Another disillisioned past contributor

Rich, can you elaborate on the following? I am asking this in complete seriousness as I am trying to figure out just what is allowed and what is not allowed. Here is a quote from the ongoing Critical Bill debacle:

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

Wow.

I can't believe that you had the balls to even type that, man...

Congratulations on going from a "Good Guy" to an "Asshole" to a "Bad Guy" in just one thread!!!!

2006 is gonna be a great year for you!!!

Maybe you should try a little of that weed you speak so negatively about - it might just mellow you out and keep you from looking any worse!!!!!

Dr. Owens only gave him one negative warning point even though he did the same thing on page 4 (20 per page setting). He point blank stated that Chuck was now an asshole yet Dr. Owens only gave him points for discourtesy to another. Not only that, but isn't that deemed swearing on this site? Certainly it's not a word you can use in a school, church or public without people getting offended. I am just confused as to how the name-calling rule is being applied here. Thanks for your time Rich.

Bob

Originally Posted by dutchoven

Rich, can you elaborate on the following? I am asking this in complete seriousness as I am trying to figure out just what is allowed and what is not allowed.

You're right, Bob. Not that I want anyone fined & suspended but Is one word worse than the other? At least one has asterisks in it.

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marchek AKA JM

to just being a petty, nasty, little jack***.

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

Congratulations on going from a "Good Guy" to an "Asshole" to a "Bad Guy" in just one thread!!!!

Karen,
I feel your pain !! I myself woke up to a "Fined and Suspended" notice recently, as I had referred to someone as a "fool" and "clown". I could only claim ignorance, as they did fall within the rules and fines structure, and I thought them less inflammatory than some other labels that had been used to that point. I was further miffed though, because like you, I have contributed $ to the site, and now could not even access the rules or communicate without paying the fine. I did circumvent that a bit by contacting Rich through his reptiles site, and I thank him for taking the time to have an email exchange with me.

I fully understand Rich's concerns about abuse and non-professionalism within the site, and trying to find a way to address it. As lamented by others here, and in other posts within Fauna, I too have noticed results that are a bit disappointing. One is the declining number of experienced posters, such as Wes, Jim O., etc. While I have not, and will not, review all of their posts to analyze which straw broke the camels back, my rough impression is that they did the most self-inflicted damage when they became engaged in urinating contests with a moderator, at ti,mes with both sides being antagonistic. Some people are highly opinionated and volatile, a recipe for disaster here. But I also think that a frequent poster here is more likely to run afoul of the law, and while I am not excusing anyone's breaking of the rules, I think it an accurate conclusion to say that some of the BOI's best assets (frequent informed posters) who may only slip up 1-2% of the time are never-the-less going to find themselves at odds with management far more quickly and often than a lesser asset. I do not liken this to the traffic cop scenario, where one who drives more is at a higher risk to amass tickets than a Sunday-only driver, and must therefore be even more careful. People come here wanting to see the frequent drivers and traffic .... ie people and opinions who are here voluntarily contributing opinions and information. Less traffic here is not good. Fines earned do need to be paid, and standards enforced, but if there is any threshold for losing one's license, I think it needs to be in accordance with miles driven. I also think that $10 for name calling (the non-obscenity type) should not rate the same penalty (money, points, suspension) as conveying a threat. That is way out of balance, as I think that threats may warrant immediate banning. I feel that something in the range of $2 and 2 points more appropriate for terms like "jerk, clown, idiot, fool, thief, scammer, liar, scum, lowlife, etc" , higher for obscenities. I accept too that that is a matter of perception and opinion. But one of the unmistakable consequences has been the rapid exit of people from this site who were not theives, scammers, liars, etc. Many of these people had mega rep-points, well earned. Another consequence will be a decline in contributions via auctions, etc., if not already. I do not make that claim as implied blackmail, inference that values can be bought, etc., just as a valid observation that is worthy of evaluation. Again, I am not saying that Rich's motives are out of line, quite the contrary, but I do think that now that we have seen some results, some tweaking may be in the best interests of the site. I believe that there have been unintended consequences, and that some modificaton is appropriate.
Last suggestion would be a new membership category. One week for $1 (or $2). I think that $10 is too much for many to fork out unless they have a very strong opinion that they need to unload in a hurry. And who wants to spend $10 to make a "Good Guy" post ? Many of those $1 contributors may go on to become $10 members. Thanks for reading this far.

