Status check and poll on recent crack down

Rich et al,
I am one who appreciates your input here, and will get to a reply to those questions posed to me later in the day when I have more time. I did want to address a couple of concerns that I see drifting, and a bit mischaracterized.
No one has lobbied in this thread or others, to my knowledge, for special treatment because of their membership level or contributions. Perhaps it was not made clear enough, but my own contributions were mentioned because when assessing whether or not to give Rich $10, I had to weigh what I had already contributed to the site. If I was a new member who only had $10 into it, and was shot down on my fist post or two, it would be easy to take my ball and play elsewhere. Whether deliberate or not, Rich's crackdown holds the investments of all those fined hostage.
A second point for now that I believe was mis-stated by others after I made it was the status of the BOI "then and now". I pointed out that things were different when much money was given a year ago, and Rich claimed that they were not, that the rules were the same then and now. Well, the crackdown began in October, which is in the "now" side of the equation. It is what I feel is the arbitrary, inconsistent, and over-reaching nature of the "now" crackdown that was not occurring "then". It is not that the crackdown was not needed. The old "slap on the wrist" was not working. Paid membership helped, and it also gave people a stake in the site, something to be held "hostage". What many of us are saying is that the system can now be improved even more, as we are at times now "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".
I have not just complained, but suggested better definitions, and offered solutions. If the "Fined and Suspended" moniker were shifted more towards the "suspended", or at least made better use of it, the air would have been sucked out of the flame-wars everyone was sick of right from the beginning, and would still be doing so. Speaking only for myself, if anyone is going to reach into my pocket and lift $0.10, much less $10, then they better be on real solid footing, not shifting sands. I will address all questions later when the chameleons say it is OK !

Originally Posted by Chamco

Speaking only for myself, if anyone is going to reach into my pocket and lift $0.10, much less $10, then they better be on real solid footing, not shifting sands. I will address all questions later when the chameleons say it is OK !

Ive beed reading this off and on and this is one statement that I actually have a comment about.

If YOU are fined, YOU committed an offense that got YOU fined, therefore you are reaching YOUR hand into YOUR own pocket if you choose to pay the fine and remain an active member.

Don't make it sound like Rich is sticking his hands in YOUR pocket, he has rules, if YOU break them and get fined, YOU are the one that muct decide if you want to reach into YOUR pocket to come back.

Wish it were that simple Wendy. So, am I to read that you completely understand the logic of being able to call someone a liar, and its OK, and being able to call the same person a "nimrod", and that it is not just a possible 1 point warning, but $10 ? All that is clear and objectively applied? Some of us just don't see it as clearly as you. Sorry, but it was not a knowing or voluntary action on my part, or those of others, to make a $10 donation. If you have made such a knowing action, then good for you, and it was your choice. We did not.

Originally Posted by TomO

Rich. I think any reasonable person would agree with your intent and practice as described above, applicable to anyone, regardless of how long they have been a member.
There seems to be a missing element though. Your focus and comments seem directed at strict enforcement to weed out those who fit the description quoted above. Some of the membership here (at least those who care enough to participate in these topics) has an obvious concern with minor, unintentional infractions, which by your reaction(the moderating team, the system, etc.), lump them in with those you describe above.
I know this is your site, and that it would be impossible to set in place a system which would please everyone, but IMO, this should give you pause. You can't reasonably expect well-intentioned members to feel ok with being bundled in with the garbage just because that's the way it is.
Likewise, you can't shoot down every argument for a better system by saying people are asking for special treatment. Undoubtedly, some do consider themselves worthy of special treatment, but I would wager, it is in reality, a small number.

Details please. I have taken a snapshot of the warning system showing the two tiered level of warning layers. Actually there are four, I guess. One is a zero pointer because it is an easy way to notify someone about something. The other is the fact that someone who gets 100 points gets PERMANENTLY banned from this site. But concerning the bulk of the identified warning situations, I arranged it in this manner because I felt there was a dividing line between minor infractions and ones I wanted to end quickly because of the severity of degradation they were causing in discussions within this site. For further details on those individual warnings, check in the FAQ section for what I have posted there about the warnings (http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru..._usage#faq_tos). Your claim is that those minor warnings are lumping people together into the more serious ones. So please tell me which of those warnings are causing the problems you are pointing out.

