And you all wonder why I have to make the restrictions I do...

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Perhaps it is the perspective that is the issue here. With both of the examples you mention, the choice presented to me was, "Do things here MY way or I am leaving." This has happened time and time again here.

Interestingly enough, using those two examples, Mike felt the warning system mod powers should apply to ALL members, not just the higher paid members. Bobby, on the other hand, apparently has some personal issues with some of the people here acting as warning system mods and is also "out" because of our differing opinions.

So here we have a classic case of a decision of mine getting some people irritated at me over the same event, but for two entirely nearly opposite reasons. One because I didn't allow this power to MANY MORE people, and the other because the power is granted to a few people he doesn't like.

Honestly folks, can't you see the irony in all this?

Just to set the record straight Rich, my exit from Fauna was, not as you imply, based upon a my way or no way ultimatum. Yes, in my opinion, the new program should have been a membership-wide program. Afterall, it is the membership as a whole that makes a site thrive. In the end, I actually commended you for making an effort to return to some type of moderation here.

My exit was based directly on this conversation:

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

Rich,
While I agree with you completely and I applaud your efforts to increase the level of moderation via the new program, there is one issue which would seem to need to be addressed by senior management.

There are a handful of individuals here (names are not important as everyone knows who they are) that contribute nothing to this community other then a high level of disruption. They have been given all of the rope in the world and have used every strand.

They are demeaning to the members here and to the site itself. Although the entertainment level is occasionally increased, it is my belief that they very likely, prevent other more well intentioned members from participating here.

Sometimes you just have to make a stand and take out the trash.

To which you replied:

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Been there and done that, Mike, and all I got for my efforts was heaping big servings of CRAP from quite a few individuals. To give you a PERFECT example, check out this thread -> http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73508

So what I have done is to give everyone here the potential to make this site what they want it to be via their own efforts. Yes, I set the bar high, which I think most people will recognize is a necessity to try to limit abuses that most likely would result. Obviously some people will say it is TOO high and will want me to do all the dirty work and catch all of the resulting flak because of it. Thanks, but no thanks. I've done my best with this iteration of the changes here to try to empower the members to do what they THINK needs to be done, yet tried to limit the damage that could be caused by blatant abuses. No, it's not perfect, but perfection is just some pie in the sky idea that will be different for everyone anyway. But the way I am looking at it, is that each member CAPABLE of issuing warning points is voting with their warning. If 40 members positively, absolutely wanted to get someone justifiably booted out of here, it would take them all, acting concurrently, only less than TWO WEEKS in order to do so with that current 500 point threshhold.

So if you all want the trash taken out, then by all means, do it yourselves....

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

Sorry Rich,
I will not pay you $100.00 for the "privilege" of taking out the trash on your website. There are many other member-friendly sites where like-minded people can discuss reptiles, without all of the nonsense.

See you around....

Originally Posted by WebSlave

That is certainly one of the choices you can make, Mike. See ya....

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

That's probably for the best.
Good luck and I hope that you find what you're looking for here.

Goodbye.

It was the I don't care attitude presented by you in that and numerous other threads that brought me to the realization that I was supporting a effort that no longer wanted any support.

In all fairness, it does seem that there has been an increased effort as of late by you and several others to improve the experience here for the other members. For that, you are to be commended.

Good luck.

I have spent the better part of this morning mowing my farm. It's funny what pops into your head when it's just you and a mower. Sometimes it's humorous and sometimes it not. Today was the latter.

Rich, this post really is not for you. A lot of wiser people then I have given very solid advice but you see it as criticism. So, my comments here are more for the masses when deciding how to spend their time and where to put their value.

In order to get a Fauna Good Guy certificate, it takes the vote of the membership. While some do not put much value in said certificate, others put a ton. I reckon it's all in one's perspective of the value of Fauna. Either you're a believer or you are not.

If I were a known scammer, had multiple bad guy threads, then what better way to offset those threads then by telling people that you're a mod on Fauna. After all, common sense would tell a potential buyer that surely a site as credible as Fauna would not allow a scammer to be a moderator. Would it? Nah.....that just could not happen.

Yet here we are. We have Good Guy certificates being earned but yet moderator status being bought. What's the difference? To the outside world, it would appear that the integrity of FaunaClassifieds has a price. I have never put a price on my integrity. I have never put a price on the integrity of my agency.

