Status check and poll on recent crack down

John and Others,
To his credit, Rich began a clear discussion with me about the anonymous post in a timely fashion. If you note the "reading and comprehension" thread in this same forum, it was a direct result of that conversation between Rich and I, and rather quickly resulted in the change in the penalty point/fine system that was instituted yesterday. I could post the PM's there and you would see that Rich plays "no-favorites" with me ! I thank those for recognizing the adage. I find it a bit humorous when others also recognize the adage but then feel that an explanation has to be atached to it when you use it ! Why use it ? Frankly, my disagreement is with Rich, for it was his call to make. Hopefully, no one will repeat my mistake.

You mean Jims not your favorite? He's certainly one of mine. HA HA I like reading his stuff. It's like being back in school. I've learned many big words from Jim. LOL (that's a serious compliment BTW)

I had a nice LOL this AM from you remark. Thank you. The irony of using "big words" at times, vs, this one example about "KISS" which is the time-tested adage to try to avoid complexity, is not lost on me, as the big word would have saved me $10, and the simplicity cost me $10 !

And John, I realize the word "You" was in the sentance, but the adage contains the word "it". The hypenated "simple-stupid" modifies the word "it", but I thank you for the attempted English lesson! I do not dispute that those with less a grasp of the English language may have focused on the "you", or those with a bone-to-pick (what a concept there, eh?). Rich admitted he was familiar with "KISS". If I had said "you are stupid", there's no doubt, and nothing to clarify. But Rich could have sent me a note saying that a clarification was needed to be posted by me, for some misread the adage, or did I rally mean to say "You are simple. You are stupid"? If I had made up an adage, with no basis in society and communication, then OK. Rich has made it very clear that things can be crafted easily so as to call someone stupid without saying so directly, as in my example "you are stupid". "KISS" is not even an attempt to be so loquacious (for you Rick !), but rather to keep things straightforward and simple. Its mentioned in just about every college course you will ever take that involves design, engineering, or communication. And yet, it is what ends up in Rich's crosshairs, and requires a rejection of the fact that it is an adage to make it into something else ! This one took a heck of a lot of creativity to find fault with. The continued "dumbing-down" of America. Go figure.

Jim, that one thread generated several reported posts, ALL of which were made by you. You appear to be good at the use of the English language, so please tell me what the word "warning" means in the use of "warning points" on this site.

Sometimes it's an accumulation of word and phrase combinations within a single post or a string of posts that appear to warrant a "warning" to the poster to watch his or her step. In that one post with the "KISS" phrase, I had received an earlier reported post about this following statement as well:

Some may think you are a petty jerk who can't handle competition.

Perhaps it was not intentional digs you were making and perhaps it was not meant as some people were reading between the lines in how you were phrasing things, but in my opinion you DEFINITELY needed a warning about the way you are choosing your words and phrases within your posts in relation to another member on this site.

I am reading that the "warning" was due more to an accumulating tone, and no longer the "KISS" adage? I believe it may have been the better approach to have identified it as such then. You have separate fines for "name calling" and for "general antagonism". You chose the one that is the automatic fine, the "name calling". My observation would be that antagonistic tones prevail throughout many BOI threads, and in the very thread you cite, I had been told to "shine my armor", "play in the sandbox", and would receive "free bullfrogs to replace the slugs I was currently with"! I had fun with each of those statements. I also believe all were made by the "stupid" entity prior to my KISS comment. The rancor in that thread was no where close to the volume levels normally tolerated, IMO, in other threads.

Your rules are written so as to be as objective as possible. In almost every enforcement of them, I have seen you and other Mods attempt to stay that way with them. Your decision here required significant subjectivity, and since it is now not as blatant as first indicated, maybe just a note to me would have sufficed if you didn't like the tone. ? Or a post in the thread?

And so as not to cherry pick, you quote this part of the post:

Some may think you (Alex) are a petty jerk who can't handle competition.

Here's the paragraph, in its full context.

Readers here will draw their own conclusions. Some will think Wendy and Jeane are trying to be scammers etc. Some may think you are a petty jerk who can't handle competition. Some may think I need to shoot myself !! I can easily see more than one saying "a pox on all their houses".

Obviously, I was not fined for threatening myself! I even used the word "will" for the folks I was defending (W and J), and "may" for Alex. Not by accident.

Let the viewers decide. I make no bones about thinking you stretched too far with your power to levy fines. If nothing else, let others absorb it, and exercise whatever caution they feel is necessary.

Originally Posted by Chamco

I

Let the viewers decide. .

