellow Martial Artist took the time to re-read his post and decided that what was said might not be appropriate and deleted it. That takes class and this kind of thinking will keep our forums growing and getting better.



I guess it boils down to what "freedom" the individual is talking about. No one gets shot down for discussing the martial arts and I extend a considerable amount of leeway in content.



And I hope you will continue to do so.

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"

Not taking sides on the main issue, but just putting my arbitrator hat on and carefully reading this quote, the only potential problem I see is in the phrase "and in the 'martial art' community these individuals tend to be rampantly ubiquitous." Isn't this just (or easily interpreted as such) a more flowery way of saying something like "this is everywhere you look in the 'martial art' community."

So, as the phrase stands it is an over generalization that suffers from the same criticism that is being made about the curmugeons. Of course this is easiily fixed by simply adding a more specific personal point of reference, instead of referring to the whole martial art community.

I don't consider it a big deal, but am just describing a potential point of misunderstanding that is easily fixed.

John

Van and George,

If I disagree with either of you, I will state directly and blatantly, though always with respect. Respect is a given; it is disrespect which is earned.

If I call an act that of a curmedgeon, I shall refer to it specifically. I did not, and as such, I am not insinuating anything. If I refer to either of you, I shall speak with you directly. Anyone who knows me, knows that I am anything but aloof.

John,

As George states, the quote was taken out of context, and as a result I understand your concerns. However, a generalization which is based upon my experience of being invited to schools and gyms of various styles to train, troubleshoot and redesign their educational curricula allows me to make generalizations. This does not fall under the auspices of the logical debate error of "strawman". Since the quote was also taken out of the context of the article length response I produced in the thread, it was also not a "tagline" as you gentlemen call them, but rather an inextricably intertwined supposition in the layout of my presentation.

Many schools that I have been professionally hired to revamp did not have an effective (if any) resistance outlet for evaluating the technical efficacy of their curriculum. This is WHY the "Softwork Continuum" which I introduce in my Softwork DVD package evolved - from the specific demand to administer and interweave an incrementally progressive resistance spectrum so that emotional arousal of trainees was evaluated and refined.

If anyone here has any confusion as to my posts, I would appreciate if you would contact me directly by email or PM, or even post such in the relevant thread, as I have demonstrated I hope that not only am I approachable and civil, but also thankful to expand upon any comment. For instance... George wrote: "Interpreting Coach's words literally and out of context, it would appear that he believes any martial art teacher who hasn't tested everything he/she instructs under quite strict combat conditions hasn't a clue regarding the effectiveness of his methods. "

George, if you omit the words "quite strict" since I never stated as such and it contradicts my system itself in the Softwork Continuum, I would definitely say that, 'I believe any martial art teacher who hasn't tested, and continually retested everything s/he instructs under resistance partners does not have an accurate depiction of the efficiency or the effectiveness of her/his methods.' I depict this in the coaching diagnostic tool I devised called the "Performance Diagnostic Trinity™":


I don't know why, to be honest, this commentary regarding ancillary and superfluous "tagline" discussions is now including relevant and primary topic issues, but PLEASE could someone contact me before carrying on a debate as to my definitions, intentions and explanations??

Had I not jumped from the link in Van's forum inadvertantly to find out the definition of the term "tagline" I would have never stumbled upon this relevant relapse in the discussion (which in truth should have just happened within our primary thread.)

_________________
Scott Sonnon
www.rmaxi.com

Scott, my apologies, I agree that this thread should not "include primary topic issues," and was only intended to deal with the tagline issue. It was not my intention to have your quote(s) brought here and discussed. However, once the quote I referred to above was here I felt I had to address how it might impact the main issue.

Please understand that we have history and baggage that we are trying to deal with as best we can.

Best,
John

This is plain ridiculous .

The forums have been going on in a good and positive manner , there has been no crap flying .

GEM clearly breaks the new rules , attacks Vans posting methods without taking it privately .

GEM breaks the rules and continues and incites a near flame war .

Laird points out with humour that the new rules are being breached ....

he`s singled out for breaking the rules

gentleman what a hatchet job ....

I dont know what the hidden agenda is here gentleman , but please think what a wonderfull resource youve created here , dont ruin it by this needless bickering .

the taglines whatever they are , are not an issue , It seems more a case of the topic which some find difficult to talk about .

And once again i`ll come accross as having alterior motives , and be less welcome here , just because I want to see things how they should be .

Productive , respectfull , fun , and not afraid to ask the tough questions ...



any reference to baggae is ridiculous , judge everything on a first time basis .

I thought we had a clean slate ...

Apply the bloody rules .

Did GEM break them ?

Did Van break them ?

Did Laird break them ?

Have I broken them ?

consistancy and enforcement are your only options , how you choose to police you rules will be the measure of your quality as a forum policeman .

Did I miss anything the first time ?

What Scott outlines _ George, is something that you have done, albeit inadvertently, over and over in discussions e.g., jumping the gun in assumptions, would you agree?

We surely make mistakes in communication and written presentations, certainly I do _ and so do you, and it is better for you to admit to it.

The best way not to make these mistakes or generate ill will, is to not write at all. Perhaps we should close the forums down as you indicated some of your seniors have suggested.

Moderating a forum and generating traffic for the site is a long, arduous, and thankless job. We make this job more unbearable by emotionally reactive triggers, as we destroy friendships.

_________________
Van