In my line of work, you can sell a quick 20 person group and get an immediate cash influx of $10,000. Money is very easy to make in my line of work. It's almost embarrassing. One day I had a gentleman by the name of Dan come into my office. He wanted to represent my agency. Part of that review process was to take a look at his existing book of business and determine it's immediate value to my firm. Here's the dilemma. His book of business would have created an instant increase in revenue of $80,000. Not too bad for a days work. But, what Dan did not know is that I know his mother. I know his mother quite well as her and my step-mother grew up together. His own mother said that I would be foolish to hire him as he has a long line of dissatisfied clients.

While the cash influx would have been nice, I simply would not put a price on the integrity of my firm. I've worked far to hard to build it and I would not allow "vermin" to come in through the door and get the keys. Sure, I highly doubt that the "vermin" that's been allowed through the front door of Fauna will have too much of an impact on this site. With regards to that, I think Rich is correct. But, is there a bigger picture? Shouldn't there be a united front against such "vermin"? Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard and some common sense? Should we create an environment whereby "vermin" are afforded luxury of the privileges while the respected members go elsewhere? Even the most basic of hotels know they have a problem when the "vermin" are starting to chase away their respected guests. The most respected of hotels don't really have to worry about it as they took preventative measures before they even had a problem.

Griz

In case any one missed it, Rich just posted this:

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d=1#post518607

Bottom Line:

He raised warning points assessed for "warning system abuse" from 4 to 25.

and lowered the point threshold for suspension from 500 to 300.

Originally Posted by Griz

I have spent the better part of this morning mowing my farm. It's funny what pops into your head when it's just you and a mower. Sometimes it's humorous and sometimes it not. Today was the latter.

Rich, this post really is not for you. A lot of wiser people then I have given very solid advice but you see it as criticism. So, my comments here are more for the masses when deciding how to spend their time and where to put their value.

In order to get a Fauna Good Guy certificate, it takes the vote of the membership. While some do not put much value in said certificate, others put a ton. I reckon it's all in one's perspective of the value of Fauna. Either you're a believer or you are not.

If I were a known scammer, had multiple bad guy threads, then what better way to offset those threads then by telling people that you're a mod on Fauna. After all, common sense would tell a potential buyer that surely a site as credible as Fauna would not allow a scammer to be a moderator. Would it? Nah.....that just could not happen.

Yet here we are. We have Good Guy certificates being earned but yet moderator status being bought. What's the difference? To the outside world, it would appear that the integrity of FaunaClassifieds has a price. I have never put a price on my integrity. I have never put a price on the integrity of my agency.
Griz

Well Bob, you tell me. Where is the point that the advice becomes criticism? Or is it always just "advice" no matter how often it is given, and no matter how strenuously it is attempted to be forced down my throat? Some people are under the impression that their opinion cannot possibly be unacceptable so obviously the recipient must simply be too dense to understand it. Or even though there is no demonstratable evidence that they know how better to run a site like this, their opinion MUST be better than mine. So they hope that through repetition that maybe it will sink into my thick skull. The fact that they may be understood, but not agreed with, is completely foreign and unimaginable to them. So tell me, what is the determination between "advice", "criticism", "antagonism" and "do it my way or I am leaving", which appears to be the typical path that such threads take around here when discussing my decisions on how to run this site?

And you bring up the Good Guy Certification program, with the intent to perhaps offer your own advice. Since you have brought up your contrary opinions several times concerning the warning system mods program, I assume you are trying to tie the two together, perhaps maybe even to criticise, oops, I mean offer advice on, one or both.

But as is obvious here, many people will get themselves worked up simply because they really don't understand how something works here.

Take this quote, for instance: "In order to get a Fauna Good Guy certificate, it takes the vote of the membership."

FALSE. ANYONE can GET a GGC for the asking. The votes made by the membership are used to see if you can KEEP it. This is stated pretty plainly in the writeup I did about this program and how to apply for it:

Quite simply, any business or person applying to take part in this program has to agree to do "good business". This is something that is subject to interpretation, but in it's most simplest form, simply means to treat your customers well and in a manner that will speak highly of the way you do business. This will be reflected in the poll set up in your thread here and by the votes people will place in your "Trader's Ratings". If at any time, one or both of those rating vehicles drops below zero (0) and you have a negative rating, your permission to display the provided certification banner will be withdrawn and you MUST remove it from your site immediately. You MUST agree to these terms in order to take part in this program. YOUR applying to be a part of this program by accepting a banner certificate is a defacto agreement on your part that you fully accept the stipulations indicated here.

