Status check and poll on recent crack down

Common courtesy, yes, thats what seems to be lacking from some parts of this site.

I don't have any siblings but if I did and say one of hem was named Blue, and I knew Blue was a an all around bad person, how would I say it?

Would I say, Blue has made some bad decisions that have hurt other people, Blue sold some very sick animals, Blue did not back up the live arrival guarantee, Blue took my money and did not ship the animals to me, etc.

Or would I say, Blue is a liar and a theif and is a worthless scumbag.

Either way its known that Blue is not someone to deal with, one way is just nicer than the other.

Wendy,
I thank you for asking. I also think it is buried in several of my many posts, as well as some by Tom, Kathy Love, and others. Perhaps it is not clear, so here goes:

1) Those that responded to the poll to "scale back a bit' may have meant one of two things: a) allow a little more swordplay, or b) adjust the enforcement so as to not be seen as being as harsh and inflammatory (in their opinions), but still maintain effectiveness (if possible, again a matter of opinion). I am of group "b".

2) We have seen some "collateral damage" by the system. Some will always occur. But if we can use a smaller "bomb", can we reduce the damage? I say yes, or that it is worth a try.

3) My solution would be something akin to a warning point and/or suspension system before the fine. Instead of the points being just "one" or "ten", let Rich and the other mods have some middle ground opportunity to assess suspensions with no fines, such as 1-3-5 days. Maybe even a choice between suspension or fine, ie. pay $5-10 now, and you are back in, or wait your full suspension time. People will still be miffed at getting nailed, but I also believe that some of those who have been hit with $10 would feel that a 3 day suspension was easier to swallow, and the point would have been made. Even if they were just as steamed, while they might balk at paying $10 forever, if after 3 days and the door is open again, I think it much more likely they would return. If they are habitual offenders, that is easy to take care of, as thesholds could exist as they do now. I think that it would bring back more offenders "new and improved" than the current system. It also would remove the possibility that the use of the term "nimrod", and the resulting ex-Fauna subscriber who will "never pay that SOB Rich" (this is semantics now) would not forever have "fined and suspended" hanging on their name for such a trivial offense. Again, if they were habitual, it would catch up with them very quickly. Some moderation (that would be "easing of penalties) would reduce the antagonism between members and Moderators, create what is called a "cooling off period", and yet maintain the enforcement goals. There is no current "cooling off period", as if you pay the $10, you are right back.
There is no perfect system. But using the Laidlaw thread as an example, if those folks get slapped with the $10 fine and suspension, it is my opinion that they will be less inclined to pay and return than if they only faced a short suspension. I do not know if Rich has taken action there yet or not, but it meets the current definitions, and I am curious to see how it plays out.
I do not want to see one step backward from the gains Rich has made. Nor do I think that Tom or Kathy do either. For us anyway, it was never about that.

Originally Posted by Chamco

Do me a favor, and find where I have lobbied for "black and white".

OK.

Originally Posted by Chamco

I know that you refer to $10 as a "slap on the wrist". I think to some, as has been indicated in several prior posts, its not so much the $10 (which warrants some significance, as mentioned below) as it is the preceived arbitrariness of the penalty. Its a gray area, as you have stated, but I again defer to the failure by many of us to comprehend the logic of being able to refer to someone as having stolen, or being a liar, vs just calling them a nimrod? I'm not saying any are OK, but in the assessment of fines system, evidently there's a big difference, and that is where I think the problem lies. In the end, part of the explanation seems to be "its my site, the rules are clear enough for me, so be it".

What would an apparent lobbying for a reduction of, or removing, a gray area be other then a request for a more black and white definition?

And concerning your discussion, Jim, with Sammy, let's look at a couple of quotes from you.

Originally Posted by Chamco

As for truly cleaning up the site, I would say that HELL should be on the chopping block and long ago axed. It is an income producer here, and while less despicable, still bears many characteristics of prostitution.

Originally Posted by Chamco

Possible that there may be more than one hard head here, eh?

