Chameleon Company

Karen,
I feel your pain !! I myself woke up to a "Fined and Suspended" notice recently, as I had referred to someone as a "fool" and "clown". I could only claim ignorance, as they did fall within the rules and fines structure, and I thought them less inflammatory than some other labels that had been used to that point. I was further miffed though, because like you, I have contributed $ to the site, and now could not even access the rules or communicate without paying the fine. I did circumvent that a bit by contacting Rich through his reptiles site, and I thank him for taking the time to have an email exchange with me.

I fully understand Rich's concerns about abuse and non-professionalism within the site, and trying to find a way to address it. As lamented by others here, and in other posts within Fauna, I too have noticed results that are a bit disappointing. One is the declining number of experienced posters, such as Wes, Jim O., etc. While I have not, and will not, review all of their posts to analyze which straw broke the camels back, my rough impression is that they did the most self-inflicted damage when they became engaged in urinating contests with a moderator, at ti,mes with both sides being antagonistic. Some people are highly opinionated and volatile, a recipe for disaster here. But I also think that a frequent poster here is more likely to run afoul of the law, and while I am not excusing anyone's breaking of the rules, I think it an accurate conclusion to say that some of the BOI's best assets (frequent informed posters) who may only slip up 1-2% of the time are never-the-less going to find themselves at odds with management far more quickly and often than a lesser asset. I do not liken this to the traffic cop scenario, where one who drives more is at a higher risk to amass tickets than a Sunday-only driver, and must therefore be even more careful. People come here wanting to see the frequent drivers and traffic .... ie people and opinions who are here voluntarily contributing opinions and information. Less traffic here is not good. Fines earned do need to be paid, and standards enforced, but if there is any threshold for losing one's license, I think it needs to be in accordance with miles driven. I also think that $10 for name calling (the non-obscenity type) should not rate the same penalty (money, points, suspension) as conveying a threat. That is way out of balance, as I think that threats may warrant immediate banning. I feel that something in the range of $2 and 2 points more appropriate for terms like "jerk, clown, idiot, fool, thief, scammer, liar, scum, lowlife, etc" , higher for obscenities. I accept too that that is a matter of perception and opinion. But one of the unmistakable consequences has been the rapid exit of people from this site who were not theives, scammers, liars, etc. Many of these people had mega rep-points, well earned. Another consequence will be a decline in contributions via auctions, etc., if not already. I do not make that claim as implied blackmail, inference that values can be bought, etc., just as a valid observation that is worthy of evaluation. Again, I am not saying that Rich's motives are out of line, quite the contrary, but I do think that now that we have seen some results, some tweaking may be in the best interests of the site. I believe that there have been unintended consequences, and that some modificaton is appropriate.
Last suggestion would be a new membership category. One week for $1 (or $2). I think that $10 is too much for many to fork out unless they have a very strong opinion that they need to unload in a hurry. And who wants to spend $10 to make a "Good Guy" post ? Many of those $1 contributors may go on to become $10 members. Thanks for reading this far.