Moderator hhmoore: biased, intimidating, and goading

1. Let the party know this post is here. Not because we owe him an explanation. But because we need him to get educated.

2. To the party in question. If your post gets reported and it is breaking the rules, then we will issue a warning.

3. Just because you see us issue a warning to you and not the other party, does not mean we are biased. You just do not see that perhaps we have issued a warning to the other party as well.

4. The admin/mod team do not get too see each and every single post. There is a TON of them. So we depend on you to do your part in reporting the posts.

5. If you think we should be reading each and every single post. Then perhaps it is time for your contributions to escalate and perhaps place the admin/ mod team on the payrol

We = admin / mod team
Us = admin / mod team

my apologies. kinda took all that personal I guess.

Thank you admin/mod team for your hard work and dedication. It is hard work. Specially when you want to sometimes reach through the computer and slap someone.

Originally Posted by HerpVenue

1. Let the party know this post is here. Not because we owe him an explanation. But because we need him to get educated.

Posted 4 minutes after submitting this thread, in the thread that prompted much of the content:

Mr Jacuoco, I am not going to further disrupt this thread by replying to your accusations here...I have started a thread in the appropriate forum. Feel free to reply as you see fit.
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...05#post1482405

He has since made 3 posts to that thread...whether he read it or not, I cannot say with certainty.

Harold and other moderators. I understand this is the forum to ask questions about moderating and have some debate about that. I'm here to just understand how things are done and get a feeling for consistency of rules being applied. The reference thread is:
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=168328

My questions:

Some questions for Fauna:

1) In post # 9 ReptileGeek181 as a very good question of Cuoco: "Hey Jacuoco88 can you show any proof of the serious allegations you've made?"
Why has fauna allowed somebody to make accusations without any evidence in a BOI thread?

2) In post # 23 Harold, a moderator with screen name hhmoore, asks Cuoco "IF you can back up your claim - why not do it here, in the open, alongside your accusation??"
Cuoco providing NOTHING. Why allow him to keep posting his junk or anybody else for that matter that makes accusations while providing no evidence what-so-ever?

3) In post #14, Cuoco shows antagonism towards moderator hhmoore when he says "More alarming, however, is how the Moderator, Harold Moore, is biased and attempting to intimidate me from filing complaints against Gearheart by issuing me 2 separate infractions and now goading me into uploading documents."
This breaks fauna rule calledAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points.
Moderators are here to moderate. That means they may ask you to calm down or tone it down. Turning your sights on them just makes a bad situation even worse.
Why was he not given that infraction? I've seen over the yrs. many times where anything like Cuoco said netted that infraction automatically.

4) In post #15, AbsoluteApril says "as to the comment requesting the proof be posted here in the thread instead of sent to one person's email.. why wouldn't you want to post proof for all to see?". That question was to Cuoco.
- Again Nothing. No evidence. Why is Cuoco allowed to continue taking up bandwidth and cluttering up your site with no evidence?

5) In post #16, Cuoco tries to embarrass moderator hhmoore when he says "Mr. Moore, your bias is evident in the fact that your accepting and acting upon advice from the individual that's being complained about....you did nothing about it....Stay out of it next time." 2nd time he broke the fauna rulecalledAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points.
Why wasn't he given that infraction?

6) In post #19, ApexPredatorBoid requests from Cuoco (this is now the for the 2nd request made on Cuoco) and says "Can you post emails, with complete headers, that show where he was notified that you were having issues obtaining his order and that he was given the options that you've stated? It also wouldn't hurt to provide some sort of documentation concerning the charge back and the fees incurred."
- Again Nothing. No evidence. Just Cuoco running off with this mouth.
Again, why is anybody allowed to post on a BOI thread with accusations and not supply evidence and their posts stand and they can just continue to post whatever lie and accusation they want without the burden of evidence being put on the accuser?
ApexPredatorBoid also says in post #19 "The burden of proof generally falls to the accusing party. Your claims are heretofore unsubstantiated."
Since they are, again, why is Cuoco or anybody allowed to just take up bandwidth on this site and run off with their mouth with no evidence of anything?

7) In post #20 Cuoco writes "...stop asking your VIP Members and "sales associates" to post messages coming to your defense."
Cuoco is referring to Fauna moderators. As noted, fauna moderators don't choose sides, but here is Cuoco going again, for the third time, at fauna's moderators. Where is theAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points rule being used here?

I wanted to add that, again, I'm just asking questions here. I understand and appreciate moderators do not have an easy job and I commend you for your time, consideration and efforts. If referencing the thread above in which John Cuoco seems to violate several fauna rules, I'm seeking understanding about the questions that I asked. I understand he received some infractions, but the allowing anybody to jump on a site and make accusations with an agenda of a smear campaign without any supporting evidence and continue to take up bandwidth and use the forum for their smear campaign is something that I never see other sites do. They edit and delete posts and ban people that pull that crap therefore keeping their site clean without the Jerry Spring show. I know that some thing that brings traffic and provides entertainment, but based on my many conversations with hobbyists, they are turned off by it. Thank you for your time in answering these questions.

