Removal of Members and Membership Poaching

Today, I have some unfortunate news. The officers of Stonewall Fleet and Knights of Stonewall have been forced to remove a few members of our community for extreme violations of the Code of Conduct and Member’s Handbook. Those removed have violated sections 1.2, 1.3 and 4 of the Code of Conduct.

The members concerned have decided to leave our guild and create a new one, but have been using our website to recruit new members from our membership. We have been made aware of several members being contacted on this site and asked to desert Knights of Stonewall for this new guild. Our members report that they have been given reasons to leave, but they are blatantly false.

Therefore, I feel it is important to take this unprecedented step of posting publicly about this issue in order to put the record straight.

Background
Since two weeks after the launch of Star Wars: The Old Republic when full control of the Knights of Stonewall in-game guild was available to us, there have been some extremely critical posts in the forums and negative chat in-game from a small number of people.

We believe in the right for every member of our community to be able to post their opinion and influence the direction of Stonewall, so we answered all these posts, repeatedly, as best we could. We will continue to answer any genuine concern and encourage everyone to discuss issues that are troubling them.

Of those who were most vocal in their opposition to decisions made by the officers, we noticed that there was a commonality between them: nearly all of them had been members of a guild in World of Warcraft that recently cut ties with Stonewall Fleet and the Knights of Stonewall.

Shortly thereafter, a former officer of Knights of Stonewall left to create his own guild. While we try to give all of our members the benefit of doubt, when we discovered that the founding members and officers of this new guild were the very same people, we find it strains credulity to believe this is a mere coincidence.

Our Policy
Stonewall Fleet and Knights of Stonewall enjoy a healthy relationship with other GLBTA guilds in the games in which we participate. We have made alliances with many guilds in other games so we can direct members to a guild in games we don't directly serve. We have also seen new guilds being created from within our community. We have supported these guilds as they offer something we cannot, and the founders of these guilds have a very valid reason for creating them.

That is not the case with this most recent guild. It has been created by plagiarizing our own Code of Conduct along with many other of our policies and procedures. This is not surprising as its founder was a long term officer here who was fundamental in our success and our decisions.

When we first discovered that this officer was unhappy with only being an officer, we tried to help by offering him any position in the guild he wanted. Short of providing full control of Knights of Stonewall, there seemed to be no solution. Therefore a new guild was born, not because of a genuine failing in Knights of Stonewall, but because an officer with some loyal friends decided he wanted control of our members.

Perhaps one of the great ironies of the entire controversy about banding our guilds based on class was that this former officer both proposed and was the primary advocate for this version of guild banding. In other words, the most vocal opponents of this decision wound up, unwittingly, leaving to follow the very person who proposed it.

In this organization, no-one has absolute control on how things are run. Officer positions are open to anyone and they are chosen by the current officers based solely on ability and the willingness to help all the members. We don’t promote our friends or play favorites, but we do link the responsibility of working for the members with the responsibility of making certain decisions.

We exist because of fundamental belief that all people should be welcome and treated fairly. In the gaming community, we all too often hear the word ‘gay’ used as an insult, are made to feel uncomfortable for speaking about our boyfriend, girlfriend, husband or wife, and even sometimes we’re simply not wanted. In Stonewall, we don’t restrict who can join based on their age or the current level of their character. We accept all people who come looking to be part of a community of equals and treat one another with respect.

We provide a website that allows our members to get to know each other in their own way. We have private groups in the Network, 18+ rooms on our Ventrilo server, and we try our best to get everyone involved so that our community has a variety of methods to communicate and interact. We are attempting to offer a place for everyone, and I hope you can all agree it can be a difficult job, but it is well worth it.

In Conclusion
I’d like to apologize for this situation. I don’t enjoy having to publicizing these issues as we like to foster a comfortable and friendly environment. I can assure you that the officers are remaining vigilant to any new “attack” and I hope you can all get back to enjoying the community we have all help build over the last 4 years.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact an officer. If you are approached by anyone encouraging you to leave any of our guilds in Star Wars: The Old Republic for another “Stonewall” guild, please report the incident to any one of the officers. Our goal is to provide you with a safe and fun environment in which to make friends and enjoy your gaming experience.

Thank you for your support and assistance.