Well I certainly am getting an education. I’m so glad I paid the fine. Seriously. I’m learning MUCH more about how this site is now operated in the last two days then I did in the entire 4 years I actively participated in and supported the site.

Rich is right. I should read more. Some of the posts I missed just here in the Feedback Forum have been VERY ENLIGHTENING. Good reading if someone is bored and has not read this stuff.

It’s good to know that if you call someone a word that is defined as:
“1 usually vulgar : ANUS
2 a usually vulgar : a stupid, incompetent, or detestable person” (Definition from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Well, that’s a one point WARNING, one point WARNING even if you say it twice in the same thread that someone else uses most of a name defined as:
“1 : DONKEY; especially : a male donkey
2 : a stupid person : FOOL” (Definition from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Well, THAT’S a 10 point BANNING word.

This is very good information, glad I paid the fine and can read it. I’m learning a LOT.

Originally Posted by dutchoven

Rich, can you elaborate on the following? I am asking this in complete seriousness as I am trying to figure out just what is allowed and what is not allowed. Here is a quote from the ongoing Critical Bill debacle:



Dr. Owens only gave him one negative warning point even though he did the same thing on page 4 (20 per page setting). He point blank stated that Chuck was now an asshole yet Dr. Owens only gave him points for discourtesy to another. Not only that, but isn't that deemed swearing on this site? Certainly it's not a word you can use in a school, church or public without people getting offended. I am just confused as to how the name-calling rule is being applied here. Thanks for your time Rich.

Bob

Well I guess the short answer is that I have been out of town since early AM on Thursday. As for the warning points that Dr. Owens chose to dole out, I saw that Chuck was also given a warning point. Not trying to second guess Dr. Owens, but I believe he was just being rather cautious and conservative in the assessment of warning points, rather then taking the more hard lined view I have lately. I cannot fault Dr. Owens for this at all, as I think the moderators do tend to be more lenient then I am, but I will say that when I checked my log of reported posts, I was not as lenient as he was in the incidence of someone calling another member an "asshole". Especially when done twice in the same thread.

Sorry, but I am not here 24/7 365 days a year. And I seriously doubt any of the moderators here are as well.

As for the subsequent discussion, sorry if some people think I am being too harsh, but I believe that harsh measures are needed to get my point across. Yes, some people have left, but my take on that is if they find the way that I want this site to be run not in the manner they want, then it is definitely best for both them and myself that they leave. Obviously this is not a place they want to be, and just as obviously, it is not a place that I want them to be either. If someone cannot converse here without the use of profanity, name calling, derogatory slurs, and downright caustic, antagonistic and inflammatory language, then I just don't want them around here. I want this site to become more professional, and something I can be proud of being a part of. The way it was headed, it was becoming truly an embarrassment to me, and I just made my mind up that this was going to turn around. Regardless of who and how many people have to be evicted in order to do so.

As for the points about contributors leaving, please do some research about what I considered as my fate if this site were to flop over and die. Then tell me what exactly the downside of that would be to me. If this site REQUIRES that I allow the garbage to exist in order for it to survive, then it will just have to die.

And many good points made and taken. But with regard to this one point near the end of your post

If this site REQUIRES that I allow the garbage to exist in order for it to survive, then it will just have to die.

I don't think anyone was espousing that you lower the standards for where you want the site, or conduct within, to be. Without a doubt, some cleanup, and adherence to higher standards, was in order. But as someone who was fined $10 and suspended for calling someone a "fool" and "clown", I certainly considered whether it was worth my while to pay up. Like the starter of this thread, I was offended by being suspended and denied all site access for what seemed like a minor offense. As I said in an earlier post, I thought that the use of such words should not be considered to be on the same level as conveying a threat, which IMO is a serious detractor from the forum, is worthy of suspension, would rate as garbage, etc. You certainly cannot please everybody, but if something is perceived as a bit over-reaching or harsh, a few of us were suggesting that it was creating more antagonism than was necessary to get the point across.

This last question you raised:

....... if this site were to flop over and die. Then tell me what exactly the downside of that would be to me.

I don't know if you were expecting any specific person to answer this, but frankly I don't have a clue as to what your downside would be. Not that there is or isn't one, just that in my mind, the up or down of it all is for you to weigh. I would hope that it is meeting or exceeding your expectations. My own opinion is that the site has helped the reptile community, but I would not want to see it being done at your expense, or the expense of any other good guy in the business. Thank you for your considerations. I am watching my tongue .... err, key strokes!