Originally Posted by xenesthis13

6) In post #19, ApexPredatorBoid requests from Cuoco (this is now the for the 2nd request made on Cuoco) and says "Can you post emails, with complete headers, that show where he was notified that you were having issues obtaining his order and that he was given the options that you've stated? It also wouldn't hurt to provide some sort of documentation concerning the charge back and the fees incurred.

That was actually directed at you.

Originally Posted by xenesthis13

5) In post #16, Cuoco tries to embarrass moderator hhmoore when he says "Mr. Moore, your bias is evident in the fact that your accepting and acting upon advice from the individual that's being complained about....you did nothing about it....Stay out of it next time." 2nd time he broke the fauna rulecalledAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points.
Why wasn't he given that infraction?

Originally Posted by xenesthis13

3) In post #14, Cuoco shows antagonism towards moderator hhmoore when he says "More alarming, however, is how the Moderator, Harold Moore, is biased and attempting to intimidate me from filing complaints against Gearheart by issuing me 2 separate infractions and now goading me into uploading documents."
This breaks fauna rule calledAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points.
Moderators are here to moderate. That means they may ask you to calm down or tone it down. Turning your sights on them just makes a bad situation even worse.
Why was he not given that infraction? I've seen over the yrs. many times where anything like Cuoco said netted that infraction automatically.

Originally Posted by xenesthis13

7) In post #20 Cuoco writes "...stop asking your VIP Members and "sales associates" to post messages coming to your defense."
Cuoco is referring to Fauna moderators. As noted, fauna moderators don't choose sides, but here is Cuoco going again, for the third time, at fauna's moderators. Where is theAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points rule being used here?

How do you know that an infraction wasn't issued? They're issued privately. Unless the offending party chooses to whine about it publicly, there would be no way for anyone else to know about it. Also, it's not for you to decide what an individual moderator may consider antagonistic. It's a subjective term.


Pretty much everything else you've said is based on a false assumption arising from a lack of understand of this website's policies and rules. This website does not take an official stance in playing judge and jury when it comes to determining the veracity of it's members BOI claims. The BOI is provided as a venue for people to present whatever cases they have and for those of us reading to decide for ourselves what's true and what isn't. People are expected to own their words here. If someone makes false claims, it's not grounds for being banned or having their posts removed. It's left up here in black and white for all to see and judge them by.

There's no need to go through that item by item.
You are correct - he posted no proof. Then again, you made several claims in that thread, as well....did you show proof? (As I recall, you didn't even answer direct questions.)
To sum it all up, here are a couple of passages from the rules for posting on the BOI:

Proof is optional, but recommended if you would like to remove any doubts about the truth of what you are posting. But this is purely up to you, just as the believability of what you post is purely up to the reader of your words.

I expect I will get a number of requests from people asking me to delete some message that someone else has posted about them that is rather unflattering. Bear in mind that I cannot, and WILL not be a judge in these matters. Your word will carry no more weight than the other person's word, whether I know you personally or not. All of these types of requests will be refused, no matter how irate and threatening the request may be. As such, please note that I reserve the right to publish such email in the appropriate threads in this forum, as evidence of MY own dealings with YOU. Anyone sending me these types of messages, or of any other type, specifically give up the right or expectation that this correspondence will remain private,

As far as what happens on other sites, this site was intended to differ in exactly the areas you mention. What is the value of asking an opinion, if only positive answers are allowed? I once responded to a caging inquiry on another site - I gave a very objective response; including both the pros and cons of my experience. My post was quickly removed, leaving only the glowing feedback of a person that was an admitted personal friend of the manufacturer. We don't remove the negative posts, because they can be just as valuable to the readers. In your particular situation, we don't know whether you are telling the cold, hard truth...or if he is. Maybe the truth can be found by viewing parts of both stories. If you've got proof of your claims, you should post it. If things are shown to be just as you've said, it will reflect poorly on the other party; and people will decide for themselves how they feel about both sides.
You could be 100% in the right; but coming in as you did - calling him names, not backing up your claims, and not responding to questions - counts as a negative on your side of the slate.

Harold,

Thanks for responding. I've had a very busy business week, so I admit it's human nature to not like having to deal with somebody like John Cuoco who makes accusations and puts out lies without any supporting evidence or proof. Fauna is the only site that I currently know that tolerates that junk.

