Michael,
I've been around for 4 1/2 years... and I've never seen punishments released to the general populous. I consider 4 1/2 years to be long standing.
Now to punish privately to the point that member(s) themselves do not know what they are being punished for is definitely a violation of the MH. Now the members involved should have the details. I find it hard pressed to believe that the member(s) do not know what they are being punished for and the details behind it... be in precedent or policy.
I will ask that you please be careful how you word things here. I will refrain and ask the rest of you as well to refrain from commentary in regards to "egos being as fragile as china." I'm not concerned who has a fragile ego or who doesn't... and neither should anyone else when seeking facts.
Now as for a "new punishment schedule"... that too would need to be decided by the council. I am sure that the council will review the decision made and make a fair and informed decision based on the MH and the case as a whole.
Now as for perceptions... no matter what message a seller "tries" to send... the customer may or may not see that message as being the same thing. Perception is in the eye of the beholder. The truth and fact is, Charles and Alex need only "come clean" to the member(s) who they have punished. They do not, in accordance with the MH, have to reveal anything to the domain at large. Will they? I can't answer that question. Only they can answer that question.
Now, so far, I am trying to see your point of view, but I will say this... in all cases, I have tried to make it a point to say that I am not being argumentative, or mean... merely presenting the facts and the truth as I see it through my own eyes. Please keep in mind I have no stake in all this. I have nothing to gain nor lose in this. I want to make sure that is very crystal clear. :)
I will ask that if you are upset by all this, take a step back and read what you post. Remember, right now, I play the role of a messenger. I, thus far, have done everything I promised to do for this domain. When I said I would ask questions, I asked questions. When I said I would look deeper, I have begun to look deeper.
I would like to say something I said at the meeting this past Saturday to those who could not be there. I remember when I first joined the Camarilla guys. I used to hear all the cool stories about Pittsburgh. I used to hear how awesome you guys were. I couldn't wait for my first opportunity to play there. When I found out I was going to Pittsburgh one night, I was so jazzed it was not even funny. That night, one of my buds PCs got whacked. But you know, what... I loved it. It was an awesome time. You were the people that I looked up to when I first started. Do you know why? Because you guys knew how to follow the rules, and showed that following the rules was the best way to do things.
Now why did I bring that up? Because I want you to look at what is going on now. Are you standing for your principles? From what I can see yes... and I admire that. But are you truly following the rules? Commentary about someone's "ego being as fragile as china" is definitely not following the rules. Saying someone is spineless in a domain meeting is definitely not following the rules. And so I make the statement... "Two wrongs do not make a right." While you are standing for what you believe is right, I would say take a look at how you are approaching the situation. You're all very smart people... I know this... Jon knows this... Alex knows this... Charles knows this... we all know this. I also said at the meeting there was a right way to handle a situation and a wrong way to handle it. If you disagree with a decision made by Jon or me, appeal us to the arbitration board. It is what they are there for. If a national officer makes a decision, appeal it to the Camarilla Council. It's part of their job. If Alex and Charles make a decision you disagree with, ask them if there is an appeal for it. In the case currently with the Council... Jason made the right decision in requesting the appeal to the Council. Now what is the wrong way to handle it... arguing, actively going against the rules, name calling, attacking someone's name, etc. What one might see as ideals being fought for... can, and usually does appear to be someone just fighting to cause to trouble to many. Am I saying back down? No. I'm saying to go about it differently.
Again, please keep in mind... I am not trying to be argumentative... I am trying to help you guys here. :)
Sincerely,
Jed Stancato
US2002021727
East Central Regional Coordinator