Banning

I would like to see everyone's thoughts about what qualifies someone for banning from Fauna. I want to hear from members, moderators, and admin alike, just to see what everyone thinks about how far people should be able to go before saying "You don't belong here, don't come back."
Is it possible to enforce such a ban?
Should anyone be banned forever, or should there be a time frame for the ban, like a year for example?
I would like to put more thought into this first post, but I am very tired, and just wanted to get the ball rolling.
Below are some thoughts from others posted on the Bill Leverton thread.
A link was put in the thread to this section, SO I took the hint.
Please, if you are taking the time to read this, take a couple minutes to reply. I really would like to hear from everyone on this.Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by Chamco
I think you do a great job. But since you asked: OK, but people have been banned, for whatever reason, and I see few that rise above this, IMO. But with that said, this is a unique case, and probably a unique thread. He applied to be a good guy, and the bigger they are, the harder they fall? No precedent to date is not a binding reason to avoid precedent, circumstances warranted (threshold debatable, of course). Without the adjectives, am I to understand that people who are admitted thieves within the business, can maintain membership and post ads in Fauna, and while someone (and maybe droves) can see the ad and wave flags everywhere warning would-be buyers away, but a sale (and rip-off) may still occur? With Fauna as the vehicle of the ad? And if that person is able to execute some sort of name change, that might be noticed by far less of us, then it is the hope that those few (and maybe very few) will notice and do the flag waving? If the person was banned, every new persona, once identified by just one person and brought to your attention, would be axed. The Gang of Four has much flexibility in deciding what to do, and would be well within all slander and restraint-of-trade concerns due to the participation of Bill in his own crucifixion. Perhaps others who you note as having been "outed" , yet still reside here, would qualify for similar treatment. I'm not espousing that you need to run the tightest ship, but fix a few leaks? Make a few examples? Maybe put integrity back on top, as it now rides below whatever other reasons (serious, no doubt) that have resulted in a banning. All just IMO, and because you asked. If no change yet, so be it, and I can live with the status quo. But this episode begs for official sanctions.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

Originally Posted by The BoidSmith
My position as far as Bill situation has been clear since the start. If we don’t want to give credence to those that say the BOI is a joke Bill has to be suspended. There are a lot of honest people in this site. It is not fair for them to be posting side by side with a person who stole, deceived, lied (initially and to some of the members) and tried to talk his way out of it. Yes, he attempted to manipulate some members (including myself). But he was completely unsuccessful. All those that received that e-mail were patiently waiting for 7/20, then for Lee to post when he received the snake and the money. Bill was told that even that was not going to be enough. That he would have to prove that there was an “identical twin” boa. My thoughts were that Lee was delaying his post because he was waiting the package with the snake in addition to the $200. Right after Bill posted saying that “justice was served”, I replied asking him to post the additional information.

Regards.

Originally Posted by DaveyFig
Neil gubitz was banned in 03 for calling members of the BOI mental midgets, and encouraging using the BOI for entertainment purposes only, and basically making a mockery of it.

Bill has made a mockery the BOI.
Bill has made a mockery of the GGC.
Bill has made a mockery of religion.
Bill has made a mockery of every member here, family , "friends", everyone reading, and the moderators of this site.

Neil may not have done the right thing as fast as people would have liked at times, and not everyone is going to be happy. At least he explained his reasons, or tried to, for mistakes he made, and made an effort to correct them. He never flat out stole.Ever instance I can think of, he tried to compensate in some way, shape or form.He did encourage someone to take the BOI with a grain of salt though....BANNED

Bill toyed with everyone. He tried to turn his friends against someone who was obviously justified in posting. He later admitted to theft, all the while still privately trying to convince those same friends of his innocence, and lead them to believe that he WAS doing the right thing.The methods he used are almost creepy. Jesus Juice type stuff. Kept the important names from questioning him, bought time by dosing them with info (BS as it turns out).
There is no doubt in my mind that he is, or was using different names on the BOI.
I don't know how to wrap this post up nice and neat , so uh..yeah...there is what I am thinking.

Originally Posted by DaveyFig

I would like to see everyone's thoughts about what qualifies someone for banning from Fauna. I want to hear from members, moderators, and admin alike, just to see what everyone thinks about how far people should be able to go before saying "You don't belong here, don't come back."

This probably isn't the response you're looking for, but if people could just behave themselves, act like adults and follow the rules of the forum in which they are participating, there wouldn't be a need to ban anyone... in my opinion.

BUT, apparently some members are either not willing or able to behave, act like adults or follow some simple rules. Thus the need for moderators who have to make judgement calls based upon established rules and alleged violations.

SO, for the folks who can't behave, act like adults and follow the rules, I guess they get what they have coming to them. I understand honest mistakes and occasional screw-ups, but repeat offenders are just signing their own discharge. What's sad is when a very knowledgable and helpful person is banned because of their behavior.

