Status check and poll on recent crack down

it is not, and never has been, about whether or not an infraction is warranted. Its not about speeding, and that analogy has already been shown to be supportive of the example of a more "tiered" system. Its been said so many times over in this thread and others. Its about having a better defined system, one that is less subjective, and one that is effective without excessive or unnecessary collateral damage, as indicated by the poll.

Here's a quote form you:

Here, let's use the "liar" vs. "nimrod" example on the BOI. Once it is proven that someone is a liar (either through evidence or one's own admission) referring to someone as a liar is at least justifiable, and frequently relevant to the issue on the table. Being a "liar" is provable, and if someone is proven/admitted to being a "liar"--that's relevant to past, present and future events. However, what the heck does "nimrod" prove? Nothing. It's a derogatory term used against someone when they've used bad judgement. Is it relevant? Hardly. Everyone slips up on occasion and uses bad judgement.

So being a "liar" is provable. Of course, all evidence in the BOI is presented under sworn testimony and threat of perjury. No Paul, it is almost always a matter of opinion. Ask an attorney. Ask Bill Clinton. Look at 95% of the times it has been used in the BOI. It was absolutely a matter of opinion. It may have been the concensus, but it was not "proven". Rich has clearly stated that he wants to tone down the antagonism, flame wars, etc. He has specifically targeted derogatory words and terms. "Liar" is very derogatory if you are on the receiving end, don't you think? As I pointed out in the example for Rich (see the post a few back) go and look at that example. Is it fact or fiction? Is it derogatory? Please LMK what you think, and why. As for balance and degree of antagonism, there are more than a few of us here who can easily let being called a nimrod or knucklehead flow right off us, but thief or liar? All can be antagonistic, but while I respect that being called a nimrod may set you off, more than a few of us would be far more bent out of shape over the other terms.

Lucille, you are exactly right that one person's joking use of "nimrod" or other term may not be read as such. Especially when on paper (or forum) vs. spoken over the phone. No one is lobbying for the free use of the term "nimrod". What we are saying is that, all things considered, its not a $10 fine and suspension either, certainly not if "liar" passes muster most of the time. I am anxious to see Rich's assessment of those fresh examples that I pointed out, made by people who probably have not read this thread prior to making their posts. It is an unstaged test case.

Sammy says:
Liar..... you don't even have to call someone a liar to get you point across. Simply saying John Doe "has a history of lying" gets the same thing across without it being name calling.

You see, what Rich is trying to point out is that by calling people names such as liar, it is just opening things up for more name calling and flames. You have far less chance of flaming if you just state the fact that the person has been caught in lies before instead of calling them a liar.

Simple concept really and it makes sense, to me anyway.

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.

Nearly all law enforcement works on the premise that the enforcers cannot be everywhere and see everything all of the time. Yes, people can and do violate laws all of the time and get away with it. Look above nearly any cash register line in any store and see the darkened globes above them. What are they for? Well they are "security" cameras. The implication there is that there is a possibility that one of the cashiers may be doing something illegal or against company policy. Does each cashier have a single person watching their register the entire time from that camera? Of course not. There is one person or a couple of people watching a bank of screens or else a single screen cycling through all of those cameras. It would be strictly chance if the camera would be on the one cashier's area when he or she decided to pocket that $50 bill. And the cashier knows this. There is certainly the chance it will not be caught, but there is certainly the possibility that he or she will, with painful consequences is caught. Or in some cases if the security personell or suspicious of one of the cashiers, they may spend more time then normal watching this person, which is a prudent thing to do in that kind of circumstance.

What I am doing here is no different. I'm sorry, but every word that everyone posts on this site is just not of interest to me. And I am not going to read everything, nor ask my moderators to do so. So yes, you may get away with violating the rules. But you may not. Just as when the crackdown here began, some people were expected to buck the system, and without doubt myself and the moderators watched them more closely then other people. Simple facts of life. It eases enforcement if you concentrate your efforts where it will be most effective.

I have gotten TONS of emails from people caught in a violation who will point to someone else who got away with the same thing. This is completely irrelevant. The ONLY question that is pertinent is: "Did your post violate the rule or did it not?" A simple YES or NO answer is necessary, which ends that conversation. It makes absolutely no difference at all to your situation what someone else may have done. YOU got caught. You got punished.

Originally Posted by dragonflyreptiles

It is a voluntary action to call someone a name and that may in fact get you suspended.

Originally Posted by Chamco

The key word is "may". A clear policy would make that word "will". You chse "may". Freudian slip?

No, it was not a Freudian slip at all, Jim. It was a reality check for you. But please see above for clarification, if needed. This "black and white" world you wish to live in must be somewhere I am not familiar with. Sorry if you find that atmosphere lacking here, but really, that is just the way it is.

Originally Posted by Chamco

First off, I am leery of setting myself up in such a manner, and I do not use that word often at all. However, if an appropriate test case now exists in the BOI, and it is current and relevent, can it be looked at? Its the thread "Bad Dragon Dealer Colby Laidlaw". I am not lobbying for fines. The thread had an outcome that seemed appropriate. Here's the posts in that thread:

#25) Laidlaw is referred to as a ..... "scumball".......
#26) Laidlaw calls someone a "Liar" in the header
#30) "prison is too good" .... (for Laidlaw)

I have opinions on these three, but we'll wait and see how Rich views them. I thank Rich for the test.

I have no record of anyone reporting those posts.