Originally Posted by WebSlave

As for the points about contributors leaving, please do some research about what I considered as my fate if this site were to flop over and die. Then tell me what exactly the downside of that would be to me.

I recall something about a beach umbrella and relaxing on the beach being your fate if you didn't have the site.

The downside is that WE COULDN'T ALL FIT UNDER YOUR UMBRELLA!!!
You know you love us, you wouldn't just go off and sit on a beautiful beach enjoying a beverage and the cool sea air, enjoying the silence except for the waves washing the beach, time enough for thought, reflection and relaxation.....
I mean, come ON, ....NO CONTEST!!!

Right?.....

Okay, this might sound antagonistic~ but that’s not my intent right now. Just hear me out for a minute. I hope I deserve at least that courtesy.

I was being snide with my post on the 13th about appropriate and inappropriate words, OBVIOUSLY! But I was serious that I was observing a lot of things I did not see before as I read back posts in the last several days. I imagine I missed some of it because I was just too busy to read much during this last semester…….but I think maybe I missed more because I didn’t want to see it. It would be silly to say “I was your biggest fan,” but I was a major supporter and I wanted to see everything you did with this site as a positive step for improvement.

However, as I have been reading the past posts in this half a week I’ve seen something I didn’t see before. Rose colored glasses and no time to read it all before~ but I’m on a break and am angry now~ so maybe now my glasses are crap brown~

I’m trying to lead into a point here~ but I’m not sure how to get to it without sounding antagonistic……..

Originally Posted by WebSlave

As for the points about contributors leaving, please do some research about what I considered as my fate if this site were to flop over and die. Then tell me what exactly the downside of that would be to me. If this site REQUIRES that I allow the garbage to exist in order for it to survive, then it will just have to die.

I could pull similar quotes from you in a LOT of the post I’ve read recently. And once I thought about it……..I think I could probably go back quite a ways and find similar quotes…….and I would say that MOST of what I’ve read as your responses to unhappy supporters reads as:

Originally Posted by WebSlave

downright caustic, antagonistic and inflammatory language

So here is my dead serious, not intended to be antagonizing question……….

Are you intentionally (or maybe if not INTENTIONALLY) sabotaging your long time supporters so that you don’t have to continue taking care of this site?

Just hear me out for a minute before you respond to that.

I stepped out of line. Yes I did. I said something inappropriate. Something that even you recognize your moderators would probably have given me a slap on the wrist and a warning to watch my manners and continue in the good fellowship I had demonstrated for years previously. But you didn’t “slap my wrist.” You yanked my chain~ pretty darned hard! And yes…..I am still talking about the word “BANNED” that you had to know would antagonize a regular supporter~ if I had been “FINED AND SUSPENDED” I doubt this would have gone down the way it did. But you yanked my chain HARD. When I yelped about it~ you added a couple kicks.

No~ I’m not pretending I didn’t bite back during all of that mess……..I’m saying it turned into a nasty kicking and spitting incident over ONE comparatively small indiscretion. (AGAIN~ NO I am NOT pretending to think I should be allowed to act in any way that violates the rules you laid out in your rules and did e-mail to me).

What I’m saying is……….

That was just nasty and not really necessary to get your point across.
And I’m seeing it in a LOT of the posts from disillusioned past supporters.
And I’m seeing a LOT of past supporters moving to other web sites.
Like I said before~ at least KS never BANNED me. Or implied I was the crap they were trying to get off their web site. Or told me I could leave and be permanently BANNED.

And to make my point~ I’m seeing in a lot of posts where you invite “oldtimers” to just go……No skin off your nose…….Who cares if we stay or go…….So what if the site dies (I see that one quite a lot)…..

Are you intentionally (or even unintentionally) trying to get us all to just go so you can shut down this site and it won’t be that you “gave up” it will be that you “lost the support”?

Jim,

I think people need to really consider what exactly the goal was when I decided to crack down the rules and how what I did would reach that goal.

Calling someone a "fool" or "clown" is not really a devastating breach of protocol and courtesy, now is it? But where does such talk lead in 9 out of 10 situations? Why it usually leads to a reply of name calling by the other party, now doesn't it? And where does that lead? Well normally it leads to escalation of the verbal abuse. Tempers flare, emotions take over, and the words get harsher with each iteration of response and reply.

What my goal is, is to nip this in the bud as quickly as possible before things escalate. So what this means is that the tripwire for triggering a fine and suspension just got much more sensitive. No more waiting to see if things get out of hand. Assume that it will do so, and nip it right there.