I can see where some people may think "name calling" needs to be multi-level as well, but sorry I disagree. It has been a serious problem on this site, and even calling someone a "nimrod" or "fool", while appearing to be very minor on the surface, is just the camel's nose under the tent for more vicious name calling to soon follow. When considering how to handle such a thing, I took the "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" approach to nip it off before it got to the point where I would have a half dozen people involved slinging gradually increasing derogatory names back and forth. And please don't even try to tell me this sort of thing would not happen. I've seen it countless times, and so have you if you have been here any length of time.

Heck, I don't know, I don't get out much to check around, but I would think that any quality publication in any form would not allow the stuff that I am trying to end here. Does the Wall Street Journal allow derogatory mud slinging in their publication? What about other "professional" level publications? Is this sort of thing normal these days?

People, here's what I am trying to do with this site, and especially the BOI: Make it into a quality, credible, and respectable site where YOUR posting means something because it is here. I am forcing you all to act like professionals and adults instead of a bunch of kids throwing verbal jabs on the school parking lot all torqued up on hormones and emotion. I am trying to turn the BOI around from heading towards irrelevance to a place where it can get things done and have people EFFECTIVELY get something done about their problems. That was the reason I set up the BOI. If it becomes irrelevant, then your posting in it will be irrelevant as well. I don't want that to happen, and I believe you don't either. I did NOT set this up to give a bunch of people a front row seat at some soap opera where they can click into the BOI with a bowl of popcorn at their side and enjoy the spectacle of people clubbing each other over the head with taunts, antagonism, name calling, and generally useless rhetoric. Those people, even if they were paying members here FOR that reason, can go elsewhere. I do not want people on this site who ONLY want to be here for that reason, and I do not want people here who only desire to interface with other people in that manner. Nor do I want people here who will try to instigate that sort of activity with subtle lower level name calling, trying to escalate the discussion into a more lively entertainment spectacle for their enjoyment.

At this point in time, there are 26,867 registered members here. I would cheerfully welcome cutting back that number by half if the remaining people are the ones who wish to allow the BOI to get the job done it was designed to do by helping in this direction with their own actions. To the people who are incensed that they no longer get their jollies from the BS I am trying to weed out of this site, and to those people who are upset because what they thought as a teeny weenie little name calling is OK, I am sorry, but my intentions are for this site to go one way, and if necessary, you have to go another. I am not compromising on this decision.

Pay attention to how you write. Pay attention that you are not violating the rules that will get you fined and suspended. Err on the side of caution if you are not sure. NO one has to use anything that would violate the rules within their posting to get their point across. If you CANNOT enter into a discussion without violating the rules, then quite frankly, your days are numbered here. Maybe you have been calling members of your own family "nimrod" since you were able to talk, and it is a harmless label to you, but that is not allowed here. The person it was directed towards may not feel the same, or other people not knowing the background will make the assumption that they can call someone some name they feel is OK from following your example. So eventually I will get slammed with the argument that I am being unfair because one person's name calling appeared OK, but yours was not. Sorry, but no. The line in the sand is NO name calling whatsoever if it even smells slightly derogatory.

I hope I am clear on this issue. The poll is about what I expected, but until those numbers get MUCH larger and reflect an overwhelming need to change, then the status quo is as you see it.

Originally Posted by Chamco

Wish it were that simple Wendy. So, am I to read that you completely understand the logic of being able to call someone a liar, and its OK, and being able to call the same person a "nimrod", and that it is not just a possible 1 point warning, but $10 ? All that is clear and objectively applied? Some of us just don't see it as clearly as you. Sorry, but it was not a knowing or voluntary action on my part, or those of others, to make a $10 donation. If you have made such a knowing action, then good for you, and it was your choice. We did not.

OK, Jim, it appears a test is in order. Pick a thread. Any thread. And YOU call someone a "liar" within it. If I see it or it gets reported, let us see what happens. OK?

