Status check and poll on recent crack down

On most other sites...the warning system works very well.
You decide lets say, that after 3 warnings the person will be banned and fined. It's simple and no one can complain about anything after that because everyone should be happy. The innocents have a little mistake space---and the bad guys are weeded out anyway.
The way things are now---people who do nothing wrong (except perhaps make a mistake) and support this site will be run off. Black and white are colors that are hard to enforce....gray usually works much better.

Nicole,
Well put logic. What some others fail to realize is that there is room for discretion to be used in application of warning points, and that the system of stricter enforcement has now provided us with reasonable feedback. As an example, it was pointed out very early in this thread that you can refer to the "accused" as a thief and a liar (antagonistic, don't you think?), but if you use less antagonistic terms such as "clown, fool, or nimrod" when describing the accused, you can be suspended and fined $10. No one has yet addressed this disparity, and I believe that most here would say it represents one. I realize that an argument could be made that a "thief" is not necessarily a "fool", but both are matters of opinion in the BOI. I also recognize that Rich may have cause to evaluate the use of such antagonistic terms if they are used to describe the "accused" vs. just a spat between members expressing opinions, which have led to many thread hijackings in the past. There is no doubt in my mind that we have lost people from the site who viewed the assessment of their fine and suspension as antagonistic in that it was, in their views, excessive. So they bailed. You also can't please everybody, and I will be the first to say that there is no perfect solution. As for truly cleaning up the site, I would say that HELL should be on the chopping block and long ago axed. It is an income producer here, and while less despicable, still bears many characteristics of prostitution.

Actually, in my opinion, a $10 fine IS a slap on the wrist. Just assessing a warning point or three to most people meant nothing to them at all. The fine does get their attention, whereas in many cases, the teethless warning points were not. The "hammer" doesn't get dropped until they get enough slaps on the wrist to put them up to the 100 point mark. To date, only ONE person has had the hammer laid down on him.

Yes, some people have gotten offended that they got fined and left, and that was expected. Unfortunate, but I have a job to do and I can't allow a few people to make it harder to do that job.

And if you will look at the list of warnings (http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/warn.php?), there actually is a dividing line between the marshmellow ruler and the stainless steel one that is used to rap across the knuckles. Although certainly not perfect, I tried to consider those warnings that are very minor, and those that the person engaging in such activities SHOULD know what is NOT in good taste on a publicly viewable message board like this. If someone with their first post here calls someone a highly profane derogatory slur, why should I bother to just slap them with the marshmellow when they SHOULD realize that such a thing is just not acceptable in a public setting?

Using one of my favorite analogies, I can't EVER recall being pulled over for a speeding violation and having the officer ask me if this is the first time I have ever been caught speeding. It is irrelevant to the situation and to the job he is tasked with doing. I SHOULD know the speed limits and I SHOULD know how fast I am going. The fact that I was speeding is prima facie justification for the ticket.

Using one of my favorite analogies, I can't EVER recall being pulled over for a speeding violation and having the officer ask me if this is the first time I have ever been caught speeding. It is irrelevant to the situation and to the job he is tasked with doing. I SHOULD know the speed limits and I SHOULD know how fast I am going. The fact that I was speeding is prima facie justification for the ticket.

Maybe so, but speeding is a very measurable infraction. So much so, that does not the penalty (points and fine) assessed scale upwards depending on how much one was in excess of the speed limit? In most cases, is there not a noticeable difference for being 5-10 over vs in being excess of 20 MPH over? It is far less subjective a situation than your assessment of fines. In that light, I like the analogy too, for I feel it demonstates a tiered set of penalties for the same type of offense, all based on degrees.

