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

I posted this in the poll, but thought it was maybe worth considering.

Maybe we should require mods to have a GGC in good standing, if they fall below "par" , then they can't be a moderator on this forum. I'm just thinking out loud.

I like the way you think Bill and Amy, the only problem is that a website is required to attach that to. how many mods here have websites?

Originally Posted by Bill & Amy

I posted this in the poll, but thought it was maybe worth considering.

Maybe we should require mods to have a GGC in good standing, if they fall below "par" , then they can't be a moderator on this forum. I'm just thinking out loud.

Maybe we should require mods to have a GGC in good standing, if they fall below "par" , then they can't be a moderator on this forum. I'm just thinking out loud.

In theory that sounds good, but if that was the case it would exclude me at least from being a mod. I withdrew my GGC because two members (ex members?) gave me a negative vote even though I had never done business with them.

Originally Posted by Ed Clark

I like the way you think Bill and Amy, the only problem is that a website is required to attach that to. how many mods here have websites?

Why don't you have a website Ed? You would think you would want to show off all those breeder animals you have.

Originally Posted by KelliH

In theory that sounds good, but if that was the case it would exclude me at least from being a mod. I withdrew my GGC because two members (ex members?) gave me a negative vote even though I had never done business with them.

Well, I believe there is more to the GGC than just past business experience with a person. I have had bad experiences with people and never completed a transaction, I think that still allows me to vote on their GGC accounts. I still believe you would hold a positive GGC even with two negatives. Its not a perfect system, but better than what's in place now.

Ed loves replying to my comments here, because he knows he has unanswered questions in his BOI thread.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Yeah, I can see the point about it being a small issue to worry over, concerning photos, but how about the text being taken out such as happened with Sara Gatto's (sp?) posts? Certainly that leaves little to the imagination to figure out what is going on there. The problem is that the permissions to allow attachments or photos to be removed from a post is tied in with the permission to edit the entire post, text and all.

I absolutely agree that removing text in that manner is disruptive to the flow of the thread, and unlikely to be attributed to anything other than spite (or something darned similar)...that is why I only addressed images. For the most part, any justifiable editing will happen relatively soon after the post is made...aren't things set up to allow editing for only a limited time period - 2 weeks comes to mind - (except for forum mods within their area, which is its own problem)

It was set at two weeks, but once I saw this issue going on with the photos, I dropped the window down to just a few days. I wasn't sure which way things would bounce, so better to be on the side of caution somewhat.

A few days is reasonable.
If one doesn't notice anything wrong with it within that time, it probably doesn't need to be edited. And, in a discussion, once people start replying, it is probably better to just make a new post to clarify whatever the issue was.

I was a Contributing member for a year. The following year a Benefactor Member and then Endowment Member for the year after that. The link to the subscriptions still states “Want to become a contributing member of FaunaClassifieds? Click here”. It doesn’t state, want to be mod click this link to be one. Everyone seems to now view contributing to this site must mean that you are doing so for the ability to issue warning points.

I first came to Fauna because I believed in the idea of the BOI. I stayed and contributed time and effort because I found value here. I enjoy reading most of the members’ posts and I have made some friends in real life that I would have never met if it weren’t for this site.

My contribution to Fauna has nothing to do with the ability to give warning points. I made a promise that I would renew before the W.S. Moderator plan was announced. Since it is an ability to issue warning points with the contribution, I will issue them if I see fit to do so. It isn't my defining reason to contribute.

You can take the stance that both bad and good guys are buying the ability so they can either support the site they value or seek some sort of protection if they don’t conduct business well. I'm not going to let some scumbag (no particular scumbag in mind) that thinks he can become a member that has this ability (issuing points), determine my contribution level.

What matters is that if you let those who seek the ability to give warning points for reasons that may well be unethical silence those that have good intentions (moderators or not), you do a disservice to yourself and those that are uninformed.

Well, I guess I was right about putting pressure on someone to post in the BOI. Ed knows he has unanswered questions that I have asked of him. So he makes a point to answer my questions here and when I say something to him I get dinged.

romad119 06-03-2007 Attack on a member outside of the BOI [ View Post] This isn't the BOI.