Warning Points System Mod

One other interesting thought to David and anyone else who has "PURCHASED" the power..... While you may falsely believe that your dings upon those of whom you have a beef with will somehow lower them a notch or two, why don't you ask yourself this....

Would you rather have your Karma or warning points dinged or the opinions of YOUR peers? I have never had an issue with you David, until now. Kind of like a Catch 22, isn't it?

You need to keep in mind that for a lot of you, this is all about making money. And, I sincerely hope a few of you are not into sales as your behavior here might just cost you more money then your $100 donation. Ironic isn't it?

Heck Rich, I would rather donate $100 and have people like Mike Greathouse, Shrap etc, people who have EARNED not PAID for the right help bring about civility. They, in the eyes of most here, have EARNED this right through their level headedness, their integrity, their sincere desire to be correctly dogmatic. Pretty pathetic when someone can PAY for a right that they never EARNED, isn't it?

Griz

Richard, my choice is simple, I was a contributing member even before it was pay to play, during that time I hardly used and participated in fauna. When the membership ran out I did not renew. I am back and using fauna, if I choose to pay the $25 it will be because I support the site, not for the ability to see who gives me karma, not for giving neg karma. If I choose to pay the $100 it won't be for the ability to give warnings.

And we won't go into what I think of those who are saving or planning to up there contribution just to do that.

Griz I missed the outside bets because I would have cleaned up. I knew who would be the first to use it and the one who would get the points. When Rich made the choice of who would be the new "posse" I created a list of all the benefactor and endowment members I could find. One name came to me as one to watch.....

Not at all encouraged by what has transpired, to include the nudge to initiate the first salvo's of the new system. Since Rich has described himself as a "dictator" often enough, maybe the safe thing to do would have been for Wes to use the same description, rather than the onerous word "king". Is there really a difference ? Are we to split hairs now ?

I asked long ago if this new system would have a hair-trigger. Got my answer. I am well aware that no solution will please everybody, but that does not excuse a bad application of power.

One more lens to look at it through. Am I to expect Wes, or any other, to be dinged if I am called a "king" ? "Smarty pants" ? Anything but my name ? According to the penalty list, it now rates as "antagonism", just of a lower ding value as I am a lowly member, and not a moderator.

While I agree with some of you~ I am getting rather personally offended at the implication that anyone who chose to donate to this site did it with an ulterior motive. Please consider everyone you are speaking about~ before you paint us all with the same brush.

Originally Posted by DAND

I'm not sure if anyone else has been warned but it appears that I am the first to warn Wes.

Now THIS post deserves some karma! Too bad I got this message when I tried to give you some:
"You have given out too much karma in the last 24 hours, try again later."

Originally Posted by Griz

Pretty pathetic when someone can PAY for a right that they never EARNED, isn't it?

It truly is pathetic.

At least I paid for my right to give negative karma points! I guess I'll have to wait 24 hours...

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marchek AKA JM

While I agree with some of you~ I am getting rather personally offended at the implication that anyone who chose to donate to this site did it with an ulterior motive. Please consider everyone you are speaking about~ before you paint us all with the same brush.

Please consider that not all comments are directed at you. However, my comments stand as advice to anyone "wielding" the power.

I have no doubts that someone like you and Bobby will take this role seriously. YOU two are not a concern as far as I go. However, I don't know that some of you (those at the $100+ levels) have fully grasped the level of responsibility (AND COST) that this entails. The cost for said "privileges" do not end after the $100 contribution. The cost may not not fully be known until after it's too late.

Take David for example. He won't get a dime of my money now. Why? Because he dinged Wes? Nope. Because we KNEW he was going to ding Wes. WE knew he was going to be the first to strike. THAT tells me all I need to know about him.

The $100 contribution is going to be but a small drop in the bucket when compared to the actual expense some people will incur. So, is it worth it? Only you can answer that.

Griz

Originally Posted by Golden Gate Geckos

Now THIS post deserves some karma! Too bad I got this message when I tried to give you some:
"You have given out too much karma in the last 24 hours, try again later."

That's ok Marcia, I took care of the Karma for you!

Griz

Point of the matter is that anyone who does not believe that Wes made that comment in a derogatory manner has rose colored glasses on. I would have given the points myself but figured I would leave that for others to do so I could initiate testing on the system. The point(s) were warranted, in my opinion, no matter who assessed them.

As for posting after the fact, I believe I have done so myself in some instances, and there are no restrictions against anyone else with that capability for doing so.

And of course, we get the usual suspects here with the disparaging remarks.....

If anyone has any further questions about WHY I have chosen the method I did to select who has this warning "power" now, please refer to the other threads. If you don't like or don't believe my reasons, then that is your problem. There will always be a subset of members who do not like my decisions, and quite frankly, there is a subset of that subset who won't like ANY of them.

Originally Posted by Griz

However, I don't know that some of you (those at the $100+ levels) have fully grasped the level of responsibility (AND COST) that this entails. The cost for said "privileges" do not end after the $100 contribution. The cost may not not fully be known until after it's too late.

You hit the nail right on the head. I have a feeling though that a few will be learning this in the near future.

As always guys, one must consider the source before one reacts.

When the source is of an intelligence level that fleas look smart when compared, and that's not what I'm saying it's merely an apt comparison, one should react appropriately.

As with fleas, and many other parasitic nibbles, there is a minor irritation, that satisfaction that can only be had by scratching the momentary itch (does that put one in debt to the parasite?) and then forgetting all about it.

The thing about parasites, especially the ones who are not particularly bright, is that they are eventually caught and crushed between two hard things, be they thumb and forefinger or rock and other hard place.

I would have lost the bet. I figured he would not be leading, of course I did not take into consideration the total lack of leadership abilities in the little pack he runs with, but I figured he'd be number 2 to hit me.

Shucks even.

Does bragging about it qualify as unnecessary roughness? Afterall, there isn't much I can do about it, is there. It's not like he's a flea I could mash when it gets irritating.

Not anymore anyway.

Oh, by the way dandy, broken up any marriages lately? Wifey still trust you?

By the way rich, I just read your post, hence the edit here, and it was entirely in jest.

Who is it that has chastised me so often, or occasionally anyway, for reacting without asking?

Oh well, no biggie.