Jim,
I don't agree. I think that yes the viewers have every right to their thoughts and opinions about anything on this board (or anywhere else for that matter)
But we are on Rich's site and I think HE should decide how he wants his site run.
And this is no way meant as a criticism, but there are those who post all the time and never get a warning point. (I'm not one of them but I've kept it to a minimum). I think if you err strongly enough on the side of caution, there would be more time to talk about reptiles instead of trying to find the line in the sand.
I try to stay as far from that line as I can get (although I can see it fairly well), but I think most of the time I get my point across.

Lucille,
I don't disagree one bit with the general theme of your post. And the rules are Rich's to make. Never questioned that. But when I state the phrase "Let the viewers decide", I was not suggesting that it should be put to a vote, or a new rules approach where we have a poll on every transgression, etc. Once again, its an adage akin to something like "to each his own", and meant only that as with any post in Fauna, the reader will draw their own conclusion.
Surely some folks choose to stay out of many threads, make the points they care to, etc. You and others who have unblemished records are to be commended. Others of us will engage certain issues in a more direct manner, often taking on the fights that you have clearly expressed disdain for. In the thread in question, I received what I consider a "personal attack" after my very first post which was pretty devoid of anything personal. Even so, I realize that I am bound to play by the rules. Context is everything, and I would implore you to go to that thread, peruse it, and take a look at my last post just about 30 minutes ago. That is how it is supposed to be done, and I believe how it would have been handled had Rich, or anyone else, brought the mis-reading to my attention. No argument about "erring strongly enough on the side of caution", but the rules are the rules. I happen to think that I exercised considerable "err" on the side of caution, and that the rules were mis-applied here.

Originally Posted by Chamco

Lucille,
I don't disagree one bit with the general theme of your post. And the rules are Rich's to make. Never questioned that. But when I state the phrase "Let the viewers decide", I was not suggesting that it should be put to a vote, or a new rules approach where we have a poll on every transgression, etc. Once again, its an adage akin to something like "to each his own", and meant only that as with any post in Fauna, the reader will draw their own conclusion.
Surely some folks choose to stay out of many threads, make the points they care to, etc. You and others who have unblemished records are to be commended. Others of us will engage certain issues in a more direct manner, often taking on the fights that you have clearly expressed disdain for. In the thread in question, I received what I consider a "personal attack" after my very first post which was pretty devoid of anything personal. Even so, I realize that I am bound to play by the rules. Context is everything, and I would implore you to go to that thread, peruse it, and take a look at my last post just about 30 minutes ago. That is how it is supposed to be done, and I believe how it would have been handled had Rich, or anyone else, brought the mis-reading to my attention. No argument about "erring strongly enough on the side of caution", but the rules are the rules. I happen to think that I exercised considerable "err" on the side of caution, and that the rules were mis-applied here.

Jim

I do not have an unblemished record, so perhaps I do not have standing to express my opinion here.
But take it as only my perception and opinion: I did not see it as you erring on the side of caution, I rather saw some personality conflict that was slowly escalating and becoming sharper. If that is not the reality of it, I apologize, but that was the sense that I was getting from what I was reading.
In any case, I defer to Rich, who made the judgment, the same way I did when I was corrected. When I received my warning point, I chose not to ask about it, argue it away, try to alter it (although I did try to auction it off one time without success). I just decided to be more careful.

Yeah Jim, I hear that all of the time. People always think what they posted was "different" or "exceptional". They think their post did not violate the rules because of what was in their head at the time and not how the words come across to someone outside of their head. Or since someone else posted something they interpreted as being as bad or worse then what they posted, theirs should be exempted in comparison. This has been beat to death many times in other threads, and I have no intention of repeating myself. Do the research yourself for the answers to why those arguments do not hold water. And when push comes to shove, I REALLY don't care that you don't like the fact that I warned you about your postings. I don't enjoy doing it, have much better things to do with my time, and just REALLY wish this site was 100 percent populated with people who act in a mature and professional demeanor. THAT is the goal of the rules I have put into effect here. The penalties are incentive for people to grow to that level, if they can. For those who can't, well, I'm not willing to lower the bar on the quality of this site to accommodate you.