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, btw. If you have NO history, that is not a liability and being an unknown will not be held against you. But if you already have a negative Traders Rating feedback score, please don't bother applying. Do whatever you need to do to get your score into the positive rating, then come on back when that has been accomplished.

Please note that NOWHERE do I state that I will be a judge in determining who will be accepted in this program. In all respects, the membership will make this determination, based initially on the Traders Ratings, and thereafter on BOTH the Traders Ratings and the certification poll that the MEMBERS participate in. The application for a GGC is under the premise that the applicant is agreeing to do FUTURE business as GOOD business. Certainly members can vote on participants based on past business, but that is strictly up to them. I have not, and have no intention in the future, of auditing individual votes to determine their validity or applicability.

This has consistently been my position concerning the determination of "Bad Guys" and "Good Guys" who frequent this site. Unless I have direct experience in order to provide my own feedback, these decisions are made by YOU, not ME. I didn't create this site to make your decisions for you. I am just giving you the opportunity to gather as much information as you can, through several means, in order for you to make your own informed decisions.

And in the case of the members who pay for the Benefactor and Endowment level memberships, and therefore gain the power to assess warning points. ANYONE can do that. Yes, that is absolutely true. But they have to earn the right to keep it by their actions. If someone does "buy" into this program, they DO have to toe the line or they will find themselves likely booted out with a suspension and $50 fine. Sorry, but no, I have not, am not, and WILL not be the judge many of you apparently want me to be. That is your job. Just as the BOI itself was originally designed to be. A Board (composed of it's members) Of Inquiry (whereby members can view ANY and ALL info and evidence provided, making their OWN decisions about the issues). I am just providing the tools and YOU have to use them.

So basically your argument on this topic is moot, based on your apparent misunderstanding of how things were designed to work here.

As for known scammers becoming a paid member and thereby utilizing the warning system in an inappropriate manner, all it would take is for someone to glance at their profile to view that person's own warning points to see what is going on. Or even do a search of the BOI itself. The tools are all there for people to use. If they choose to not avail themselves of this service, and jump to an incorrect conclusion based on assumptions or incomplete data, that really is their fault, not mine. And bad guy can get over on an uninformed person. And yes, a good guy can become a bad guy, and it will be a while before the facts catch up with him or her. There is nothing I can do about that. There is nothing that ANYONE can do about that.

"We have Good Guy certificates being earned but yet moderator status being bought. What's the difference? To the outside world, it would appear that the integrity of FaunaClassifieds has a price. "

Actually even to be a GGC applicant, a member must be at least a Contributor member. And only members who are paid members can vote on either of the two polling mechanisms used to determing if a GGC holder can KEEP that certificate. Yes, credibility and integrity does have a price. It takes a price tag in some instances to prove one or both in a public medium such as this where it is far too easy for people to be scammers. Past history has proven that this is a necessity, which I seriously doubt anyone can dispute. Bob you have inferred this yourself. Someone being viewed as either a warning system mod or a GGC holder is likely viewed as being credible and having integrity. So why would having them provide some manner of financial sacrifice in order to prove their commitment to these programs be considered as a bad thing? Anyone will do something for free with little or no concern for the consequences if they are not legitimate. But make a cost associated with it, and that changes things for them.

So yes, integrity does have a price attached to it. That's because without that safeguard, then no there would be NO integrity at all. Imagine how credible the voting results on those certificates would be if anyone could create multiple false accounts and vote on them for free? With the applications themselves, I simply require that my efforts to set up and maintain this system be done ONLY for those members who have demonstrated financial support for this site. (Yes, I know there are quite likely several participants whose paid membership have lapsed...)