But even so, there are still going to be situations that are not cut and dried, and subject to the discretion of the moderator reviewing the post. I think all of the moderators will issue warning points for someone calling another an "idiot". But when something more gray area as "man, you are acting like an idiot" is stated, well some of us may issue a warning point and others may not. Some may consider it a 1 pointer and others may think it warrants a fine and suspension. Is saying someone is "acting like" the same as saying that they "are"?

The gray can be made even moreso towards the white area by saying something like "Damn it man! You are acting just like Joe Blow and everyone thinks he is an idiot!". Is this person REALLY calling the other person an "idiot"? This is where judgement calls need to be made on the part of the moderators, and as such not everyone is going to agree with every assessment they make.

In a nutshell, here's how it works: When someone reports a post, this notice goes to ALL of the moderators (myself included) here. While there is no guarantee that all will review the post, quite likely at least one will. In some occasions, yes, ALL of us might review it. And yes, it is quite possible that ALL of us might be out of town or otherwise out of pocket for a few days and NONE will review it for that duration. The only way the person who made the post gets by without getting a warning point is if it is unanimously passed by all moderators who review it. All it takes is ONE to decide that a warning point is appropriate, and that is that. There is even the possibility that two or more moderators may unwittingly assess that author warning points, not realizing that another moderator was in the process of doing so at the same time (or maybe even earlier if they did not take the time to review the warning list beforehand). In the case of a fine and suspension, once that happens, then no other warning points can be assessed to that author of the offending post until (and if) they return by paying the fine. The system locks this aspect of their account as well on this site.

Oh, before I forget, an issue was brought up about karma points. I have the warning system set up to automatically deduct 50 karma points (and I can change this as necessary) from any post that is of the type that it causes the author to get fined and suspended. The reasoning behind this is that if the post is bad enough to get the author penalized with a fine and suspension notice, then it certainly should be reflected in the karma points as well. In effect, it is a case of the moderators saying that the post was EXCEPTIONALLY bad in that respect as well as earning the suspension.

As for the "upside" and "downside" comment, that remains to be seen. I knew when I instituted the paid memberships that I would not be able to make any final determination until the renewals came due in one year's time. That will be February 20, 2006. I think the number of people willing to remain after slogging through the first year of turmoil will tell me whether this site will survive or not.

The upside, if it does survive, is that people are obviously willing to pay enough to keep the site going, keep me doing this, and especially not have me digging out of my other source of income in order to keep it afloat and expanding. The downside, if it survives, is that I will be spending more and more time on this site each year, as membership increases, problems increase, and just the amount of time needed for all of the details increases accordingly. This time has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is likely my *real* business. So this will become a JOB to me with all of the necessary obligations it entails. I HAVE to keep this going because people are paying for it to be here.

The upside, if it does not survive, is that I have one hell of a lot of free time available to do such mundane things as go to the beach a couple of times a week, weeding the garden, or spend some time shooting my guns. The downside, of course, will be that I threw away one hell of a lot of time, effort, and expense on this site and will have nothing (except the empty migraine headache pill bottles) to show for it.

So, as you can see, either way, there is an upside to this, if I look on the brighter side no matter which way it goes. I can live with the results, no matter which way the cards fall. Neither is going to be perfect, but what in life actually is?

I will say this, though, that of the people who actually became paid memberships before that 02/20/05 official start date, and their renewal deadline has come and gone, most (by a very large margin) have chosen to remain and renew their memberships here. I do have to admit that I am pleased that it is apparently working out this way, but fully realize that all of the votes aren't in quite yet. In about another month and a half, I will have the real story laid out in front of me.

I guess I look at this as a vote of confidence in this site. It is often said that people will vote with their wallets and their feet, so I suppose this is what I am expecting from this.

But to be honest, I will be extremely surprised if the renewals aren't a substantial proportion of the current membership total. Not sure why I think that, but the thought is there, nonetheless. Although I would accept this site's failure as "just the way it goes", I think most people here really don't want this to happen any more then I.

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marchek AKA JM

Okay, this might sound antagonistic~ but that’s not my intent right now. Just hear me out for a minute. I hope I deserve at least that courtesy.

I was being snide with my post on the 13th about appropriate and inappropriate words, OBVIOUSLY! But I was serious that I was observing a lot of things I did not see before as I read back posts in the last several days. I imagine I missed some of it because I was just too busy to read much during this last semester…….but I think maybe I missed more because I didn’t want to see it. It would be silly to say “I was your biggest fan,” but I was a major supporter and I wanted to see everything you did with this site as a positive step for improvement.