I was the one that posted evidence in the thread and point-by-point showed every one of his lies. My opinion is that websites should not allow people just to post whatever they want because we have an X generation that thinks just because something is said on the internet that it must be true. A higher standard of proof should be the expected. Otherwise, it's the wild, wild west and the ugliest of Jerry Springer Shows. It might be entertaining for some, but it's really a bad reflection on the site itself to have that junk tolerated at all.

Originally Posted by xenesthis13

Harold,

Thanks for responding. I've had a very busy business week, so I admit it's human nature to not like having to deal with somebody like John Cuoco who makes accusations and puts out lies without any supporting evidence or proof. Fauna is the only site that I currently know that tolerates that junk.

I was the one that posted evidence in the thread and point-by-point showed every one of his lies. My opinion is that websites should not allow people just to post whatever they want because we have an X generation that thinks just because something is said on the internet that it must be true. A higher standard of proof should be the expected. Otherwise, it's the wild, wild west and the ugliest of Jerry Springer Shows. It might be entertaining for some, but it's really a bad reflection on the site itself to have that junk tolerated at all.

This has already been addressed on this site MANY MANY times in the past. Rather than repeating myself, I'll just dig up some of those older replies and paste them here...

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Actually, the reason I created the BOI in the first place was because someone passed me several bad checks and the ONLY thing I could do was to warn others about him so they would hopefully not have the same thing happen to them. And no, I would not allow that person to post here, but in THAT case I have first hand knowledge of the FACTS, which would not be the case in nearly all other instances. There is no judgment call on my part based on mere opinion based on someone else's evidence. I KNOW what happened.

Say, for instance, that you post a claim on the BOI about someone posting ads here scamming you. How do I KNOW, positively and absolutely that YOU are telling the truth? Yes, you can post "evidence", but how do I KNOW that the "evidence" is not forged? Anyone with enough talent and incentive can forge just about anything. Yes, you can have ten other people claim the same thing, all of which I will not personally know neither. So the "evidence" they post is still only subject to the opinions of the readers of what they are claiming. Sorry, but I am just not going to play judge here in matters of that nature. If your goal for posting on the BOI is to help others to not make your same mistake, good for you. Hopefully that will work. But if your goal is to try to get that person banned from this site as punishment for them, then I'm sorry, but this site is just not going to help you in that pursuit. Simply because we just can't work that way without being subject to substantial legal liability.

I would hope that if someone is engaging in business here and they have substantial evidence against them concerning their trustworthiness in the BOI that this would be helpful enough in preventing them from scamming others. But if it is not, well, whose fault is that? If you lead a horse to water and it still chooses to die from dehydration because it refuses to drink, do you grab that horse by the throat, wrestle it to the ground, at substantial risk of injury to yourself from the flailing hooves, and stick a hose down it's mouth and force it to drink? Or do you just shake your head, move on, and hope your next horse has a lot more sense?

Seriously now, do you have even a clue about what it would mean concerning legal liability for ANY site to guarantee, expressed or implied, that all transactions taking place are safe for everyone to engage in? If you believe that this is an effective way to run such a site, then my suggestion to you is to create your own site and give that philosophy a whirl in the real world. Make sure you budget for court appearances, though. When people get scammed, they will have your statements in hand as evidence of your liability when asking the judge to grant them relief from the damages that you guaranteed they would not suffer by using your site.

Heck, I would be interested to know if there are ANY sites, shows, newspapers, magazines, ANYTHING allowing sales by the public that offers any sort of guarantee such as you are asking here. I SERIOUSLY doubt that.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

I'm sorry, but I didn't get that crystal ball and lie detector that you apparently sent me. You may want to check the tracking number..........



Yes, my own subjectively concerning profanity applies here. How could it be any other way? I own this site and therefore make the rules for it. But I believe my choices of which words satisfy the common definition of profanity are pretty much in line with normal acceptance in a publicly viewable medium. Not everyone will agree, of course, but that's just the way it is.

As for being able to determine who is lying in a BOI thread, sorry, but I don't read all of the threads there, and those that I do, I am still not going to make a public judgment call accusing someone of lying unless I have first person involvement in the event. Just like everyone else, I am limited to reading what others are writing and calling "facts". I don't "know" anything about the situation, and can only form my own "opinion" based on what I am reading. I am not willing to place myself in legal jeopardy by calling someone a "liar", and acting on that judgment by banning them from here, and possibly wind up on the wrong side of a libel suit if it turns out I was wrong, basing my call on incomplete and/or inaccurate statements made by someone else. People making decisions to buy or not to buy based on a BOI thread are an entirely different kettle of fish compared to me making a judgment such as you desire me to do concerning their membership on this site.

Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp? Is there anyone else in your household that you can use to explain this to you in terms you understand?