The warning system mod program being offered for Benefactor and Endowment level members is really no different. I REQUIRE a financial expression of someone's commitment to this site. I REQUIRE evidence that they are willing to go the extra mile for this site. Yes, $100 is a steep hurdle for some people who really would like to help out. But I had to draw the line somewhere, and that is where I chose to put it. No matter where the line would be placed, someone would claim it is a hardship on them. I heard that line MANY times when there was a mere $10 membership credibility requirement to post on the BOI. Although their intentions were good, and the offer to help was there with the information they could provide, $10 was just too steep of a price to pay. The price of credibility, in that instance, was just too steep for them, even at that low price.

And yeah this is likely where the argument comes up that the paid requirement is just completely unfair and I should hand pick those members to do the job, regardless of the financial token. Been there and done that with the forum mods, and look what happened with some of my choices. How many instances have we seen on this site of apparent good guys turning into black hats? Who of any of you could have forseen that turn of events for those that this happened to? How many apparent good guys are in reality not, and only showing you (and me) their public false face? I have proven to myself that I cannot always see through that mask. So I am choosing alternate methods in order to try to make determinations needed to be made.

Sorry, disagreements aside, THIS is my choice to make in how to run this program and it is the one I made. Someone is always going to think they have a better idea, no matter what the situation, but pending unambiguous proof that you have done this before and know exactly how to do THIS, then I'm sorry, but I don't have any convincing arguments of why I should select YOUR opinion over mine.

Seriously, I now EXPECT people to leave whenever I make a decision about anything here. It's become par for the course. Some will like it and some will not. If the changes are a show stopper to you, then I guess you need to go elsewhere. I can only provide what I think is best for the majority of people, and/or sometimes what is best for me, regardless of everyone else. I've tried many different things to try to find the best compromise, but it is becoming apparent that there IS no "best" and certainly some are not willing to accept any compromise whatsoever. Their choice is simply, "their way, or the highway", choosing to butt heads with me over the differing opinions. Very well then. Here's your exit if this road is not to your liking. If you are telling me to change things to your liking or you will leave, then you are the one making that decision.

Just an observation here but I see people complaining and leaving but are they really leaving if they are still reading or even posting?

I know when I left here I went through great lengths to leave for good. I wrote Rich numerous e-mails to take me off e-mail list and put everything thing from fauna into spam and oh so many things, including not coming here at all, not even as a signed out visitor. So much so that recently when I needed my password changed I actually had to ask Rich to put in a different e-mail addy for me so I can receive the new password. I had orchestrated my own detachment of fauna to the point that it just would not go into my old e-mail addy without intense work if I even found all the places that I stopped all fauna from coming through to me. There were things I missed about this site and things I did not, I just came to the conclusion that, for me, I went overboard and decided this site was something I wanted to be a part of again. I would just pick and chose which parts and what I wanted to get involved in and what I didn't want to, it is all a personal choice. This is just a website, it is not my life, it is somewhere where I enjoy to go and spend some time on. For it being here I am choosing to contribute to say thank you for even having the site up in the first place, something Rich most certainly doesn't have to keep up.

Things change, people think about things, even during their absence from here so I would just say that before you publically say your going to leave then come back (and some do it many times over) to actually think if this is the course you really want to take or if it is something that you are saying in an emotional moment.

With regard to leaving. People come and go from sites all the time. More people come then go away for good. I personally can not blame Rich for not wanting to cater to each person who wants to leave or threatens to leave. Liked or not, one person or ten are not going to break this site. People may miss you but they can always go to where you are and visit with you there and still stay here as well.

Sincerely Rich, a dissertation of how things "work" on Fauna was not needed. Your thoughts are well known and as is obviously the case, there are many dissenting opinions, mine included on several, several Rich, not many, regarding some of your rules. Yup, YOUR rules. Why you think that needs to be stated each time is beyond me.

You SOLICIT the opinions of others just like you did here. You, in my very humble opinion, are a bit of a sadist. You have brought a lot of this upon yourself. But, I digress, as you and I have been down that road before.

I reckon Rich we agree to disagree. Integrity does not have a price for me. I cannot be bought and to be quite blunt, giving someone the "privilege" to be a moderator without them having shown the integrity for such privilege, is nothing short of ridiculous.

So Rich, is it working for you? Is your site luring in and keeping the most respected members of our hobby? Shouldn't that be at least a reasonable goal? I'm still here Rich and I don't plan on leaving anytime soon. But, that's obviously not been the case for many, that's right, MANY of the respected members that Fauna once had. I would rather have one Mike Greathouse in my corner then 100 Ed Clark's.