Sincerely,
NicholasJohn16
Community Leader

Wow, that's pretty bad sportsmanship to poach off of another site. Those involved should be ashamed, really.

I agree that they should be ashamed of themselves. Will they still be able to go into the stonewall or the kos channels? They might decide to do something stupid like join the channels and harass people in there.

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

Quote by Taher

I agree that they should be ashamed of themselves. Will they still be able to go into the stonewall or the kos channels? They might decide to do something stupid like join the channels and harass people in there.

We'll definitely be keeping an eye out for this.

I'm sure this will be deleted as I know people like to control their "world view" they have but the reason people left was that our supposed Guild Leader NicholasJohn decided prior to launch that he was not going to be playing Star Wars The Old Republic now I questioned myself why would I obey someone who doesn't know me because he doesn't play the game that I am playing, as far as I'm concerned he would be website admin and have no say in a game he has no stake in (yes I'm talking about NicholasJohn). Not only were we not made aware of this (I checked the forums before asking officers and was never given a straight answer as to why NicholasJohn had any say in a guild for a game that he is not playing), the person that had been handling the majority of the tasks of a Guild Leader (that would be Doogie) was passed over for Zepari (who I have issue with) who hadn't played at all on Repulic ( I know this because I had early invite since the first day and played consistently up until I left the guild. I never announcement or badmouthed this guild or its officership till then. (removed JustJon)

Those my thoughts

Regards,
Warwidow

Will not delete but have removed the areas that are against our CoC (Justjon)

Although we appreciate people giving their input it needs to stay within the range of our code of conduct. Any parts of a post that violate this will be removed. If to much of your posts violates the CoC than the entire thing will be removed.

Thank you for your time.

-Jon

Quote by Warwidow

I'm sure this will be deleted as I know people like to control their "world view" they have but the reason people left was that our supposed Guild Leader NicholasJohn decided prior to launch that he was not going to be playing Star Wars The Old Republic now I questioned myself why would I obey someone who doesn't know me because he doesn't play the game that I am playing, as far as I'm concerned he would be website admin and have no say in a game he has no stake in (yes I'm talking about NicholasJohn).

Nick is the community manager. All Officers have an equal opinion on matters in this guild as we use a voting system. Members are free to apply to be officers when positions are open and the decision is made solely on availability and willingness to help the guild.

Quote by Warwidow

Not only were we not made aware of this (I checked the forums before asking officers and was never given a straight answer as to why NicholasJohn had any say in a guild for a game that he is not playing)

I know when I was a member during this time I had inquired directly to Officers and got a direct answer as to what had happened so I'm sorry this was not the case for you. Nick is the community manager and for that reason alone is part of both guilds decisions. He does not solely control either guild.

Quote by Warwidow

The person that had been handling the majority of the tasks of a Guild Leader (that would be Doogie) was passed over for Zepari (who I have issue with) who hadn't played at all on Repulic ( I know this because I had early invite since the first day and played consistently up until I left the guild. I never announcement or badmouthed this guild or its officership till then.

Again this was decided to allow no one person to have more control and have uniformity. Zepari and NicholasJohn16 both win and loose (amongst officers) when it comes to decisions being made.

Warwidow,

It is nice to see people to put their thoughts out there so we can all have informed discussion and better understand where we all come from, our point of views, etc.

As a member who has been here pretty much as long as NicholasJohn16 (aka Nick), I have nothing but respect for him. He set out to create a guild in an MMO that was unheard of. Not just LGBT, but an LGBT guild that was made for everyone...with a Code of Conduct that protects all members, especially vulnerable ones such as youth (under 18). The online gaming world is not kind to the LGBT world, we all know that. At the same time, we wanted to have a space that was friendly to youth (under 18). Regardless of what we may think or how we were educated about sex, amongst other things, that is not what we're here for. We're here to play a game. As a parent, I know I wouldn't want my son being taught about "life" via an MMO guild...it just isn't appropriate and it isn't our place to make that decision. We have an inlcusive guild and most importantly, a safe one for everyone of all ages. If only there was a guild like this when I was young! This was a wonderful vision and one that I have supported now for 3 years...Stonewall was actually created and set up one year before Star Trek Online Beta!

