Mods who are SOOOOO smart they don't even have to read the guidelines

Thanks for offering to be the guinea pig, Dave, but I set up a test login I sometimes use and have the mods dinging me to test this out. Plus I am checking the various logs on the server to see what I can figure out.

Fig I don't think you wanna be a guinea pig. All you have to do is look at my score and look at the post and see how many times you can get dinged for the same post. Trust like Wes said "where there is smoke, there is fire." This site has more fireman willing to do their duty than the Chicago Fire Department.

Now I haven't posted in the feedback forum in a while because I felt like I would see the fallout from the other thread and if things would change. Obviously still the same. Chriss66 and I fueded there briefly because of his actions with a the "ding" button. Obviously he did not learn from that situation.

Rich I think you are doing a good thing because their maybe a golem in the gears. I pointed this out previously I thought their may have been a flaw but you wouldn't acknowledge. For that you are a better man and I have garnereed more respect for you.

Now I would like to talk about the analogies in the previous thread about the policeman who stops the man with invalid license plates. Gives him a ticket and then the man dirves further gets another ticket and so forth until he gets home. The thinking is he should continue to get tickets because he is breaking the law. Maybe so but my infractions or repeated dings were from the same post. This man chose to continue driving because he knew if he did he would get another ticket. Different events different time. I don't think the member should be penalized more than once for a post. My thought not the current moderators so be it.

Now for an analogy of my own. Since Jim brought up basketball and fouls. Gary Payton goes up for a shot and Michael Jordan slaps his wrist. Three whistles, three referees, report three fouls. It happens again in the first quarter, Michael Jordan goes to the bench with six fouls. Two events six dings by the moderators (referees). Some how if this was the case I don't think we would be talking about the same Michael Jordan who is in the Hall of Fame. Do any of you?

Originally Posted by mcgrath5860

Now for an analogy of my own. Since Jim brought up basketball and fouls. Gary Payton goes up for a shot and Michael Jordan slaps his wrist. Three whistles, three referees, report three fouls. It happens again in the first quarter, Michael Jordan goes to the bench with six fouls. Two events six dings by the moderators (referees). Some how if this was the case I don't think we would be talking about the same Michael Jordan who is in the Hall of Fame. Do any of you?

This might be a valid analogy IF Rich had left the suspension threshold at the old "12 points and your suspended" amount. He didn't and raised it to an extremely high amount to reduce the risk of what your analogy proposes. The whole point of the new system is to allow multiple dings for a single post. Look at it like the Karma system on steroids. Make a particularly offensive post and a number of people will voice their displeasure with it.

So Dennis how does that prevent from certain moderators continually ganging up a certain member becasue they don't like what he says...

Another analogy for ya then.... Police here across their scanners that a certain person's house there is a disturbance. Now this person has given the law problems in the past so every cruiser that hears this rushes acroos town to the house. In the meantime, other crimes in other parts of town go unnoticed becasue the whole view of the moderators (police) was to get this person cuz he is "trouble". What system of justice would that be or would it eventually lead to a system in which the strong would weed out the week becasue they possess all the power (and just ding a person to death).

Originally Posted by mcgrath5860

So Dennis how does that prevent from certain moderators continually ganging up a certain member becasue they don't like what he says...

Well this is an EASY one! Because each mod can ONLY ding a member once within a 24 hour period. That excludes myself and the super mods, of course. So suppose you REALLY pissed off 4 mods. It would take them, collectively, 125 days MINIMUM to get you suspended. And that is ONLY if they can find valid rule infractions in your postings in order to ding you. If they do this in an abusive manner of utilizing the warning system without valid rule infractions, then they themselves would very likely get their own warning points for their abuse of the system. And those points would likely be MUCH more weighty than the ones they gave you, and quite likely THEY would get suspended long before YOU would.

Originally Posted by mcgrath5860

Another analogy for ya then.... Police here across their scanners that a certain person's house there is a disturbance. Now this person has given the law problems in the past so every cruiser that hears this rushes acroos town to the house. In the meantime, other crimes in other parts of town go unnoticed becasue the whole view of the moderators (police) was to get this person cuz he is "trouble". What system of justice would that be or would it eventually lead to a system in which the strong would weed out the week becasue they possess all the power (and just ding a person to death).

Not a very good analogy, if I may say so. Such police actions would be in "real time", and certainly a problem for all the cops to cover all of them, all at once. Not true at all in this environment, because once someone posts something that would be a violation of the rules, it will be there waiting for the mods to get around to taking note of it, no matter how long it takes. The chances of someone getting REALLY abusive with the rules before being discovered is NOT very likely, in my opinion. It is extremely easy for someone to target a possible trouble maker and simply search on all posts made by them to keep an eye on their actions.

Well, I have done some digging around, and here is what I have come up with.

I asked several of the mods to ding a test account I set up and attempt to do so several times in succession. NONE of them were able to issue a second or subsequent warning point to my test account. Further, this test account only had a SINGLE PM for each of the valid warning points issued in the private message INBOX, and in NO case at all were multiple PMs received for those failed attempts.

I checked the log of warning points that has an entry for EVERY warning point anyone makes here. There is only ONE from christopher66 to Wilomn on 02/26/07 for profanity. There were no other warnings FROM christopher66 TO Wilomn logged in that log file.

Further I queried Christopher about issuing those warning point(s) and he was not aware that he got a PM sent to his SENT folder for each warning point issued to anyone. As such, I asked him to send me copies of all PMs concerning those warning points that Wes claims were attempted against him once he located them.

The following are those PMs that Christopher has in his SENT folder:

Originally Posted by christopher66

Wilomn,

You have been issued a warning by christopher66 on the account of Profanity!

You now have 111 warning points.

