moderators role - moderation vs. personal involvment

Although not involved in any of the threads this thread mentions, I have to agree, if a moderator is going to be abusing his power and penalizing others for disagreeing with him, something should be done about it.

Webslave, yes you do not have time to handle all of the boo-boos in this playground, but perhaps there is someone you trust who you can put in charge of dealing with the every day whining and complaining?

i got points from jay for using the word "wordhole" if i knew i was going to get points i would havae much it a much more detailed and colorful phrase... a wordhole is a mouth....simple as that just a synonym.
*shrugs*
however randy may's rude and derogitory remarks in that post apparantlydid not warrent any points.

how about taking the point system off the place by our name since you stated

The warning system is a method that the moderators and myself use to communicate problems with behavior to a member that we would like to see corrected. Although some people may use the warning points system to judge a person, that is not what it is for.

maybe put it in the user CP area., if it is not meant for people tp judge someone. or only made viewable by the person logging on

just a suggestion.

Rich Robin brings up a very valid point. I have seen people that have many warning points basically discounted by members or harassed by them.

I think that though it does serve a purpose perhaps not where the open Public can see it at every post?

People are bias no matter what they say........

When I read threads I have seen Jay be very bias. And Rich I am going to be the first to say I have seen you once or twice do the same lol(nothing big bro) But Jay has really only Modded threads that he posts in. I mean really look at his posts then the person he gives warnings too.

They are all people he disagrees with. That is not right bro. Not on the BOI.

I mean if I disagree with him is he going to look for a way to give me points. Go over my posts with a fine tooth cumb? That is the point here.

Also bro I think you should be more involved here. I mean come on he is making this site money if he gets someone up to 10 points right? And lets say 80% of them were him just searching for a reason to give points. You should step in and review them when asked. If one person gets points for something in a thread EVERYONE I THAT THREAD SHOULD. If not then the points givin should be taken away.

IMO I think that some posts are over looked to target a certain person. That is not right.

This site is HUGE.......You have 4 mods. Maybe you should look for help bro. Really.

Your members are what makes this site not the mods. Without the memebers you have nothing. And when they come to you about something like this it should not be put on a back burner......IMO.

Rich I have nothing against you and nothing against the mods I am giving you my outside opinion.......

But I know there are people that fear losing there membership here if they post there opinions unless it is with the in group at the time......You know what I mean.

I can say I have never gotten a point. I work well with in a TOS always.

But I think this thing is such a big issue because it can cost a person money. that is why you should have to step in. It is a fine and you should review the warnings or have a group of mods do it not just one................

You can even look at the piont thing from a different angle. How does it look for everyone Ive ever given a good review of, all the points I have. It almost reads like the glowing review was given by a DIRT BALL. Cause thats what it starts to look like when you have 69 points (allthough I must admit Im going to try really really really hard to stay at 69, if the numbers got to be high why not 69...LOL)

If the points arent meant to reflect persay on someone, then maybe they shouldnt be right in the open the way they are.

Pending the results of my investigation into this matter, I have suspended Jay's moderator rights on this site.

I suppose this all started from the "Mites" thread that went from the BOI to the Shows and Events forum, then finally coming to rest in HELL. So my intention over the next few days is to read through that thread, as well as the one about Anthony Caponetto. What I will do is look at all participants within those threads looking for warning points that were assessed as well as posts that may have escaped warning points that I would deem warranting them. I will keep a tally sheet of what I find and make a judgement from that as to whether there is an actual case of abuse. Anyone here is welcome to do the same if they want to compare notes with my own decisions. Bear in mind, that some things may be a judgement call based on who is reading the posts, and something that I deem as being derogatory, may not seem so in your eyes. And vice versa, as well.

One thing I would like to mention yet again is that I do not read each and every post on this site. I cannot and will not ask that of the moderators here, when I do not do that sort of patrolling myself. I read threads that seem like they might be of interest to me. In reading through those posts, if I see something that appears to warrant warning points, then I will assess them as deemed fitting and necessary. I am under tha assumption that my moderators probably work the same way. Sorry, but not everything everyone says here is going to be of interest to me or the moderators. So yes, it is quite likely that violations may be overlooked.

Also, bear in mind that oftentimes I will get an email that is reporting a problem within a thread. I will usually read ONLY that particular post and determine if warning points are appropriate. Very likely, I will NOT read posts before nor after it. Very likely, the moderators on this site treat those reported posts the same way I do. So if someone three posts back calls you an "idiot" and you reply in like kind, it is entirely possible that ONLY the post that was reported by someone will get seen by a moderator and poinsts assessed. That's just the way it is. The school playground defense that "Johnnie called me the name first!" has no bearing whatsoever on your warning. And to answer the statement I have heard many times saying "Well you HAVE to go back and give everyone else warning points as well...", says who? I may or may not. My mods may or may not. It is not being selective nor biased, it is just the way things work with the workload here.