But I will say this, Jim: I spent more of my time then I really had available in PMs to you about that thread in question, and I GUARANTEE I will not make that same mistake again. The warning point system has been, is, and always will be discretionary based on what myself or the moderators think about the post at the time we may read it. Sometimes we may spend more time then others pondering it, instead of just a flat out objective interpretation of individual words or phrases. Most times we won't. And I REALLY don't care whether someone doesn't like that aspect of it or not. It is the ONLY feasible way to handle it based on the fact that human beings are doing this work. If someone wants to whine about their warning points, well knock yourself out, but it is not going to change your getting the points at all. The thought went into the points BEFORE they were assessed and it is an extremely rare event when after thought changes that perception.

As to what your intentions are turning this thread into a discussion about YOUR warning points, I think I know, but for the moment I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. Just don't play "Mr. Innocent" with me, please. I've been doing this for far too long to NOT know. The benefit of the doubt is only because I'm not certain that YOU know what you are doing.

You know, I spend more time on this site responding to whine-o-grams then probably anything else I do here. If you want to play word games on this site, perhaps thinking that you can be clever enough to conceal your real intentions, well have at it. What you post may very well be completely innocent, but past history here with other posters has shown that to be the exception, rather then the rule. Generally speaking, if the TONE of the thread is one of heated thinly concealed antagonism based on the emotion of the discussion, whatever you post may very well be taken in the worst possible light, simply because that is very likely the REAL meaning behind it.

Saying "keep it simple - stupid" in a light hearted jokingly made post is FAR different from saying it in a thread where emotions are running high, and that poster has already indicated by their actions that they are getting emotionally perturbed by that discussion. Your later explanations, often made with a cooler head, will not change a thing in how it was interpreted at the time.

We will just have another one to agree to disagree on. If nothing else, it did make me aware of, and afford me the opportunity, to address it in the thread which is how correcting a misunderstanding should have been. It was not a slur or name-calling that required an apology or a retraction, just a definition for those not informed, or maybe foreigners still grasping the nuances of our language.

BTW, Lucille, Rich and I began a PM exchange yesterday about a one-point warning which I agreed was due, as I had violated the rules about anonymous posting. It was prior to this issue, and the discussion between Rich and I was the topic that became the "reading comprehension" thread in this same forum, and led to a change in the application of the penalty points and fines. I also acknowledged my culpability in the thread in the BOI, where I had made that offense.

As I am finding out now about the "KISS" phrase, in this thread, from Rich, is that I was fined $10 for reasons not initially communicated to me, at least not completely by anyone's measure now. I believe that you both understand that a person fined in this site has a reasonable expectation to have the offense and fine linked, so as to at least have the benefit of learning from it. My efforts here got me that explanation. Since I had to pay $10, I expected such, but readily admit that a non-monetary fine may have never made the radar. I thank you. Other readers here now have that benefit as well.

Originally Posted by Chamco

BTW, Lucille, Rich and I began a PM exchange yesterday about a one-point warning which I agreed was due, as I had violated the rules about anonymous posting. It was prior to this issue, and the discussion between Rich and I was the topic that became the "reading comprehension" thread in this same forum, and led to a change in the application of the penalty points and fines. I also acknowledged my culpability in the thread in the BOI, where I had made that offense.

That is not exactly accurate. I began this process before our PM discussion began, and it was actually my intent to withhold (or at least delay) the levy of the warning point (which would have caused a fine and suspension) until the new system had mostly been put in place. When the system were to be completely finished, part of the process is a clearing of the slate for all current warning points, which would have caused that Anonymous Quote violation to be a minor 1 point infraction. Unfortunately, with several reported posts coming in on that other post with the derogatory comments (whether or not they were misinterpreted) forced the issue before all the changes have been completed. But it seems no matter what I do here, I still come out looking like the ogre.

Honestly I am beginning to hate the warning system. Although I believe the intent of it is good, the application of it is causing me a huge amount of grief and aggravation. But try as I might, I can't think of ANY penalty system that would work any better. No one likes to be reprimanded, and most people take offense at it, just some more then others. But no one appreciates it at all. So I think this issue is rapidly coming to a head as to whether I am to continue with the aggravation of having rules here and the work of enforcing them, or just saying to hell with it, remove the rules and the enforcers of the rules, and let everyone have what it is they apparently want out of this site: To do as they please, how they please. Maybe what I want out of this site is just not possible to reach and it is time to stop trying. Yeah, it is probably just my other workload talking here, but it's talking pretty darn loud to me. I'm just TIRED of it all.

I have tried, but I don't see any way to have a middle ground. If there are any rules, even one, it has to be enforced, with penalties, or there is no sense in having rules. But quite frankly, I am tired to death of trying to make this site be what I want it to be. So I may just have to stop trying. I guess I just set my sights too high with this place.