However, as I have been reading the past posts in this half a week I’ve seen something I didn’t see before. Rose colored glasses and no time to read it all before~ but I’m on a break and am angry now~ so maybe now my glasses are crap brown~

I’m trying to lead into a point here~ but I’m not sure how to get to it without sounding antagonistic……..



I could pull similar quotes from you in a LOT of the post I’ve read recently. And once I thought about it……..I think I could probably go back quite a ways and find similar quotes…….and I would say that MOST of what I’ve read as your responses to unhappy supporters reads as:



So here is my dead serious, not intended to be antagonizing question……….

Are you intentionally (or maybe if not INTENTIONALLY) sabotaging your long time supporters so that you don’t have to continue taking care of this site?

Just hear me out for a minute before you respond to that.

I stepped out of line. Yes I did. I said something inappropriate. Something that even you recognize your moderators would probably have given me a slap on the wrist and a warning to watch my manners and continue in the good fellowship I had demonstrated for years previously. But you didn’t “slap my wrist.” You yanked my chain~ pretty darned hard! And yes…..I am still talking about the word “BANNED” that you had to know would antagonize a regular supporter~ if I had been “FINED AND SUSPENDED” I doubt this would have gone down the way it did. But you yanked my chain HARD. When I yelped about it~ you added a couple kicks.

No~ I’m not pretending I didn’t bite back during all of that mess……..I’m saying it turned into a nasty kicking and spitting incident over ONE comparatively small indiscretion. (AGAIN~ NO I am NOT pretending to think I should be allowed to act in any way that violates the rules you laid out in your rules and did e-mail to me).

What I’m saying is……….

That was just nasty and not really necessary to get your point across.
And I’m seeing it in a LOT of the posts from disillusioned past supporters.
And I’m seeing a LOT of past supporters moving to other web sites.
Like I said before~ at least KS never BANNED me. Or implied I was the crap they were trying to get off their web site. Or told me I could leave and be permanently BANNED.

And to make my point~ I’m seeing in a lot of posts where you invite “oldtimers” to just go……No skin off your nose…….Who cares if we stay or go…….So what if the site dies (I see that one quite a lot)…..

Are you intentionally (or even unintentionally) trying to get us all to just go so you can shut down this site and it won’t be that you “gave up” it will be that you “lost the support”?

Perhaps I am, unconsciously. This site takes a tremendous amount of my time and attention. Realistically it got to the point back around this time last year where I decided that I am just not going to put all that I have into it for free. If that were what was expected of me for this site to survive, then I would have pulled the plug and that would have been that.

As a side issue, the idea of the paid membership requirement for posting on the BOI was just something that I felt needed to be done. The timing was just right to fit this in with the entire scheme of paid memberships as a total plan.

More recently, I have heard more and more people saying that this site is a "joke" and people are basically kicking sand in my face over it. My own PERSONAL reputation was suffering because of what was going on in this site, regardless of whether I felt that some of the negative "stuff" was necessary in order to achieve some necessary goals. Yes, I have lost business from my *real* business because of this site, probably more then I fully realize. So I had a choice to make. I could either clean it up, and DRASTICALLY so, or I could just let all the moderators go, remove any way for anyone to contact me about anything on this site, and in effect allow this entire site to go into a HELL state and divorce my involvement from it completely. Of those two choices, I felt that the first choice was the one I should try FIRST.

And to state that I am appalled by the number of people who have beaten me up about it is one hell of an understatement. People have left this site BECAUSE I intend to clean it up? If that isn't about the most outrageous pile of crap I could ever imagine, I don't know what else is! People were coming to this site, contributing financially to this site, and overall participating in this site SOLELY for the crap and antagonism that I am trying to remove?

So in reality, did I make the wrong decision? SHOULD I HAVE GONE WITH PLAN B and just abandoned this site as one huge hellacious cess pool where everyone can say what they want, when they want, to whomever they want?

Perhaps so. Certainly traffic here would have skyrocketed and perhaps the income from paid banner advertisements would have been worthwhile, considering that I would have been in 100 percent hands off mode.

So tell me: Why are people so pissed off that I am trying to make this site better? Why are they pissed because I will not tolerate the nonsense and CRAP that obviously (to me anyway) needs to be removed from this site to make it something that I can be proud of having my name on? Why are people leaving to go elsewhere and what is it that they believe they can get or do there that they can no longer get or do here?

Tell me..............