Now, let's put the above to quotes in context with a later statement you made:

Originally Posted by Chamco

However, only two folks out of about 50 want the use of the word "liar" to get a free pass. I would submit that saying someone has a "history of lying" is just as inflammatory to the recipient as calling them a "liar" in the present situation, and would penalize it just the same. You probably would agree with me that used as you state it, it still has high potential for inflammation. I think that you and I would agree that there is no fine line, one side of which all is OK, and beyond which all is an offense. Using the Laidlaw thread as an example, he was already highly perturbed before he was referred to as a "scumball", based on the accusations of others. While not due to the use of specific words that we could hang a quick tag on, people did make antagonistic statements that the condition of one animal must be reresentative of all his animals, and one even called the Humane Society or some such nonsense. Collectively, those words and actions were far more antagonistic, and unfounded IMO, than just calling him a "nimrod" if it had been done ("scumball" was the word, but Mr. Laidlaw was already well inflamed at that point). The solution is not to define everything ad-nauseum, and create a thousand degrees of violation. But, again IMO, it cries for more moderation.

So, in the one post above you basically accused me of being a "prostitute", but were kind enough to couch the words carefully. And secondly you apparently called me a "hard head" but again maneuvered the wording around to be less accusatory. But in your latest post quoted above, you are saying that such maneuverings should be looked at and treated the same. Did I get that right, Jim? So do you really want myself and the moderators to be THAT hard assed in our enforcement of the rules? If you are so concerned about collateral damage from gray area interpretation of the rules, why are you purposely lobbying for the harder lined approach of strongly defined lines with no wiggle room for interpretation or even discretionary enforcement?

See the benefit of gray areas? The world is full of them, and some people can readily take advantage of them, as we can see. If someone will only stretch their minds a little bit, they can avoid blatantly derogatory name calling just as easily as Jim has here.

Your question:

So tell me, is courtesy so much to ask?

The answer is "no". Is it too much to expect? No. So, what do we do when its not offered? I think we have 80-90 posts on that now.

Well Jim that might be an easier road for the newbies and even the old timers to not have a 1 or 10 point but to have some inbetween but all in all will that add to or subtract from the infractions made? If I can call someone an ass and say get 3 points each time I am more likely to call them an ass than to know that if I do I get 10 points and a suspension and fine.

And who would be willing to pay for all of the programming to do a 1, 3, 5 day suspenions in lieu of a fine? Thats another good thought but just not feasable in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Chamco

3) My solution would be something akin to a warning point and/or suspension system before the fine. Instead of the points being just "one" or "ten", let Rich and the other mods have some middle ground opportunity to assess suspensions with no fines, such as 1-3-5 days. Maybe even a choice between suspension or fine, ie. pay $5-10 now, and you are back in, or wait your full suspension time. People will still be miffed at getting nailed, but I also believe that some of those who have been hit with $10 would feel that a 3 day suspension was easier to swallow, and the point would have been made. Even if they were just as steamed, while they might balk at paying $10 forever, if after 3 days and the door is open again, I think it much more likely they would return. If they are habitual offenders, that is easy to take care of, as thesholds could exist as they do now. I think that it would bring back more offenders "new and improved" than the current system. It also would remove the possibility that the use of the term "nimrod", and the resulting ex-Fauna subscriber who will "never pay that SOB Rich" (this is semantics now) would not forever have "fined and suspended" hanging on their name for such a trivial offense. Again, if they were habitual, it would catch up with them very quickly. Some moderation (that would be "easing of penalties) would reduce the antagonism between members and Moderators, create what is called a "cooling off period", and yet maintain the enforcement goals. There is no current "cooling off period", as if you pay the $10, you are right back.

Nope, not going to happen any time soon. One of the criteria I considered when going to the hadlined enforcement was that the system had to be simple enough to implement, mostly automated to keep me from getting drowned in the additional workload, and effective at reaching my goal as quickly as possible. This criteria has not changed. A multi tiered system would be more difficult to program, and I have no intentions of going to a more manual process. The way it works now, if you get a warning point and your total comes to 10 points or more, you are automatically suspended until you pay the fine. When you pay the fine, the program automatically sets it back up so you have access to the site again. The ONLY notice I even get about it is the PayPal payment notice. That is it. When I or the moderators click on the warning button, the ball goes squarely into your court to do with as you please.