Please read the rules and try to adhere to them to make FaunaClassifieds more useful and enjoyable for us all.

Thanks,
christopher66
On Behalf of
Site Administration

Originally Posted by christopher66

Consistency wee man consistency.Isn't that what you have been asking to see?

Originally Posted by christopher66

I believe i shall.

As can PLAINLY be seen here, there WERE three PMs, but only the FIRST one was actually the result of issuing a warning point. The subsequent two were the result of replies being made between Wes and Christopher about that warning point.

I also got a PM from Wes in reference to my request for copies of those private messages, and here is the reply I got:

Originally Posted by Wilomn

I got three emails about warning notifications. I deleted them, as I do all the warning notifications, as they came it.

The pms were all in regards to the first ding he gave me.

So apparently Wes can provide NO evidence at all to substantiate his claim as he is saying that those notices ONLY came via email.

Note that during the testing using my test account, there were NO emails received for those failed subsequent dings from the mods. All I got were email notices alerting me of a PM for each warning received in my private message inbox.

So, without making any accusations, here is what the evidence appears to me:

1. christopher66 issued a single warning to Wilomn on 02/26/07. Three PMs were generated by that event, two of which were replies sent back and forth between the two parties.
2. Testing with my own test account, using mods here to attempt to issue multiple warnings within minutes of each other, FAILED.
3. Further, these failed attempts did not generate either subsequent PMs nor emails to my test account.
4. I tried issuing warning points myself to this test account, and in the process clicked the button several times in rapid succession in order to try to issue duplicate warnings. Only the SINGLE warning registered and the subsequent clicks were ignored.
5. christopher66 was able to provide copies of the three PMs that were in his SENT folder that had been sent to Wilomn concerning that SINGLE warning point issued. This evidence indicates that only a SINGLE warning was issued.
6. Wilomn is unable to provide any evidence to substantiate that he did in fact receive three discreet warnings from christopher66, two of which would have been rejected by the system via the rules for the issuing of warning points within a 24 hour period.
7. The warning points for Wilomn shown in that original warning point from christopher66 are the same as those warning points on Wilomn's record at the start of this investigation, indicating that NO additional warning points had been added to his total from those supposed subsequent warnings from christopher66
8. christopher66 was apparently unaware (as were several other mods) that PMs for each warning point are placed in their SENT folders, which indicates that they probably were not deleted by christopher66 to try to cover up anything. Regardless, the log files would have shown those additional warnings anyway, which they do not.
9. In the original post made in this thread, the text that was cut and pasted in that post are consistent with what one would see if they simply tried to cut and paste from private messages. I believe those statements were meant to be evidence of christopher66 trying to issue three separate warnings to Wilomn. Further, Wilomn quotes that those three separate warning attempts had been made within 30 minutes. The single warning and subsequent replies were made at 12:11, 12:23, and 12:37, a span of 26 minutes.

I think the evidence here is sufficient for you all to come to your own conclusions.......

So Rich you are telling me then that there is no correlation between the increased number of views on threads when certain individuals are in question. Look at the length of time this thread has been on and it already has over 1000 views. Only you can tell us how many of them viewings over the total would be by moderators. How many by the same moderator? How many different moderators view the thread? Shouldn't these numbers be publicized also? Then we can see if there is a relationship to certain moderators possibly out to get certain members on here. Just food for thought.....Because we know there have been ongoing fueds on here and now some of those people involved in the fueds have the over those they were fueding with

Originally Posted by mcgrath5860

So Rich you are telling me then that there is no correlation between the increased number of views on threads when certain individuals are in question. Look at the length of time this thread has been on and it already has over 1000 views. Only you can tell us how many of them viewings over the total would be by moderators. How many by the same moderator? How many different moderators view the thread? Shouldn't these numbers be publicized also? Then we can see if there is a relationship to certain moderators possibly out to get certain members on here. Just food for thought.....Because we know there have been ongoing fueds on here and now some of those people involved in the fueds have the over those they were fueding with

Better put my name right on top of the list for viewing this thread...though I couldn't give you a guess as to how many times I have opened it. I've checked back frequently for a variety of reasons, but neither posted nor even been tempted to issue a warning until now. What difference does it make who reads a thread or how often? And what reason would there be to publicize the numbers?...will they be that telling about my rationale for reading?

Lets say, for giggles, that I have opened this thread 42 times...what would that mean? That I am gunning for Wes...just waiting my chance to nail him for a few points? Or maybe that I am waiting to ambush somebody else - you, maybe; or perhaps Chris. Maybe I am waiting for Lucille to show up and toss in her $.02 worth.

What if, of those 1000 views, 114 of them were by mods. Does that mean we are not supervising this potential problem enough? How many times would you be expecting any given mod to visit this thread? How many different mods should watch any particular thread? (And do you think that, as a rule, we consider what the others are doing when we are scanning the topics?) At what point would there be an indication that we are paying special attention to a particular thread or member? What about the fact that the view count changes when a thread is entered and when you advance a page (or when you go back a page)? In the case of somebody that has their preferences set at 5 posts per page, that would be 12 views to read it start to finish. Now, what if there were subsequent viewings - coming back to see what may have been added, scrolling back to reread a post, looking to see who might have responded. All of these things add to the view count, so just how substantiative do you think those numbers really are?

Some Perennial Crybabies Are SOOOOOOO Smart They Can't Even Figure Out a PM.

So, in my best Irish, who's the eejit ?

I am not real sure why you would not be tempted UNTIL NOW. Could it be I actually asked questions that may need to be answered? May shed light on a bigger problem? May actually give us lowly members and actual account of what the moderators are doing or what they may not be doing? How many threads are there on this site that we need such heavy moderation on one or two threads that have large viewer response? Or does it just come back to what I have always said in the beginning. Bloody waters bring plenty of sharks