Warning Points System Mod

Originally Posted by Griz

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

But yet it was perfectly OK for myself and the site mods here to suffer those same drawbacks for moderating this site? People yelping for moderation and control (remember the first WWW thread?) then gave no thought as to the COSTS to us, or was it just irrelevant as long as YOU got what you wanted out of this site at our expense? So is it only NOW that you realize the cost to US for trying to keep this site civil? You are not even considering the death threats and lawsuit threats we have suffered in this pursuit. Why now is that so important to you but was not in the past, I wonder?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, I'm afraid. You can't tell ME from one side of your mouth that you want this site to be moderated fairly and equally to attain a goal of respectability, yet warn others out of the other side of your mouth trying to do the same thing about the repercussions for trying to do so. You are telling THEM not to do the job that you want MYSELF and the SITE MODS to do because of those repercussions you perceive. Why should this be more important to THEM than it is to US?

Well the only comment I have to make at this time is the same one I tell my son,

"Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."

When this new system was first announced I thought it was the worst decision ever made. Then when I learned that not everyone could give out warning points only a few dozen or so members I thought maybe it won’t be so bad after all. It looked at the names and it appeared to be a responsible group of members. Now it appears my original thoughts were more on the money and some are not going to take the responsibility seriously.
I believe anyone that has the ability to give out warning points can make a decision for themselves whether they are offended by a post directed towards them. My opinion is that others should let the offended party handle it.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

But yet it was perfectly OK for myself and the site mods here to suffer those same drawbacks for moderating this site? People yelping for moderation and control (remember the first WWW thread?) then gave no thought as to the COSTS to us, or was it just irrelevant as long as YOU got what you wanted out of this site at our expense? So is it only NOW that you realize the cost to US for trying to keep this site civil? You are not even considering the death threats and lawsuit threats we have suffered in this pursuit. Why now is that so important to you but was not in the past, I wonder?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, I'm afraid. You can't tell ME from one side of your mouth that you want this site to be moderated fairly and equally to attain a goal of respectability, yet warn others out of the other side of your mouth trying to do the same thing about the repercussions for trying to do so. You are telling THEM not to do the job that you want MYSELF and the SITE MODS to do because of those repercussions you perceive. Why should this be more important to THEM than it is to US?

There's a BIG difference between you dinging me and dandy dinging me.

You and I rich, while we have disagreed on things have never made it personal.

dandy PERSONALLY doesn't like me and is now using his newfound powers to get revenge on me for his inability to affect me previously.

I'd buy corns from you rich, have in the past.

I'd actively advise against any purchase from dandy.

See the difference? There's nothing personal on my side between you and I, rich.

...... as I do not see it in other threads, and it relates to the first uses of the new power here. Here are the written standards:


- Overly abusive towards another member : 2 points
- Antagonism towards moderators : 3 points

Is a $100 member now a moderator, or are only those who have the extra medallions due to an appointment as the moderator of a near defunct forum (sorry, but some are, and Rich himself has decided to de-emphasize them), or a super-mod, actually "moderators" ? Either way, it serves my example. If any such endowed "moderator" is participating in a forum discussion, is there a differing standard for them, where the use of a derogatory word or phrase towards them would be a violation, vs. it not meeting the definition of being "overly abusive" if used used against another participant who is of the lower class ? I would think that once a moderator chooses to participate in a thread as part of the discussion, and not in the role of a moderator moderating, that they are as a member. What might be banter to one viewer would be seen as crossing a line by another, and we then take that gray area and apply it to two standards of participating posters with whom we may disagree, one with the shield against "derogatory or antagonistic" darts, while the other is protected only from "overly abusive" arrows.

Originally Posted by Griz

Take David for example. He won't get a dime of my money now.

I'm sorry that you have made that decision so quickly.

Originally Posted by Griz

Why? Because he dinged Wes? Nope. Because we KNEW he was going to ding Wes.

The other side of the coin is we KNEW he was going to do something that deemed him to be dinged by me or somebody else. You make it sound as if I was sitting here in anticipation waiting for him to make a post so I could assess a warning to him.

Originally Posted by Griz

WE knew he was going to be the first to strike.

First to strike was just my luck of the draw I guess. Had my back not been bothering me I wouldn't have gotten up and sat in my chair and checked Fauna. Had I just stayed offline until this morning or until this afternoon maybe someone else would have already dinged him and then the discussion would probably be what?

Originally Posted by Griz

THAT tells me all I need to know about him.

I'm sorry that you are choosing to look at it like that.