[QUOTE = Chamco]Speaking only for myself, if anyone is going to reach into my pocket and lift $0.10, much less $10, then they better be on real solid footing, not shifting sands. [/quote]

Jim,

You are probably referring to the $10 that people pay to be reinstated. People have the option of paying it or not, that’s their decision. It would be interesting to look at statistics of what has been the behavior of those that have been fined and suspended. Does the majority pay to be reinstated or do they just go away? If anyone feels the $10 is too much money for the service they are being offered they can always "refuse to renew their subscription", and look for another site that will provide them what this site has to offer. Some may get away with behaviors that in certain circumstances have resulted in warnings, fines, and suspensions for other individuals. This is where Einstein’s definition of insanity doesn’t work quite right. You can repeat the same thing over and over again and nothing happens. One day you find the listener in a different mood and all of a sudden there goes your warning or even suspension. Life is full of examples of things that at a certain point in our lives have a perceived value and a few years down the road we deem them worthless. What do we do? We move on to greener pastures. But that’s always according to our definition of green, as cows don’t seem to be able to tell colors apart. Some people feel they are been dumped in the group of troublemakers because they receive warning points or suspensions. Nothing further from the truth, at least from my perspective! In the heat of the moment we all say and do things that we regret, and we have to deal with the consequences. But the fact is that in general we are our worst enemies. It’s not so much what others think of us but what we think of ourselves.

Regards

I would like to say that this is the most civilized i have seen a thread of this length in a very long time. Apparently what you have been doing is being accomplished but now maybe its time to step back and reevaluate the situation and go into stage two of your clean up. Stage one was apparently "sweep out the bad, lay the laws and enforce them hard. stage two should be a little more toned down, then stage three will be the eutopia fauna that we all hope for !!!!

P.S.On the warning list...what does "minor suggestion" mean???

And I am only able to carve out 10 minutes here and there right now to do so. So, with this 10 minutes. I want to elaborate on a point that Dan has made:

...You are probably referring to the $10 that people pay to be reinstated. People have the option of paying it or not, that’s their decision. It would be interesting to look at statistics of what has been the behavior of those that have been fined and suspended. Does the majority pay to be reinstated or do they just go away? If anyone feels the $10 is too much money for the service they are being offered they can always "refuse to renew their subscription", and look for another site that will provide them what this site has to offer.

All of the above I agree with, but feel that it leaves out two vital issues/concerns:

1) The $10 owed for reinstatement is not just a reinstatement decision. It is not just "stay and pay" or "walk". If nothing else, it is also a decision to leave the tag "Fined and Suspended" forever attached to your name, in every post that you ever made. So, if someone were to avail themselves of the resource value of the BOI to check on you, they get to encounter that. It could be no more than that you called someone a "nimrod" who had been also been called a thief or scammer or liar, etc.

2) This is not about whether or not the system should allow for fines, etc. Its just as the poll says "scale back a little". Maybe some voted because they wanted a few more antagonistic sparring to take place. That may be a problem with how it was worded. I voted for a scaling back of the punishment system which I feel would be just as effective, but with far less collateral damage. One day suspension, 2-day, 5-day, optional fines, etc, all before the bigger bombs get dropped. I also voted for less subjectivity.

This is not about whether or not any system will not have its detractors. Its about improving the system we got !!

Originally Posted by Chamco

Wish it were that simple Wendy. So, am I to read that you completely understand the logic of being able to call someone a liar, and its OK, and being able to call the same person a "nimrod", and that it is not just a possible 1 point warning, but $10 ? All that is clear and objectively applied? Some of us just don't see it as clearly as you. Sorry, but it was not a knowing or voluntary action on my part, or those of others, to make a $10 donation. If you have made such a knowing action, then good for you, and it was your choice. We did not.

I do understand that if I call someone a name "liar, theif, scammer, etc etc" that I can be given from 1 - 10 points as deemed neccessary by the moderator who reads the post and makes an assessment as to the severity of my actions and the statement at the time.

It is a voluntary action to call someone a name and that may in fact get you suspended.

You can't call someone a name and say you unknowingly did it, get real. You knowingly call someone a name by your on voluntary actions and if you get fined it is not a $10 donation, it is a $10 FINE.

And yes its my choice to try my best to adhere to the policies that Rich has put into affect. I have many a time typed a post that would have had me fined, sat back and asked myself, is calling this person a ****** worth my $10. And in fact its not in my mind so I erase my post and retype it without the name calling.

You say

It is a voluntary action to call someone a name and that may in fact get you suspended.

The key word is "may". A clear policy would make that word "will". You chse "may". Freudian slip?

You can't call someone a name and say you unknowingly did it, get real. You knowingly call someone a name by your on voluntary actions and if you get fined it is not a $10 donation, it is a $10 FINE.

What I can say is that it warranted far less than a $10 fine (you point out that the mods have options), and that the rules have not been clear, or that they need more definition. I can also say, as the majority has in the poll, that there is room for improvement in the system, not only those that I have voiced, but others as well. BTW Wendy, I am quite real.