I do not intend to spend much time thinking, "hmm, is this a one pointer, a three pointer, five pointer, or a 10 pointer type of an infraction." My time is worth much more to me then to be spending it sparring with someone trying to work around the system in such a fashion.

So Jim, in a nutshell, what you see here NOW is the way it is going to remain for the foreseeable future. If the poll shows an overwhelming indication for a change, then I will consider this worth bringing up again. But until then, I can't see any reason for responding to the same questions with the same answers any longer.

Originally Posted by Chamco

Your question:


The answer is "no". Is it too much to expect? No. So, what do we do when its not offered? I think we have 80-90 posts on that now.

What do we do when common courtosy is not offered to us?

I for one think we rise above the snide remarks and show that we are the better person.

And there goes that being sarcastic to another member in a post, where are 80-90 post on common courtesty in this thread since we are only on post #96 as I type this?

Originally Posted by dragonflyreptiles

I for one think we rise above the snide remarks and show that we are the better person.

YES. And each time we do this, Fauna gets a little better, a little more professional, a little more of a place that we would be proud to have our names associated with, and to invite our friends come to post and talk about reptiles.

C'mon Rich,
I will not cut and paste, but asking for a reduction in gray area, or for better definitions, is not to expect the "world to be black and white ... etc", or as I think you put it, that "I live in a black and white world". Seeing a need for better rules definitions is a goal of all enforcement authority (and the submitting public) is it not?
As for the "prostitution", here's the text:

You also can't please everybody, and I will be the first to say that there is no perfect solution. As for truly cleaning up the site, I would say that HELL should be on the chopping block and long ago axed. It is an income producer here, and while less despicable, still bears many characteristics of prostitution.

It was post #22. If you had asked me then, I'd have explained it then. I think it a good discussion about similarities. I stand by the comment. But, I apologize now, and would have then, if it seemed to you that I was refering to you in a clever way as being a prostitute. I was saying that "HELL' was as a prostitute, and am actually one that feels it should be eliminated. Not to be consistent with your enforcement policies, but because I feel it truly detracts from the site. However, the discussion was not picked up then. so it whithered until now.

The last quote that you pasted:

Originally Posted by Chamco
Possible that there may be more than one hard head here, eh?

Notice that it is on the plural. In the context back then, it was a reference to you as one party. I was the other. I felt it well below the radar of any warning system, and not in bad taste. Was I wrong?

Your last paragraph:

See the benefit of gray areas? The world is full of them, and some people can readily take advantage of them, as we can see. If someone will only stretch their minds a little bit, they can avoid blatantly derogatory name calling just as easily as Jim has here.

I will take a bow..... But whether you believe me or not, I did not mean any of these inferences as derogatory cheap shots, or "name calling". One was humor, the other was one of my infamous "hypotheticals". If I failed at both, and a punishment were assessed, it would be easier to swallow a one-day suspension than a $10 fine ! I would be wiser, and that's my point !

Rich, again without the pasting, your Post #96 does explain it in ways that I believe are more palatable to us dissenters than the other reasons earlier offered. While not dismissing those earlier reasons, as I am sure you meant them all, it is hard to debate the logic of it not being practical, as you outlined the problems related to a more tiered system.

I have not gone back to the Laidlaw thread. I know where you stand on words like "scumball". I now know where you stand on "liar", etc. I am in complete agreement with your take on them both ... verbatim, as I quoted earlier. I am not looking to see the penalty system enforced there, I only offered it for analysis at your request. I did think it a worthy example not only of getting a better take on the word "liar", which I and others have now, but of also speculating as to the reaction of the parties involved if they found that it cost them $10 to stay, and if that could be improved upon. Maybe it was lost in the shuffle, but I have wanted consideration of the use of the words "liar, thief, crook, etc" on the list of potentially derogatory and antagonistic remarks from the beginning. Just maybe not a $10 fine.

As Sammy said long ago ...... "my sympathies". I do not know where you find the time. I don't know where I do either.