The way I see it is that it would be like Heaven and Hell but hell is really what you, yourself has created. People are living in their own hell right here and now.......and I betcha they are burning as I type....hopefully.

It's a great idea but what good would it do to ban someone? I think the only good it would do is give the rest of us good guys satisfaction knowing that a scumbag can no longer "hang out" and play with the rest of the kids. I think it would be tough to actually ban someone logistically. It sounds great and all but I would imagine it requiring alot of policing.

It is definitely a nice thought and it would be great if these A-holes would just disappear but I just don't think it could be a realistic possibility.

I do however think that these morons should be stripped of all their rep. points and good guy certs. especially if you are an admitted thief, scammer.

Banned vs suspended.
You stated that Neil Gubitz was banned in 03...I wasn't here then, but I see Neil's posts from time to time. So was that "ban" lifted, allowing his return? Or was he "banned" for a specific period of time (& isn't that a suspension)? In any event, there are (as D Thomas pointed out) others that are known liars, cheats, and scammers that are still here. They may have been suspended at various times for their actions - I don't know. THE thing that sets Bill apart was his GGC label. IMHO, regardless of what may have happened in the past, this precedent should not go unanswered; and so, I say that YES, Bill Leverton should be suspended and stripped of his reputation (Barring, of course, the production of the various proofs requested - police reports, pictures, damage claim forms, letters from UPS regarding the animal, etc). I noticed that his rep power is currently at 0, but his rep points are still 2500+ (I don't understand that part, but that is another thread, and I have given up understanding such things).

I think if someone gets busted scamming the space where the membership medallion goes should be replaced with the first picture and their avatar replaced with the second picture. If they want to continue to participate here it will be obvious to all others the character of that individual.

As I mentioned in the Bill Leverton thread, and was noted in an earlier post here, I would like to see the site managers of Fauna Classifieds (referred to as "The Board") consider some standards of business ethics, which, once crossed, warrant consideration for the offending individual being permanently banned from the ability to profit in any way from use of the Fauna site. This person should specifically not be allowed to advertise, post in any forum, or influence the good-standings of others. Being a crime, incidents of theft would be at the top of the list of offenses warranting banning consideration. The board should also be open to occurrances of lying, misrepresentation, etc. I am not espousing more specific rules and standards, although a few could be adopted by the Board. I am recommending that the Board make it a practice to consider significant ethical breaches, with the actions of Bill L. serving as one example, as being worthy of permanent banning, or at least long-term suspension, from all Fauna vehicles.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

I can't see banning Bill unless all the people who have been proven to have scammed others are banned also. I do not know them all, but I do not think Jesse Underhill was ever banned, and he was as bad as they get I think. I believe the reason that Jesse became a "big name" here was because he was not banned, and some of the members were able to find him no matter what alias he tried using. I do not think it will be a good idea for "known" scammers to work only under the radar, and the BOI is a good radar.

There should be cause for banning. Whether this is permanent or for a set time, I don't know. Maybe a 6 month first time and then permanently or the second time. Something that does give a way to redeem themselves before making it so they can never be back on Fauna.

As far as cause, things like intent, level of deception and the effort and amount of it should be weighed. Most are in agreement about one time mistakes, accidents, etc that hardly warrant a bad guy post or rating. But for calculating scammers and practicioners of deceipt - BAN them.

There are much betters things we can focus on then them.

The fact that we are even discussing this is quite disturbing. It doesn’t matter what happened in the past and “look at what happened with so and so”. There have been suspensions for those that have been verbally abusive, those disrespectful to the site, and those that have posted under faked identities. These are all “minor issues” compared to the one at hand. Hundreds here have children. Do you let them play with delinquents? No? I wonder why that is. Just remember the Chinese saying: “you get close to red ink you get stained red, you get close to black ink you get stained black”. Just think about it.

Originally Posted by Ophis

Keep your friends close....but keep your enemies closer.

I don't see a reasonable point in banning. A person can reappear under a different name, change all their information, and pretend to be someone else. Happens all the time, though they do have a tendency to get caught as they don't change their online personality.

No one needs to be bothered by anyone they don't wish to hear from. If someone PMs you or emails you you can use the delete feature instead of reading. Don't read that persons posts. Gee, someone even has a link in their signature to ignore a person....so the option for that is there.

There are plenty of people who seem to come here just to be contrary and aggravate certain other people. Some of them are exposed bad guys and I've noticed that many people simply disregard their presence rather than demand they be banned.

I would rather allow a person to continue using the forum. That way you can see what they have to say and to whom they are saying it. If they have to assume an identity they may do some damage before they are discovered.

I keep my friends by my side, my enemies walk in front of me.