I know that you refer to $10 as a "slap on the wrist". I think to some, as has been indicated in several prior posts, its not so much the $10 (which warrants some significance, as mentioned below) as it is the preceived arbitrariness of the penalty. Its a gray area, as you have stated, but I again defer to the failure by many of us to comprehend the logic of being able to refer to someone as having stolen, or being a liar, vs just calling them a nimrod? I'm not saying any are OK, but in the assessment of fines system, evidently there's a big difference, and that is where I think the problem lies. In the end, part of the explanation seems to be "its my site, the rules are clear enough for me, so be it".
That brings me to one last concern, that may only be legitimate with the current generation of members who paid and contributed before the crackdown. I was paid as a member for something above the minimal level. I then contributed a far larger sum via an animal that I offered for auction, contributing 100% of the proceeds, to include shipping. All told, my contributions to the site were more than several hundred dollars last year. From my shoes, the assessment of a $10 fine if I wanted to be able to use the site anymore was holding my earlier investments and contributions hostage, for they were made when different standards existed. My argument is not that I or any others deserved special treatment, only that the enforcement system may have now shown reasons for tweaking.
I am not saying that there is a solution that will please everybody. But many of us also won't see the speeding analogy as supportive of the current status quo either.

In that scenario where you have repeat offenders they should be dealt with accordingly don't you think. Are you saying repeat offenders and first time offenders should be treated the same?
I think that what Nathaniel was saying is that he feels that people should be entitled to that first slap on the wrist as a warning before the hammer gets dropped on them. As i said above in my first reply, People dint need to be executed for a misdemeanor, Make the punishment fit the crime and the criminal in question. In most courts in our society first time offenders are given a slap on the wrist with a warning or community service or something of that nature, when a second time or habitual offender gets sentenced the Judge deals with him more severely because that person apparently hasn't learned from his mistakes and needs to be punished in a way that will dissuade him from doing the same thing again.

Nicholas,

Your example of first time offenders is a valid one. The problem was that some people were dealt with accordingly but they repeated their behavior over and over again. On the other hand we both know that regardless if you are a first time offender or not with certain crimes you have certain punishments. It’s no different here in MHO, there are rules and you need to abide by them. You steal, you go to jail, no slap on the wrist whatsoever. Besides if you make differences you will hear the endless complaint “but so and so got away with it, why did I get punished?” Imagine having to deal with that kind of complaints every day, would you be willing to do it?

Regards

but ...see if you steal knowingly, lets say--at the market-- you go to jail.
If you stick something in your wagon and forget it's there and steal --they make allowances for that---they look at your record and see if you are a known thief or an innocent person who might have slipped.
See the gray areas?
I got stopped for speeding the other day but instead of a ticket I got a warning...I think he saw my daughter in the back seat---looked at the fact that the signs change every 3 feet on this strip and let it go....if I was in a corvette with other speeding problems on my license--he might not have been so nice about it.
It's all relative.

I agree that some did completely ignore the simple warnings and I can understand completely why you thought the crackdown was necessary. The people I was referring to were not the constant "limit pushers" and those who wore their warnings as badges. I was referring to the few that, for one reason or another, had a lapse of judgement and were fined and suspended first offence despite a glowing track record. The flaw with the current system, in my view, is that those who called someone a "fool" are put into the same category as someone who threatened physical harm to another member. Perhaps the name calling rule should have different degrees. To use your analogy, those that were going 6 miles over the speed limit have a much lesser fine than those that were going much faster.

First and foremost it is your site, to run the way you want your site to be run. I think now though that the point has been made. Ease up a bit. When members have expressed fear in posting, I think that is a clear indicator that perhaps the crackdown has gone a bit too far.

Just a funny side note.....when I was pulled over for the first time, the cop asked me if I had been pulled over before. I told him honestly no. I admitted I was speeding, and yet he let me go with a warning because it was my first time.

So if it is my desire to have people err on the side of caution in their posting here, what is the downside of that? Lapses in judgement can be controlled with enough incentive. I am attempting to provide that incentive. Mistakes will be made, but the fine is not devastating. Maybe some people have fragile personalities and it is quite an affront to them, but in that case I suggest that they work harder at understanding the rules and not have those lapses of make those mistakes.