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Yeah, I know it would be just peachy if myself and the mods could know intuitively who is lying and who is not. Be able to tell at a glance what is libel and what is unpleasant (to someone) truth. To be able to tell immediately what is off topic garbage and what is someone angling to prod the truth or provoke a slip of the tongue from someone. Yes, it would be nice to be able to know all those things and weed them out of threads to unclutter them. So if any of you out there have this gift, then please, get with me when you can to let me know how you do it.

As Dennis has indicated, I have been gradually tightening the lines between which posts are considered as acceptable fare in the BOI. Once in the past, I got tired of all the yammering about the need to tighten up the rules, so I did. I lowered the boom and got VERY strict. Like, "one wrong step and you get banned with a $10 fine to be reinstated" kind of strict. Yeah, too much, too quickly. You would be surprised at the number of threatened lawsuits I got then from people who felt that they had some sort of legal right to say what they wanted, HOW they wanted on the BOI. So at some point I just threw my hands up in disgust and virtually walked away from this site.

Actually, I believe it was the DDoS attack we had here that was the stimulus and incentive for me to grab the rudder again. That attempt to shut down this site got me pissed off enough that I just felt like HELL NO! So I began restructuring things gradually to try to make things here pretty much the way they used to be a while back. Which is, to make this site what I want it to be. Make the rules strict enough to keep as much of the bonafide garbage out (which included permanently banning some members, and pointed warnings to others that they were in the crosshairs) but not strict enough to muzzle possible lines of inquiry and cross examination that would probably be instructive for readers, if not perhaps convoluted while taking place.

Will this work? Beats me, but I've tried everything else I can think of, so by default, this is the way it's going to be. I don't plan on pleasing everyone, and quite frankly, I really don't care that I can't. People have been judging ME by this site, so like it or not, it's going to be what I want it to be. Certainly it will not fit some people, and although I am sorry about that, there are plenty of other places for those people to go to be happier then they are here. I wish them well, and sincerely hope they don't force me to get them to leave here, as perhaps sometime in the future they may have a change of attitude that may be more fitting with what I want here. At which time, coming on back and fitting in will still be an option to them.

But in any event, thanks for all the suggestions about how to change the BOI, but at this point in time, I am not really considering that as an option. At least not in the sense that it would require more time, money and effort out of me. With this upcoming retirement, that sort of thing certainly is not something I have in mind doing then. I mean, I know it was with good intentions and everything, but did someone seriously suggest that I or someone else go through all 194,999 posts in 11,546 threads on the BOI to try to edit out stuff that I (or they) thought was needing to be edited or deleted out? Besides the earlier mentioned legal liabilities of such actions, quite frankly that would be a monumental task. And as mentioned just above, I certainly have no intention of boiling away my retirement doing such a thing.

And the next two are tied together...

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Yeah, I know I should be more acutely focused on making this site a very profitable enterprise for myself personally and use it as best I can to pad my bank account, but I just got this email and it really rankled me quite a bit:

Sheesh, do these people REALLY think they can buy "protection" on this site with their advertising dollars? Are they really asking me to keep people from posting negative things about them in return for their spending some of their advertising budget for services here?

Sorry, bub, but it don't work that way here. If you are a "spade" then that is exactly what you will be called here. It's up to you to make the grade, not REQUIRE that such information be suppressed if it is not to your liking. Take a look around before you jump to confusions. In nearly ALL cases, the truth really does come out on the BOI. So if you have no fear of the truth, then you don't need "protection" from the BOI.

Damn, that irks me. And I have to confess that the email I sent in reply was probably not one from someone who is interested in getting money from them SHOULD have sent........

Yeah, I guess I'm just not destined to get rich off of this site......

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Sure, why not......

And my reply to that email about my "new" site.....

Well darn, I guess I'm going by the first post in the version #1 of the BOI, but I think there were earlier ones that got dropped somewhere in a conversion. But in any event, it looks like the BOI is having it's 5th birthday this month.

This only goes back to 2006, and I only used the keyword of "lying" in my search algorithm. There have been LOTS of discussions of this nature here throughout the years.

Sorry is some of the quotes really aren't relative. It's late and I'm too tired to proofread...

Todd, obviously what I am my moderators have posted here in replies to your questions just did not sink in, based on this reported post of yours.

Originally Posted by xenesthis13

xenesthis13 has reported a post.

Reason:

Post: Todd Gearheart - Tarantulaspiders.com
Forum: Board of Inquiry®
Assigned Moderators: Clay Davenport, AbsoluteApril, Dennis Hultman, hhmoore, TheFragginDragon

Posted by: jacuoco88
Original Content:

So perhaps you need some incentive to put on your thinking cap and figure out what it is we are saying to you.

One more reported post of this nature and you will be sent to the dugout for 30 days so you won't have the distraction of participating on this site to keep you from figuring out what we are talking about concerning OUR involvement in issues between members.