Wild Wild West - Part 2

Originally Posted by Laura Fopiano

Ok, I get it now...DOH!! Although the theory looks good on paper, the implementation has flaws. I have gone head to head with some of the posters in this thread. My general concern would be retaliation and or mob mentality.

I think it could work if a select group of members were chosen, similar to an election of sorts. Say a member would like to be one of the "warning point posse", the member could state their intentions or reasons why they could hold such a position of authority, and the other members could vote them in. That could prevent an all out "warning point assault"....just a thought.

There is actually a ding for 'warning point abuse' ("Warning system abuse 2")
so I think the plan is tenable as is. If I saw someone warning you for no good reason, Laura, I could in turn give them an abuse point.

It's going to be a mess.

What one thinks is an infraction another will think is not an infraction which will then lead to bad blood between those who disagree which will then lead to disagreement between those who agree and disagree with the original two.

Basically, it's a making of teams, of saying whose side you're on.

I for one will simply not use the system.

A karma hit, whichever way I go, will be sufficient for me.

Well if it is a --the more you pay Perk- should get some money into Fauna's coffers for Rich. There will be a number who will just have to have the power and after they use the power there will be another buying spree by those who got nailed by the former. I hope this isn't going to be a site wide thing , the BOI is what many think is the problem use it there...

If nothing else it will be interesting...Randy

Wild Wild West - Part 2 01-15-2007 07:15 AM lucille


This is EXACTLY what I am worried about. I get bad karma because.... well not exactly sure why as there was no reason.

Originally Posted by Wilomn

It's going to be a mess.

What one thinks is an infraction another will think is not an infraction which will then lead to bad blood between those who disagree which will then lead to disagreement between those who agree and disagree with the original two.

Basically, it's a making of teams, of saying whose side you're on.

I for one will simply not use the system.

A karma hit, whichever way I go, will be sufficient for me.

But yet it was just fine for those people demanding of ME to make and enforce rules here that I got the "bad blood" directed at me? Actually I think it will be interesting to see how those people who choose to use this system will appreciate all the crap I have had thrown my way for trying to enforce some order here. And that includes the site mods as well. Those guys have gotten more than their share of crap (including death threats) for simply trying to help me out with this site.

So it is just time for everyone else to pick up some of the load here IF they want this site to have rules enforced.

Originally Posted by Laura Fopiano

Ok, I get it now...DOH!! Although the theory looks good on paper, the implementation has flaws. I have gone head to head with some of the posters in this thread. My general concern would be retaliation and or mob mentality.

I think it could work if a select group of members were chosen, similar to an election of sorts. Say a member would like to be one of the "warning point posse", the member could state their intentions or reasons why they could hold such a position of authority, and the other members could vote them in. That could prevent an all out "warning point assault"....just a thought.

My specs for the programming of this system left me with the leeway to where I can select via member group which members will be able to utilize the warning points. I could limit it to Benefactor and Endowment only members, if I so choose (and in reality this may not be a half bad idea). Or else create an entirely separate member group solely for this purpose. Certainly either of these two options would greatly decrease the problem of retaliatory use of he warning points.

But bear in mind what my criteria of being a paying member actually means. I am using that as a yardstick of just how valuable you feel this site is, and how your displayed evidence of wanting this site to succeed and continue to be worthwhile SHOULD be recognized by your trying to use this system to protect your vested interest in this site. Quite frankly paying members are showing me that they WANT this site to do well, and I believe they are the ones who will make the effort to insure that this is so. What I am saying to them is "Thank you for your financial support, and in recognition of that support, here is a method by which you can help me make this site what YOU want it to be."

Sure anyone could buy into this, but seriously, how many people intent on just causing trouble would spend the money to do so? Not many, I would think.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

But yet it was just fine for those people demanding of ME to make and enforce rules here that I got the "bad blood" directed at me? Actually I think it will be interesting to see how those people who choose to use this system will appreciate all the crap I have had thrown my way for trying to enforce some order here. And that includes the site mods as well. Those guys have gotten more than their share of crap (including death threats) for simply trying to help me out with this site.

So it is just time for everyone else to pick up some of the load here IF they want this site to have rules enforced.

Its comments like this that make me wonder what your true reasons are for implementing something like this. Are you trying to improve the qulaity of this site or just share your pain with others?

Bart

Originally Posted by bsharrah

Its comments like this that make me wonder what your true reasons are for implementing something like this. Are you trying to improve the qulaity of this site or just share your pain with others?

Bart

Why should he alone bear the pain, when it is the users of the site that cause it?

Originally Posted by WebSlave

But yet it was just fine for those people demanding of ME to make and enforce rules here that I got the "bad blood" directed at me? Actually I think it will be interesting to see how those people who choose to use this system will appreciate all the crap I have had thrown my way for trying to enforce some order here. And that includes the site mods as well. Those guys have gotten more than their share of crap (including death threats) for simply trying to help me out with this site.

So it is just time for everyone else to pick up some of the load here IF they want this site to have rules enforced.

You neglect to say that some have not given you crap. Some have taken their lumps and gone on. Some have explained a thing, once, and let it go. Some have never requested a point or warning be removed. Some have merely, as previously stated, tried to explain, once, what was percieved to have been misunderstood, then moved on.

There are two side rich, and you seem to only see the one where you get all the crap. It's your site. Who else should get the crap? Be the king or abidicate. You've got two excellent mods and one I have no respect for at all, which is well known, yet how many problems in all the years I've been a member, have resulted from our interactions? Both Dennis and Ken have dinged me numerous times when it was deserved with never a whimper from me, same for you with the exception of an explanation or two but even then, I never asked to have points given taken back.

I suspect I may be in a small crowd in regaurds to my actions, but I surely cannot be flying solo.

Take that into account as well.

There is nothing here that has happened to you or your mods that you cannot seriously blame on anyone other than you. It's your site, everything that happens is your responsibility.

IF you really don't like it that much, either delegate or abidicate but the complaining does get sort of worn. We ALL know that you get crap and that some of it is undeserved.

Welcome to Life 101.

Originally Posted by Bill & Amy

Why should he alone bear the pain, when it is the users of the site that cause it?

Not suggesting he should bear all the pain, but is the benefit of "sharing the wealth" worth the risk of turning this site into a sitcom?

I am not suggesting this is a good or bad idea. My opinion wouldn't carry much weight regardless. I am just suggesting Rich may want to take a step back and consider his reasons for this and the effects it may have on the site. I think at one time the goal of creating this site was to benefit the reptile community. If this was the case, does this change benefit that cause or is it being done purely out of frustration.

Just something to think about.

Bart