Secondly, and I am repeating myself again, I am not going to be placed in the position of determining if the term of "liar" is appropriate and truthfull or not. I do not choose sides in a discussion and this is exactly what I would be being asked to do. If I let it slide, then the implication is that I agree with the accusation of lying. If I disagree and assess warning points, then I would be considered as agreeing with that accusation. The warning points (and associated fine and suspension) is for the USE of the word "liar" in a derogatory sense and completely independent of the reasons for the use. I have no intention whatsoever of trying to determine if a derogatorily used term is truthfull or appropriate to the applied target.

Here's the definition of "derogatory":

Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
Tending to detract or diminish.
Expressive of low opinion;

Please note that there is NO indication whatsoever of any relevance to truthfullness or accuracy of the term. Yes, someone can be a liar, but to call them out as such, using the term in an obviously derogatory manner, IS derogatory and against the rules here. NO one calls someone a "liar" to be friendly, nice, or courteous. It is designed to produce a negative reaction. To provoke a response. If someone calls YOU a "liar", how does it make you feel and likely get you to react? THAT is what I am intending to stop from taking place on this site. So if you choose to use that term, or anything else similar that can possibly be determined to be derogatory AND that camera in the globe above you is active, then you will suffer the consequences of your decision for using that term. Again, repeating myself, choose you words with care. The purpose of the BOI (since most of the discussion is revolving around that forum) is to get issues resolved between buyers and sellers where things have gone very wrong. It is NOT to incite conflict, and it is NOT to get discussions heated up into flame wars. And it DEFINITELY is not to be used by someone to just blow off steam and get some crap off their chest by berating and abusing someone else in a public forum.

The 1 - 10 points is laid out pretty loudly as I see it, you call someone a name and it has to be taken within the context of the post, thread and the eye of the reader, you may be pointed for:

1 point: Discourtesy towards another member

10 Points: Name calling and general derogatory statements

So calling someone a name can be taken 2 different ways, were you just being a smartmouth to someone calling them a ***** or were you really trying to degrade the person when you called them a ******.

Every statement can mean so many different things to so many different people, if someone calls me a witch, I may take it as a compliment lol While others may say, how dare them call her a witch for being honest.

That may not be how it is, but that is my perception of the difference in the points. The mods have to do the best they can to make a call on a post, how heated was the discussion, how far out of line was the post, how did the mod take it, as a general discourtesy or as a derogatory statement.

No rules are always fair or foolproof, if they were no innocent person would ever go to jail and no guilty person would be set free.

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.

No I would not agree Jim or I would not have said what I did. Stating a fact and calling someone a name are two different things entirely in my book.

You lied in the past.... you sold diseased animals in the past. Either of those could be inflammatory to the recipient, but it is simply pointing out a fact. Not calling someone a name.

Originally Posted by Chamco

The solution is not to define everything ad-nauseum, and create a thousand degrees of violation. But, again IMO, it cries for more moderation.

Nope. Been over that bridge before. This site doesn't need more moderators at all. It needs less people inclined to violate the rules by just not using common decency and courtesy in their interactions with others in a public medium. THAT is the solution I have chosen to pursue. Anyone who cannot get the hang of the requirements here will be gone, sooner or later, voluntarily or not.

When you say:

No I would not agree Jim or I would not have said what I did. Stating a fact and calling someone a name are two different things entirely in my book.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. The use of the term "liar", past or present in the BOI, has been as an opinion for reasons earlier stated, even if most would agree that so-an-so was a "liar", past or present. Just as calling Mr. Laidlaw a "scumbag". Most would likely have agreed, but it certainly does not make it fact. I will use myself as an example. I have been called a "liar" in a thread here in the past ... before the enforcement days. But it is there. If, in a current thread, someone wishes to discredit me by saring that I have been called a liar in the past, is Rich to research the factual possibility, go and find the old thread, read for 30 minutes, and then pronounce judgement? Then and now, it was opinion, and I guarantee you that any entity that would use such terminology to my face would find some inflammation. I expect that you would react likewise.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Details please. Your claim is that those minor warnings are lumping people together into the more serious ones. So please tell me which of those warnings are causing the problems you are pointing out.

The other thread (disilusioned past contributor) is an illustration of what I wrote of. The other input in this thread supports that concern also.

"Unecessary roughness" - 1 point
"....and general derogatory statements" - 10 points.
The difference between the 2 can be a little grey, and is certainly open to subjective interpretaion.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

I am trying to turn the BOI around from heading towards irrelevance to a place where it can get things done and have people EFFECTIVELY get something done about their problems.

Absolutely the right thing to do, no doubt about it. And I don't think anyone would argue that it is a gargantuan task. My concern is only around the grey areas which are, and possibly will continue to cause these protracted disagreements.

Rich, not all opinions which are contrary to yours are necessarily an attack on this board or your handling of it. Some of us are contributing to the discussion with what we believe are the best interests of this forum at heart. Why - because we believe it has value, and that if your turn-around is successful, will continue to grow in value.

Maybe this really is only a tempest in a teacup though; after all, only a handful of the 26,867 members are even participating in this discussion.

No, it was not a Freudian slip at all, Jim. It was a reality check for you. But please see above for clarification, if needed. This "black and white" world you wish to live in must be somewhere I am not familiar with. Sorry if you find that atmosphere lacking here, but really, that is just the way it is.

Do me a favor, and find where I have lobbied for "black and white". I would place the above characterization by you in about the same category as the following, had I made it:

Rich, you can't handle that members here feel you have over-reached. You put up a poll, which while the majority now takes issue with you, its not a "mandate" to you, so it is of little relevence. In your "ends justify the means" approach, we will stay the course, and there is no need to consider a better course.

Point being Rich, if I continued to spout the second quote, and you the first, I believe we would have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. There's dialogue here, all voluntary. If I have been disrespectful of you, then please indicate where. IMO, I have tried to not restate your words, make assumptions and then draw conclusions, or mischaracterize.