Nick, along with all of the other Officers act in a democracy with all of their views and votes being equal and to me, it isn't about "obeying" anyone. We are a community here and Nick is our leader and our guide. Some may question why Nick doesn't play TOR or how he can be leader of guilds within other MMO's he doesn't play. I don't see it that way. Nick has a representative in TOR through Zepari and I'm sure a smiliar set up will be used with other MMO's we may pursue. This shouldn't be a concern and in fact, it should be celebrated that we are able to take the spirit of the Stonewall community into other MMO's so that even more LGBT, especially youth, have a safe place to play and be themselves. If we can establish Stonewall in as many MMO's as possible, we've done an amazing thing! This is a guild unlike no other and we shouldn't view it from a traditional guild perspective.

My two cents. :)

Quote by intristin

Here we go again. First off let me say that after reading this I talked with leadership of Stonewall Council to hear their side of the story. Nick is right, Officers of Stonewall Council did in fact use this websites private message system to invite people into Stonewall Council. One small fact is being left out however, the people contacted had ALREADY quit KoS and had made public statements as such. No current member of KoS was ever sent a private message asking them to leave and join SC. Everyone in Stonewall Council that left KoS did so of their own free will and was not asked by any member of SC too due so to our knowledge. If this did happen I encourage KoS leadership to bring this to our attention so we can ensure that it no longer occurs.

There has been active KoS members who have approached Stonewall Council asking if we are affiliated with KoS. To those people SC leadership simply said no, but that we are made up of former KoS members who didn't like the direction the guild was going in. Nowhere on our website is there any mention of KoS or negitive comments about it. I was one person who left KoS do to unhappiness with the way this guild was being run. I made a post to that effect announcing my departure without knowledge that SC even existed. It was only after I quit KoS that I was contacted via PM by one of my friends in SC.

The contact was actually brought up by a member who is still part of out guild to leadership. So with that being said all decisions and discussions on this matter started then.

Quote by Intritin

I have no comment on the charter really as it's a mute point in my opinion. If you look at any other gay guild's charter they are almost identical as we all tend to stand for the same thing. As for the Stonewall name in a guild, there were many Stonewall guilds that existed before even Stonewall Fleet, so if Doug is guilty of stealing that then so is Nick. The reason the name Stonewall was chosen is becuase we have a lot of members from Stonewall Family, a guild which predates KoS.

The statement I believe you are looking for is Code of Conduct as the Code of Conduct was copied word for word.

Quote by intristin

The last point I want to make is this idea that spiting the guild in it's current form was all Doug's idea, Doug said and I quote: "Many ideas were suggested. At launch I suggested an alt guild for overflow just like in STO were we they had Deep Space Stonewall. But was ignored or some officers didn't think we would have the problem. I was against a 4 way class split. I was also against the level split. Right before stepping down, the decision was made of the two guilds. Because of how I was treated, I really didn't have a vested interest. So I don't even remember what I picked as an option. Too many of the officers where not that actively involved in the first couple weeks, by that point I was burned out."

It's also worth pointing out that the vast majority of people who left this guild did not do so because of the split, but because of the way in which it was handled. Many felt that such an important decision that would have effected everyone should have input from the general membership. The split was known about before the game even luanched and the claim that it was a last second decision is false. This of course was pointed out in the other thread by many people.

Look, if people are happy with the way this guild is being run, which clearly certain people are, that's fine and great. But people also have the right to leave if they are not happy with it, and they have the right to express why they are leaving. You can not point a finger at Doug and say it's all his fault. No one forced anyone to quit Kos, not one person was manipulated, no one was pressured, they all left of their own individual free will and they don't deserve to be criticized for it. It was only after they left that Doug and others sent PMs. If you think sending PMs to former KoS members are tacky, that is your right, and it is your right to ban them from your site. But lets at least be honest about what really happened and stop with all the spin.

As someone who personally read back in the Officer Threads I can personally say Doug had full vote in the matter of the split. I do want to say that actions speak louder than words and think our members are smart and intelligent people who can figure out what they want. I will however say that the fact that people in that guild decide to keep posting here speaks in volumes of what the intentions are.

