Status check and poll on recent crack down

Jim,

If you ever want to discuss what I actually said instead of your usual batch of hypotheticals that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said then I will be more than happy to talk to you.

Webslave's post, quoting me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chamco
The solution is not to define everything ad-nauseum, and create a thousand degrees of violation. But, again IMO, it cries for more moderation.



Nope. Been over that bridge before. This site doesn't need more moderators at all. It needs less people inclined to violate the rules by just not using common decency and courtesy in their interactions with others in a public medium. THAT is the solution I have chosen to pursue. Anyone who cannot get the hang of the requirements here will be gone, sooner or later, voluntarily or not.

I was referring to my call for more "moderation" of the penalty system, ie some middle ground, not that there be more oversight.

Jim,

If you ever want to discuss what I actually said instead of your usual batch of hypotheticals that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said then I will be more than happy to talk to you.

Here's the quote I referred to:

Liar..... you don't even have to call someone a liar to get your point across. Simply saying John Doe "has a history of lying" gets the same thing across without it being name calling.

Sammy, it is one of the probelms with the printed page, I guess. My point was that calling someone a liar, and stating that they have a history of lying, are the same IMO. And I provided an personal example of being on the receiving end. Sorry that you don't like it, but its all about being on the receiving end in this discussion. Maybe not yours, but this thread has already indicated that one of the problems in enforcing subjective rules is that Rich's standard is not just how something was intended, but how it was taken. I agree with Rich's assessment that he needs to defer to how things can be taken.

Originally Posted by Chamco

So being a "liar" is provable. Of course, all evidence in the BOI is presented under sworn testimony and threat of perjury. No Paul, it is almost always a matter of opinion. Ask an attorney. Ask Bill Clinton. Look at 95% of the times it has been used in the BOI. It was absolutely a matter of opinion. It may have been the concensus, but it was not "proven". Rich has clearly stated that he wants to tone down the antagonism, flame wars, etc. He has specifically targeted derogatory words and terms. "Liar" is very derogatory if you are on the receiving end, don't you think? As I pointed out in the example for Rich (see the post a few back) go and look at that example. Is it fact or fiction? Is it derogatory? Please LMK what you think, and why. As for balance and degree of antagonism, there are more than a few of us here who can easily let being called a nimrod or knucklehead flow right off us, but thief or liar? All can be antagonistic, but while I respect that being called a nimrod may set you off, more than a few of us would be far more bent out of shape over the other terms.

Jim, I think I explained myself pretty well. After all:

Originally Posted by PaulSage

Like I said, that's just the logic I apply to my word choice.

Make of it what you will.

As far as your comment stating that it's all a matter of opinion, I agree to a degree. However, claims such as "so and so is a liar" or "a scammer" or saying "so and so stole ..." is a CLAIM that CAN have legal repercussions since accusations of criminal behavior CAN be libelous if untrue. Derogatory name-calling that doesn't imply criminal behavior and are difficult or impossible to prove, is of little interest to the courts. And yes, I do relate BOI posts to court testimony. I spent all last semester studying the laws of mass communication, and some of the cases related to internet message boards were quite enlightening. What it breaks down to is that you ARE responsible for what you post online. Calling someone a "nimrod" might get me a $10 Fauna fine, but I don't have to worry about being sued over it.

But again,

Originally Posted by PaulSage

Like I said, that's just the logic I apply to my word choice.

Jim,

I just have to ask you this, we have discussed this in private a while back but I just have to ask you once again:

Why are you even involved in all of this, I always thought of you as a person that did not get into the drama of all of these threads, sites, posts, etc. I have as I told you found that you are no different than the rest of us but I thought you were for some reason.

I mean Jim, your chams have been on magazine covers, you have the best (IMO) panther chameleons on the market. You have been featured in Reptiles Mag to show off your set etc.

Why is it that you are so concerned about the warning system here? Why on earth would someone like you, and I guess its the view I have of you, even be worried about warnings, fines, suspentions, what words get you what and so on....

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?

In post #52, I reply:

First off, I am leery of setting myself up in such a manner, and I do not use that word often at all. However, if an appropriate test case now exists in the BOI, and it is current and relevent, can it be looked at? Its the thread "Bad Dragon Dealer Colby Laidlaw". I am not lobbying for fines. The thread had an outcome that seemed appropriate. Here's the posts in that thread:

#25) Laidlaw is referred to as a ..... "scumball".......
#26) Laidlaw calls someone a "Liar" in the header
#30) "prison is too good" .... (for Laidlaw)

I have opinions on these three, but we'll wait and see how Rich views them. I thank Rich for the test.

Rather than stage an event, this one has it all, to include participants evidently not aware of this thread.

To which you respond in Post #63:
[/quote]I have no record of anyone reporting those posts.[quote]

Understood, and that's why I chose it as the test that you asked for. I'll bet half the posters don't even know about the "report abuse" button.

Well if they don't know about the report post button then maybe they need to read some of the features of the site. You can't jump into a site and know all of its uses if you never look around for explanations of the features or ask questions.

You saw it and you know where the button is, did you report it or are you complaining that it was overlooked?

And if some don't know about the report post button then maybe they need to read some of the features of the site. You can't jump into a site and know all of its uses if you never look around for explanations of the features or ask questions.

There are many compliments here in your post, and I thank you:

Jim,

I just have to ask you this, we have discussed this in private a while back but I just have to ask you once again:

Why are you even involved in all of this, I always thought of you as a person that did not get into the drama of all of these threads, sites, posts, etc. I have as I told you found that you are no different than the rest of us but I thought you were for some reason.

I mean Jim, your chams have been on magazine covers, you have the best (IMO) panther chameleons on the market. You have been featured in Reptiles Mag to show off your set etc.

Why is it that you are so concerned about the warning system here? Why on earth would someone like you, and I guess its the view I have of you, even be worried about warnings, fines, suspentions, what words get you what and so on....

Rich has openly lamented that the "big boys" don't come here. Evidently, you seem to be not only describing me as one, but then questioning why I am here. Excuse me for paraphrasing, but are you suggesting that I should be "above this"? Wendy, you have over 3000 posts. You have been a customer of mine. Its important enough for you to post 3000 times. I have something like 600+. I also voluntarily put about $350 into the site in the last 12 months. Do I need this? No. But the BOI is also the last best place on the internet to be a resource to keep newbies from being ripped off. It is an asset to the future of the hobby. And in my view, the current enforcement activities, while accomplishing a much needed goal, have over-reached to where they have run off and discouraged more than was necessary. My views have been consistently mischaracterized as wanting a return, or lobbying for a situation that would give up hard-earned ground. I do not want Rich to yield one bit on the good results he has obtained. I want him to consider ways to keep those gains, and yet reduce the collateral and inintended results.
You have seen me take some very unpopular positions of late, and many of those close to me have pointed out the risk of opposing Rich here. But I also respect Rich enough to believe that he can handle it, and hopefully realize that while he may not agree with me, that I am not out to undermine his goals. I think we agree on goals, but differ on the best way to get there. He allows dissent, and I always have some cooking if I want to serve it up. I want the BOI to be better. So do all who voted as I did in the poll. Wendy, trust that I question the time that I spend here often. As for the other "big boys" Wendy, why do you think they either are not here, or should not be here?

double post left some stuff off and hit send twice, sorry