As a potential solution there are ~132* posts that contain his full name, we could change them to just say “Adam P”.
I’m not sure if phpBB supports find-and-replace for that type of thing. I’m happy to change them by hand if the other admins believe it’s warranted.
*I just incremented it
Ok, well maybe it just goes back to using someone’s first name and last initial or something.
IDK, it just doesn’t sit well with me that if someone is punished for something, and have paid the price for it, that they’re not potentially further punished for it in other parts of their life.
I also agree that transparency is important. But I think only people who are registered with Diatribe should be able to view information about membership bans etc.
Could we consider locking down some of the forums so only people logged into Diatribe can view them?
Ditto. Its a public decision of the society, and therefore it should be public. This ensures oversight of decisions by members, and that people can’t subsequently argue over what was decided (something which has been a particular issue in this case).
[quote=“Derek”]As a potential solution there are ~132* posts that contain his full name, we could change them to just say “Adam P”.
I’m not sure if phpBB supports find-and-replace for that type of thing. I’m happy to change them by hand if the other admins believe it’s warranted.
*I just incremented it[/quote]
Cheers for that Derek.
I agree with Jackie. It seems hypocritical to go one way on the situation, and then the other way on another. I don’t know the constitution well enough, but was it stated anywhere that in signing up for a LARP, you are not doing so publicly? I would’ve thought since his ban is a ‘public’ ban, in as much as it was publicized, then so would a player signing up for a LARP be?
I think you’re committing a category error here. The NZLARPS constitution applies to the operations of NZLARPS. It does not generally apply to individual larps, which are run by individual GMs (there is a limited interface with projects and the discipline clause, but that’s about it). Our organisational record-keeping policies are an entirely seperate issue from whether GMs follow good privacy practice.
[quote=“Derek”]As a potential solution there are ~132* posts that contain his full name, we could change them to just say “Adam P”.
I’m not sure if phpBB supports find-and-replace for that type of thing. I’m happy to change them by hand if the other admins believe it’s warranted.
*I just incremented it[/quote]
This stops working once Adam Peabody joins. Perhaps we could change it to He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named ? 
Silliness aside, it’s not like we ban people willy-nilly. Adam’s conduct called into question is integrity, most emphatically. If he does not want people knowing about his conduct, then how about he behaves himself in the first place ? In this instance, the principle of transparency is key, for reasons cited by others above.
Agreed. Perhaps we could change our constitution to include a section that explicitly states that issues such as membership bans will be conducted with full transparency ? After all, such matters ought to be very rare indeed.
There’s an AGM coming up later this year, if you want to formally propose such a measure.
Since we’re throwing our 2c in regarding this I’ll toss mine in.
I don’t believe that nzlarps has a legal or moral obligation to redact membership banning in their minutes. I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to publish minutes and discussions on diatribe.
I think this is in line with what sporting bodies and clubs do and professional organisations and bodies (doctors, lawyers, architects etc.)
The only two things I really think we need to consider are:
I favour compassion. I’m personally happy to let bygones be bygones and for that reason alone I’m happy to redact the relevant posts if I get asked instructed to by the relevant nzlarps committee member(s)
Okeedoke, well I guess I was coming at this from a compassion, ‘what if it were me’ point of view. If it’s normal for this kind of situation to be put into the public eye, then I’ll consider myself educated. It would be good to make this clear going forward to members. I’d imagine “your full name and details of this offense will be on a public website” may well be a strong deterent to many - not that a need for it should ever come up (much).
By the by, I’m not defending Adam’s actions, and I know people’s very strong opinions toward him come from said actions.
Having just spent the last two hours dealing with Adam’s latest missive, and looking at the prospect of far more time in the near future, not to mention having to rake over everything again, right when I’m meant to be preparing games for Chimera, I am not inclined towards any sort of compassion towards him.
I’m not compassionate to people for their sake. I do it for myself.
I’m not compassionate to people for their sake. I do it for myself.[/quote]
Completely agree. All it seems is that trying to affect Adams life outside of NZLARPS is petty, unprofessional spite. I am not defending Adam, because he and I parted ways in the worst possible way, but I disagree with using something we all do to have fun, as a weapon of spite against someone due to personal agenda in other aspects of their life.
If you want to keep NZLARPS in the higher moral position in regards to people in situations like Adams, then the best thing to do is to continue to practice the same level of professionalism without letting personal emotion get involved. I had no idea that when I signed up to join this hobby, and this organization, that there was a chance that it would stop me from getting a job in the future - which by the way supports his new born child, and his wife.
With respect, Jordan, I think you’re misrepresenting the situation. No one is “trying” to do anything to Adam’s detriment, and we’re not using “what we do for fun” (believe me, no one found the process of his ban ‘fun’). Your statement would be valid if, out of spite, we were emailing embarrassing photos of Adam to potential employers, or posting them on his LinkedIn profile or in other way using larp material that was created in good faith to humiliate him. That is not the case.
This situation is that the full and frank record of the society’s proceedings, of the facts, statements and events that led to this group of people to choose to exclude him from their hobby due to his actions is not being redacted to hide what happened or whom it concerned.
That was not the situation I was referencing, Anna.
I was referencing the defenses made in this forum surrounding why it is or is not morally sound to maintain such a ban for complete openness and public record to people who have nothing to do with NZLARPS.
I agree I could have made that clearer, but I was not talking about the ban, the reason for the ban specifically, or the people involved. I’m talking about whether or not a ban should be public for people to judge, when they have no idea what LARPing entails. Much like I wouldn’t have any idea of why someone would get kicked out of a, say, Magic the Gathering community for constantly cheating and abusing the system.
As was I, Jordan 
(“redacted”, meaning to hide information, not “retracted” which is to take the ban back)
My statement stands.
Oh, then when I see things like this, I am inclined to agree to disagree when I say that peoples personal feelings and emotions are fueling their line of thought.
Why would bans be public, but player lists not?
They’re not being made public because they’re a ban.
The bans were voted on at nzlarps meetings and are part of the minutes from those meetings. They were also discussed online by people.
They’re not being made public because they’re a ban.
The bans were voted on at nzlarps meetings and are part of the minutes from those meetings. They were also discussed online by people.[/quote]
Oh ok, thanks for the clarification Derek, I don’t really understand the ins and outs of how things work in this society. Would the repercussions of changing it so that you could only post initials outweigh the benefits of not screwing people over while they try and get a job?
And if you applied the initials rule to games lists as well, then would you also apply it to the banned person names in the minutes? How would this work?
I don’t think that it’s special to the nzlarps. This is a web based public forum. If you post stuff here google finds it. Diatribe has lots of links to it so it gets a very high google ranking.