Quote by Experian

As my fellow guild mates of Stonewall Council have stated, none of us have "poached" any members from KoS. Before I had left, I already knew of 6 people who were on the verge of leaving KoS due to the lack of leadership. I, myself, left due to multiple reason, one being the lack of leadership and one being the way Daddylicious and I were treated that day in guild chat. In fact, it was Zepari who who broke the first rule of conduct that day (and Justjon had broken it a few days before in guild chat when he stated that he didn't like me even though he had never known me before that very short conversation in guild chat).

If I at any time offended you I apologize as I don't actually remember ever talking to you before.

Quote by Adawehi

It's unfortunate, but the original post is filled with half-truths and circumstantial conclusions that are unbecoming of Stonewall Fleet.

Everything that was stated above can be backed up with evidence.

Quote by Adawehi

There has been concerted effort not to pressure, incite or even ask anyone to leave KoS. This was an emphatic insistence by those who founded the new guild, and we have been very careful not to bring up the subject. Anyone who has expressed frustration with KoS or an intent to leave KoS (especially if any of us were already friends with them) might have been offered the chance to join this other guild; but it was never a matter of active recruitment or poaching.

This is simply not true. Who ever is telling you this is lying to you. We have documented evidence that shows exactly what they were doing. If we did not have this evidence, we would not have acted in this manor.

What exactly is the difference between "poaching" and offering someone the chance to join another guild?

Quote by Adawehi

Most of us did not leave KoS because of the proposed split, and have made clear among ourselves and (some) on these forums that some of us supported that plan and others didn't. We are as evenly divided on that score as the KoS membership was. So, no we were not misled into following the person who advocated what we were against. To say so misrepresents the situation and all of us who left. It is also false that most of us came from a particular guild in WoW. Some of us never even played WoW (myself included), and most of the others that initially started Stonewall Council were from different WoW guilds.

Not all those that left did so because of the guild banding or because the WoW guild, but many of them did.. I'm sure there are others for their own reasons.

Quote by Adawehi

You state that "it strains credulity to believe this is a mere coincidence" in reference to the founding of a guild by a former officer and a small group of vocally critical members. This is not only circumstantial evidence (hardly a valid reason to remove someone from the guild and forums!), but even if it is true, may I remind everyone that the VERY FIRST rule in the Code of Conduct is: Be respectful. Remember that all members are entitled to their opinions" (emphasis mine). So you've violated the code of conduct yourself by using vocal opposition to the leadership decisions as a partial basis for removal.

What strains credulity was that this guild started before the officer even resigned from his position in Knights of Stonewall. This what not some happenstance event that just transpired, but was thought out and planned.

Quote by Adawehi

The bottom line is this: from the point of early access to his leaving in early January, Doogiegood was the leadership of KoS. Other officers were barely visible if at all.

Doogie was one of the leaders in Knights of Stonewall, but by far, not the only one. This has been a myth largely propagated by a few who did not like how the guild was being run.

Quote by Adawehi

The nominal guild leader had made it clear he would not even be playing the game. "Community Manager" or not, he has no right to any input into the running of the guild without being an active member of the guild. (You can not be an active member of a guild in a game you do not play.)

I have every right for input into the guild. As the person who started this community, Stonewall Fleet and Knights of Stonewall. I have a lot of experience in running organizations and guilds such as this and I lend provide that experience to Knights of Stonewall. Decisions in both guilds are not made by anyone person, but rather all the officers in the guild. I work to facilitate discussion, set goals and help us reach them. I relied on the officers in the game to develop and enact our goals.

Quote by Adawehi

You (meaning NicholasJohn16 and any other officers complicit in this decision) claim that Stonewall Fleet and KoS should be a welcoming place where everyone is free to contribute to the community. Yet you've banned multiple members for reasons that are unsubstantiated. You've done so without evidence, due process or an opportunity for those members to defend themselves. You've done so with a statement that is misleading, assumptive, and defensive.

Its is a welcome place for all those that want to participate in the community and follow the rules that govern them. Our reasons are substantiated and we have significant amounts of evidence. Allowing those banned to continue their access on our site would only further allow them to poach members from us. Considerable time was put into discussing what should be done and gathering the opinions of all officers in Stonewall, not just those in Knights of Stonewall.