In his defense, Dave was not the only Mod to register a ding against Wes. I think that we also have to expect some Mod's to be more keen to certain perceived offenders. I do have misgivings about the offense, a possible lack of objectivity (or recusal), and the posting of it, but Dave was not alone in his judgement.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

But yet it was perfectly OK for myself and the site mods here to suffer those same drawbacks for moderating this site? People yelping for moderation and control (remember the first WWW thread?) then gave no thought as to the COSTS to us, or was it just irrelevant as long as YOU got what you wanted out of this site at our expense? So is it only NOW that you realize the cost to US for trying to keep this site civil? You are not even considering the death threats and lawsuit threats we have suffered in this pursuit. Why now is that so important to you but was not in the past, I wonder?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, I'm afraid. You can't tell ME from one side of your mouth that you want this site to be moderated fairly and equally to attain a goal of respectability, yet warn others out of the other side of your mouth trying to do the same thing about the repercussions for trying to do so. You are telling THEM not to do the job that you want MYSELF and the SITE MODS to do because of those repercussions you perceive. Why should this be more important to THEM than it is to US?

Rich, if you want to throw yourself into the same category as a few of the individuals at the $100 level then so be it. I never have thought of you that way.

The fact still remains that being a moderator, having this power given to you, is a responsibility that should be earned not paid for. Through the very act of earning the responsibility should showcase to you that this person will wield the power appropriately.

YOU as well as Doc etc, have earned that right and have handed out judgement appropriately. Any business that you might have lost was arguably business that you never would have received regardless.

The problem here is that you have given the keys to a few irresponsible people who believe the pinto they were given is somehow a Ferrari. They are going to run the heck out of it only to find out that the only thing they now own is a rusted out reputation..err pinto.

Griz

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

...... as I do not see it in other threads, and it relates to the first uses of the new power here. Here are the written standards:


- Overly abusive towards another member : 2 points
- Antagonism towards moderators : 3 points

Is a $100 member now a moderator, or are only those who have the extra medallions due to an appointment as the moderator of a near defunct forum (sorry, but some are, and Rich himself has decided to de-emphasize them), or a super-mod, actually "moderators" ? Either way, it serves my example. If any such endowed "moderator" is participating in a forum discussion, is there a differing standard for them, where the use of a derogatory word or phrase towards them would be a violation, vs. it not meeting the definition of being "overly abusive" if used used against another participant who is of the lower class ? I would think that once a moderator chooses to participate in a thread as part of the discussion, and not in the role of a moderator moderating, that they are as a member. What might be banter to one viewer would be seen as crossing a line by another, and we then take that gray area and apply it to two standards of participating posters with whom we may disagree, one with the shield against "derogatory or antagonistic" darts, while the other is protected only from "overly abusive" arrows.

If a member is acting in the capacity of a moderator on this site, then they are considered to be a moderator. I don't see how that could be construed any other way.

As for personal involvement within a thread disallowing them from participating as a moderator, yes, that can be taken a couple of different ways. On one hand, a moderator involved in a heated discussion would certainly appear to be overly heavy handed by dinging someone who was contentious towards them in that conversation. Would that be unfair if the other party did not have the ability to "ding" back if that moderator were equally contentious? Probably, but certainly if that party deserved the warning, then it would actually be irrelevant WHO assessed the warning. But then again, that moderator would certainly be subject to being dinged by another moderator, if that were the case that they were also deserving of a warning, and that quite likely would happen based on the number of likely members looking in on an actively contentious thread.

However, on the other hand, look at it this way. Next time you are pulled over for a speeding ticket, get abusive and personally derogatory to the nice officer and take note of whether he calls in another officer to then deal with you or takes matters into his own hands. What do you think would happen in such a circumstance?

As for what I will allow here, well personally, if someone gets real carried away in their discussion with me and becomes derogatory and downright abusive, I think everyone knows how that will be dealt with. So I guess in this sort of situation, I am leading by example.....

Originally Posted by DAND

I'm sorry that you have made that decision so quickly.

There was no rush to judgement here and trust me David, I am not alone in this group.

Originally Posted by DAND

The other side of the coin is we KNEW he was going to do something that deemed him to be dinged by me or somebody else. You make it sound as if I was sitting here in anticipation waiting for him to make a post so I could assess a warning to him.

You're right and that was the very reason why I won the bet. I have no doubt in my mind that you read through all of his posts as of high noon yesterday just to find an infraction. At some point you have to ask yourself what you did to lay the foundation for such a bet. Why could people predict this action with virtually 100% certainty?

Originally Posted by DAND

First to strike was just my luck of the draw I guess. Had my back not been bothering me I wouldn't have gotten up and sat in my chair and checked Fauna. Had I just stayed offline until this morning or until this afternoon maybe someone else would have already dinged him and then the discussion would probably be what?

Luck of the draw or a foreseeable action? I chose the latter and won.

Originally Posted by DAND

I'm sorry that you are choosing to look at it like that.

Not just me David. Not just me.

Griz