Another thing, these problem reports are set to go to the moderators of a forum, or if there is no moderator, to default to the admin (me). That means that the problem reports go to everyone in respect to those threads posted within the BOI, since I am listed as a moderator on that forum. Usually what happens is the first person who gets there is the one who takes care of the problem. There have been numerous times when two people happened to check a reported post at the same time and both assessed the warning points without realizing that someone else was doing the same thing. When this happens, one of the warning points will normally be deleted if the points are the same. Sometimes we just never realize this error, and it never comes to our attention.

I have been reviewing in my mind my newly stated policy about moderators having to choose between being a moderator OR a participant in a thread, but not both. Sounds good on the surface, but in deeper reflection, I'm not so sure. How long will a thread go on? How many posts will be made on it before it falls into oblivion? How many different directions will that thread take within it's lifetime? These are basically unanswerable. So if a thread gets newly started and let's say on the third post a person violates one of the rules and a moderator assesses valid warning points. Then 50 replies later, through several twists and turns, this thread then becomes something that is of a personal nature to this same moderator. Should he be disallowed from participating in that thread because of that warning point made back at the beginning of the thread? Or from another angle, suppose this moderator had a personal interest from the start, but the thread is of a nature that is not of any interest whatsoever to the rest of the mods or myself. Heck, it could be something going on in the Birds forum, where I am never likely to wander into. Does that posting by a moderator then disqualify him from EVER posting warning points and he has to then send another mod (or myself) notices for all infractions that he runs into while following the thread?

Yeah, I know, you all want a perfect moderator that is completely unbiased. Sounds good on paper, but anyone who can form an opinion is going to become biased whether they want to or not.

I know I am being set up with this issue. If I side with Jay, I am going to be trumpeted as being biased in his favor. Yet if I side against him, then I will be trumpeted as being railroaded by a minority mob (considering the number of members on this site) into removing him as a mod from this site. Some of you in this thread have already made up your minds, so please excuse me if I discount YOUR bias completely when I look into this issue. I will look at the cards and make the best call I can, no matter who it pisses off.

That's the breaks, I guess. I can't remember anything I have done with this site that has pleased everyone, so this is certainly not going to be an exception.

Oh yeah, one other thing. When I am going through those threads, don't be surprised if some people get even more warning points assessed if I find that a post may have violated several and were only assessed for one violation. It is QUITE possible for a single post to have MANY violations at one time.

Originally posted by WebSlave


That's the breaks, I guess. I can't remember anything I have done with this site that has pleased everyone, so this is certainly not going to be an exception.

You can't make everyone happy because it is impossible to do with so many members here. But by looking into this matter more deeply I feel the majority of the members who voiced an opinion will be happy that you are doing as they requested.

And fair play means just what you said, if a post diserves points because it violated the TOS or rules so be it. That is fair play in my book.

I know I am being set up with this issue. If I side with Jay, I am going to be trumpeted as being biased in his favor. Yet if I side against him, then I will be trumpeted as being railroaded by a minority mob (considering the number of members on this site) into removing him as a mod from this site.

perhaps a yes or no poll or yes no and i really dont know him so i have idea

Thread Anthony Caponetto...ACREPTILES?


First page fine

Page 2 fine

Page 3 getting heated

Page 4 Anthony responds with an explanation polite and Josh responds back all looks well at this point and the thread should have died.

Page 5 the fight starts Nothing TOSable but its started nonetheless. Jay has involved himself at this point as a Member not a Mod.

Page 6 Robin is still at the fighting and Josh posted he received the animals and happy thread should still be dead but now with a conclusion to the transaction.

Page 7 a little more mud slinging but no reason for points

Page 8 still flaming but no points

Page 9 gets more heated and Repfriend says:Anthony, for what you have said and done to Robin, you are one low piece of horse manure. That is worthy of a warning but not points

Page 10 Jay puts on the Moderator hat and says: Personal grudges do not have a place on the BOI. Rich has already warned certain members about dragging issues from Hell to the BOI.

If someone has information about business dealings that they have had with Anthony, then they are free to post it. Otherwise it's time to dispense with this childish pettiness.
Should have stepped in sooner.IMO by someone.

Page11 More mudslinging. no points

Page 12 Anthony addressed Robin direct and Robin apologized Should have been the end of the flames.

Page 13 err looks to be a start of Robin and Jay getting in to a pissing match.

Page 14 Jay is definitely IMO infighting more of a feud be it unintentional or not. At this point he is wearing both a Poster and MOD hat very big conflict of interest starting to show IMO

Page15 Repfriend says
Jays own words:
"I am not going to go back and give Anthony or Jim warning points if for no other reason than I'm sick of all of the bellyaching about how unjustly you're being treated.

I DID NOT SEE JAY SAY THAT MAYBE I MISSED IT. But {IF} he did then he clearly abused it authority in defense of friends and did abuse his authority.

Page 16 Rich is the final word

I looked over the whole thread again OH JOY looks like the A typical mudslinging going on and person feuds. Seen them to many times on the BOI. If your going to bring up an argument be ready to have your rear end exposed for archery practice.

As far as I can tell No Members would have gotten points from me Maybe a few PM WARNINGS to tone it down though.

Jay did appear in handing out the points to overstep his authority a lot. And if he made the comments about points and defending friends then Yes he has IMO violated his authority as a Moderator