Quote by Adawehi

The conclusion of the Code of Conduct reads in part: "Finally, any member can be removed from the guild without having violated the rules above if they are found to have negatively affected the overall morale of the guild." How can you say a handful of people leaving the guild--regardless of their reasons--negatively affects the morale worse than the banning and silencing of those members without any valid grounds for dismissal. Is the overall morale devastated more by the departure of a small group of members from one aspect of the guild... or by the unjust banishment of those members from the community?

Banning them was a necessary action considering the grievousness of their violations of the Code of Conduct. As well, to prevent them from using our site for poaching new members.

Quote by Adawehi

I've been a member of Stonewall Fleet since closed beta of STO, and count many friends among the members. ... Some of us have been long-term members of this community. While I have not taken any leadership position, I have been a present and vocal supporter of this community for over two years now.

Since you have been such a long-term members, then you should know that we don't take these sort of actions with out cause and considerable evidence. Why are you so keen to believe the other side of the story?

Quote by Adawehi

Is your faith so weak that it can't stand a little scrutiny?

We have no problem with scrutiny. That's specifically why this post was made; to be transparent and inform the community of actions by the officers.

Quote by intristin

Here we go again. First off let me say that after reading this I talked with leadership of Stonewall Council to hear their side of the story. Nick is right, Officers of Stonewall Council did in fact use this websites private message system to invite people into Stonewall Council. One small fact is being left out however, the people contacted had ALREADY quit KoS and had made public statements as such. No current member of KoS was ever sent a private message asking them to leave and join SC. Everyone in Stonewall Council that left KoS did so of their own free will and was not asked by any member of SC too due so to our knowledge. If this did happen I encourage KoS leadership to bring this to our attention so we can ensure that it no longer occurs.

Section 4 of the Code of Conduct states:

Targeted recruitment of members or participating in acts that have the effect of discriminating against, or segregating, members of the fleet are strictly prohibited and may result in removal.

Whether this was a member of our site or one of our guilds, the "targeted recruitment" of such a member is a violation of our Code of Conduct. Saying it was only done to those that had already left is trying to justify something they know was against the rules.

Quote by intristin

There has been active KoS members who have approached Stonewall Council asking if we are affiliated with KoS. To those people SC leadership simply said no, but that we are made up of former KoS members who didn't like the direction the guild was going in. Nowhere on our website is there any mention of KoS or negitive comments about it. I was one person who left KoS do to unhappiness with the way this guild was being run. I made a post to that effect announcing my departure without knowledge that SC even existed. It was only after I quit KoS that I was contacted via PM by one of my friends in SC.

This is exactly the issue. Thank you for justifying our claims.

Quote by intristin

The last point I want to make is this idea that spiting the guild in it's current form was all Doug's idea, Doug said and I quote: "Many ideas were suggested. At launch I suggested an alt guild for overflow just like in STO were we they had Deep Space Stonewall. But was ignored or some officers didn't think we would have the problem. I was against a 4 way class split. I was also against the level split. Right before stepping down, the decision was made of the two guilds. Because of how I was treated, I really didn't have a vested interest. So I don't even remember what I picked as an option. Too many of the officers where not that actively involved in the first couple weeks, by that point I was burned out."

This is simply not the truth. Doogie was at the officer's meeting in which the decision was made. He voted on it. In fact, he was the first to post the suggesting in Knights of Stonewall's officer's forum.

Quote by intristin

Look, if people are happy with the way this guild is being run, which clearly certain people are, that's fine and great. But people also have the right to leave if they are not happy with it, and they have the right to express why they are leaving. You can not point a finger at Doug and say it's all his fault. No one forced anyone to quit Kos, not one person was manipulated, no one was pressured, they all left of their own individual free will and they don't deserve to be criticized for it. It was only after they left that Doug and others sent PMs. If you think sending PMs to former KoS members are tacky, that is your right, and it is your right to ban them from your site. But lets at least be honest about what really happened and stop with all the spin.

If someone doesn't feel the the community that we provide is right for them, then we have no issue with them deciding to leave and find a new guild for them. We wish them the best. This has nothing to do with that. What we are saying is that we won't allow members to continue to use our facilities to poach our membership.

So it's safe to assume I'll need to plan my seating chart carefully if I invite you boys over for dinner? :P

Goodness gracious.

I'm locking this thread because it is becoming a place for personal attacks and that is not what we support. Any further discussion or questions on this topic please feel free to message an Officer and we will do our best to clarify whatever we can.