If your goal was to build a site with integrity, whose information one could trust, then why welcome those who have shown such lack of integrity to help you accomplish your goals? It's rather counter productive.

Griz

One other thing Rich, just so that I know my thoughts are clear. If I did not care for this site, do you honestly think that I would waste my time pounding my head upon your wall? There's value here Rich. I, for one, firmly believe that. I can only hope that one day you will see that there is value in what some of us say. Even though we have never ran a large internet site does not mean that our opinions, our experience in the non-fauna world, is any less worthy of consideration.

Griz

Originally Posted by Griz

Sincerely Rich, a dissertation of how things "work" on Fauna was not needed. Your thoughts are well known and as is obviously the case, there are many dissenting opinions, mine included on several, several Rich, not many, regarding some of your rules. Yup, YOUR rules. Why you think that needs to be stated each time is beyond me.

Well what is equally beyond me is why someone who constantly repeats the same statements over and over again finds it inconceivable that I give the same replies over and over again...

And point of the matter is, that in my last reply to a statement you made, you OBVIOUSLY did not understand how the Good Guy Certifications work, which was made plainly evident by YOUR statements. So I corrected your misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Griz

One other thing Rich, just so that I know my thoughts are clear. If I did not care for this site, do you honestly think that I would waste my time pounding my head upon your wall? There's value here Rich. I, for one, firmly believe that. I can only hope that one day you will see that there is value in what some of us say. Even though we have never ran a large internet site does not mean that our opinions, our experience in the non-fauna world, is any less worthy of consideration.

Griz

Actually, I believe that some people just enjoy metaphorically pounding MY head against the wall.

But see, there you go, trying to put words in my mouth and claim I said them.

I have never said I don't value what people say. I have said that I am not obligated to automatically assume that someone else's opinions have greater weight than mine. Especially when there will be an equal number of people saying the exact opposite and in like fashion feeling confident that THEIR opinion should carry the day.

Am I repeating myself again? Maybe it shouldn't come as a surprise that the same questions just get the same answers....

Did you ever see the Butterfinger commercial Rich? It had Bart Simpson in it. He was trying to keep Homer from taking his Butterfinger so he attached some electrical wires to it. Homer kept touching the Butterfinger and kept reacting with an ouch. Sometimes Rich, when people keep repeating the same things, especially when even the new people to the site are stating it, that it might be time to listen. At least a little.

Again Rich, how's it working for you? Less stress? Gaining more respected members?

Griz

PS I know exactly how the GGC works. I did not realize that I had to provide you of all people with a dissertation of it. I made the assumption that you could get the jest of said comment without me going into all of the details.

Originally Posted by Griz

Did you ever see the Butterfinger commercial Rich? It had Bart Simpson in it. He was trying to keep Homer from taking his Butterfinger so he attached some electrical wires to it. Homer kept touching the Butterfinger and kept reacting with an ouch. Sometimes Rich, when people keep repeating the same things, especially when even the new people to the site are stating it, that it might be time to listen. At least a little.

Again Rich, how's it working for you? Less stress? Gaining more respected members?

Griz

PS I know exactly how the GGC works. I did not realize that I had to provide you of all people with a dissertation of it. I made the assumption that you could get the jest of said comment without me going into all of the details.

Sorry, but no, I don't watch commercial TV. It's a complete waste of time. Sorry your analogy was wasted....

Actually I am satisfied with the results so far. I don't have to spend my time patrolling posts looking for rule infractions, and neither do I get the usual complaint reply from the member being warned about why the warning is unfair or not justified. So yes, that workload has been greatly relieved from my shoulders. Even with the few members here trying hard to dissuade members from participating by painting them as doing this ONLY to be on a power trip, it is still going satisfactorily. Apparently some are able to clearly see through the motives of those kinds of statements. But thanks for asking.

And I think this site has it's fair share of respectable members. Or were you implying that no one here remaining or became a new member recently is respectable? Hard to tell from your dig at me...

Sorry Bob, but your original description of how the GGC works was just inaccurate. It was only via your false claim of how it worked, and not the reality, that supported your comparison with the warning systems mod. So you are now claiming you did that on purpose merely to support your claims? Cool....