My goal is to clean up this site and do it promptly. If it takes a stun gun to do it, then that is what I will do. So far it appears to be working, as best I can tell. Been some collateral damage, to be sure, but the pruning will help for future growth. People were afraid to post in the past for being slammed by a few people who relished in doing that sort of thing. That is over with. If those people are afraid to post because of the rules, then the crack down is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Watch your language. Watch the way you speak to and about people. You don't have to be nice and all sugar and spice, but you also do not have to be crude, antagonistic, or abusive either.

And the poll is STILL telling me that there is no need to make any adjustments at this point. If it were 20 to 1 saying I needed to relent a bit, then you would be telling me something. But as of yet, I see no reason to change direction.

And as mentioned earlier, there is a tiered system in place. 1 pointers for really minor infractions, 10 pointers for more severe ones (which means a fine and suspension), and permanent banning for anyone who has proven to be immune to persuasion to change for the better here. Sorry, but that will have to do for now.

And for the record, people HAVE been fined and suspended here for calling someone a "liar" and "thief". Yes, you may have seen some instances of that not being the case, but those are still considered name calling and being derogatory, so anyone doing so does run the risk of penalties for doing so. Yes someone may very well actually be a "liar", "thief", "fool", or "nimrod", but all those labels are just intended by the person stating them to elevate the flames within the thread. As such, depending on the context used, anyone using such terms are definitely at risk of getting suspended from this site. I am not going to be placed in the position of having to determine if someone is truthfully a "fool" or "nimrod" or "liar" or "thief". I have to assume the face value usage of such terms in a derogatory sense. Yes, you may get away with using them, but you may not. So it may very well be in your best interests to err on the side of caution if you choose to accuse someone with such a label.

Point taken. Thank you.

and I am glad to hear that use of the terms "liar and thief" sometimes rise to the level that it seems "nimrod" always will. As you mention, there has been some collateral damage, and I am one who thinks that there will be more. If its OK that it continue, and is unavoidable, then fine. If its not needed in order to continue with the crack-down, then what? Obviously, all matters of opinion. But just the term "Fined and Suspended" might be more accurately put as "Fined and Suspended until Fine Paid". Some of us do not see much of a "tier" between one warning point and a $10 fine, and would describe it as more of a leap. Did you ever consider or use just a suspension? Something like 2 days for something minor, and then on up? Or a system that allows an option to the member if a fine is to be levied, such as $5 or 5 days .... member decides? As I mentioned earlier, I was surprised to find that using the word "fool" or "clown" or "nimrod" cost $10, yet that if I had used the word thief or liar (which already had been used in the thread) I'd have likely gotten a pass, that the decision was yours to make under what seems a subjective system of judgements, and which was not the system in place and being practiced when I paid to be a member. Not saying that a crackdown wasn't warranted, or that those terms should have gotten a pass. But you made the decision that you could hold the membership fees and contributions of others hostage, and levy monetary penalties. What's a speeding ticket, $100 ? So you decided to grant yourself 10% of the statutory power of traffic enforcement? Sure, we don't have to pay the fine here, but again, we invested under a different policy, or certainly a different demonstration of how rules would be enforced. Am I exagerating? Sure, but not absurdly so, and I think that is where much of your collateral damage is rooted. If you did not try the suspension system, then I would suggest it as an option worth trying.
I am smart enough now, as are others, to know now what the "hot" words are, etc. My renewal is coming up soon enough, and I can make that choice when the time comes. But more than that investment in money is the one that many of us make in time here. While we often find ourselves in debates demanding far more time than we wanted to give it, it is still an investment in the site. I am not the only one here to take an unpopular position and run with it, and whatever the reason, it sure isn't to make friends. Decide what you will of motivation, but part of what makes all of us do it, and spend more than $10 to be here, and even donate, is because we believe in a purpose here. But when you say this:

...... If it were 20 to 1 saying I needed to relent a bit, then you would be telling me something. But as of yet, I see no reason to change direction.

I think that maybe there's something being missed. Roughly half the participants feel a little bit alienated now, and that some change is in order. That group is likely where more collateral damage will come from. I venture to say that the other half will not feel alienated if you do make some adjustments ... adjustments that would still maintain the continued integrity of the site, but reduce that collateral damage.