Can We Enforce a Higher Level of Accountablity?

Deborah Broadus:

I read through and come to the conclusion that people think when we are trying to "encourage" people to do the right thing that we enjoy "bashing" or that the intention is to destroy businesses.

I know this is true: All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

That said, if everyone is constantly saying, "I can't force anyone to do anything, it's not my job..etc, then who's job is it? The concept of "self" policing is that WE do encourage people to do the right thing and we do it with the legal tools we have at hand (including our mouths).

For the BOI to step to the next level, and become what it is destined to be (imho) as it is suggested...it SHOULD have a policy that no one can run ads who does not have a clean reputation..this doesn't mean sterling reputation..it means no one with unresolved issues ON THIS BOARD should be able to post ads or even be on here...we can even take it one step further and say that the main forums form a partnership..that would be a GREAT encouragement for scammers to stay on the straight and narrow. If they can leave one place and post in another place that's not going to help the community much and will still give them an avenue to scam people.

Those of us that are unwittingly helping them by trying to "take the high road".. it could be you next...somewhere down the line, they will have sold an animal to someone you know...you might come in contact with that animal..even at a show..somewhere they are going to have a sick animal with a virus that is going to wipe out every animal you own....and that is more possible than anyone dreams.

*** now off my soap box

************************************************** ********

WebSlave:

Do you want the authority and responsibilty to enforce that?

************************************************** ********

Gary Orner Jr:

LOL, That would be one big job.........
Thanks Steve!

************************************************** ********
Maggie Burroughs:

Deb, although in a perfect world (this one being FAR from perfect) your idea is a great one, realistically it won't work. You do have the best interest of everyone in mind though and I have to give you kudos for that!

With just about every forum I belong to having either their own Bad Guy forums (or on others they will actively refer people here) there is information about the scammers out there for those who choose to look for it.

We can't take all the responsibility from the buyers to research their next purchases, it's just not possible. We should be here to help if they need us, though.
__________________
I'm an insomniac. Each night when I can't sleep, I count the buckles on my straight-jacket.

************************************************** ********

Randy Mackey:

Deborah, there have been bad guy threads here where there was no doubt the bad guy was a scumbag. Yet one thing that is often missing from Bad guy threads is real solid proof you know something that say you could take into a court of law(believe me without that kind of proof someone is going to end up in court if they follow your suggestion) As has been noted it's a great idea you have but not at all a workable idea.

We often go by the word of someone we know and respect on this forum but again people like Chris Johnson come to mind who had most folks here eating out of his hand up until it was to late. I can tell you this that if two years ago he had started a bad guy thread about you or me that we'd have taken a lot of heat.

This site or any of its kind can only be a tool to help You make a decision, not make a decision for You..Randy
__________________
Staying in Bed Screaming Oh GOD! OH GOD! OOOHH GOOODD!! Does not constitute going to church..

I can assure you, these next four weeks will be the worst YEARS of your miserable lives!

************************************************** ********

Originally Posted by WebSlave
Do you want the authority and responsibilty to enforce that?

Deborah Broadus:

I am no one, but a seeker of an Ideal. I was thinking that it could be done electronically.

My idea is (bear with me) We do (over all the herping community) push the GGC as a mark of a good businessman..such as BBB. As it catches on people will not buy from those (or buy less) that do not display this emblem.

This emblem can be (?) electronically set up to close down the membership if their good guy rating falls below a set point (this gives them "some" leeway) It's like, if I lose my password I can't sign on. Similarily, if someone has such a number of bad guy points they can no longer sign on and someone can review certificates on a regular basis and contact those people to see what has happened or if any progress has been made, OR the OPs that started the tread can send a pm to the moderator to let them know that the situation has been resolved and post the resolution on the boards.

Its the same set up with a few changes to increase accountablity. Not being technically inclined, I would set up such a thing if I knew how. ( I am not trying to make any more work for anyone)

************************************************** ********

Maggie Burroughs:

Originally Posted by LakesideBoas
Deb, although in a perfect world (this one being FAR from perfect) your idea is a great one, realistically it won't work. You do have the best interest of everyone in mind though and I have to give you kudos for that!

With just about every forum I belong to having either their own Bad Guy forums (or on others they will actively refer people here) there is information about the scammers out there for those who choose to look for it.

We can't take all the responsibility from the buyers to research their next purchases, it's just not possible. We should be here to help if they need us, though.

Deborah Broadus:

I will not be consigned to the back seat and given a pat on the head! Pshaw

It can be done. The Better Business Bureau has a similar set up, correct? They give out emblems and take them back if the person does not align themselves to recognized good business practices. We would be taking it one step farther and perhaps it can be done electronically, I don't know..but until someone gets the idea and creates some software (or whatever these brainy people do) we won't be doing much but spinning our wheels. How many times have we read: "I would give them a second chance?" Oh my lord.

I am not suggesting doing the buyers searching or decison-making for him, I am suggesting a more stricter accountablity system on our own forum for those that carry the GGC or are members here; an accountablity system that can be expanded to include those forums that plug into the dream.

************************************************** ********

Originally Posted by LakesideBoas: Maggie Burroughs:

Deb, I would never try to patronize you! I sincerely apologize if you took my post that way.

I admire your gusto, your enthusiasm and your genuine concern for others that comes through in almost every post you make. You remind me not be as jaded and cynical as I might become without you, so please never think you're getting a milk-bone and a pat on the head from me.

Deborah Broadus:

Thank you, I know sometimes I have a hard time putting the ideal on the paper, there are so many things, actions, improvements that can be made in this trade.

The way I see it: The gas company has price controls, as does the housing and merchandising arenas. The reptile trade is largely unregulated and unless we regulate ourselves or set up our own watch dog(s)(stronger accountablity controls), I can see the government taking more and more control as we continue to show evidence that we are unwilling or unable to do this. We know what we need so who better to police us than ourselves?

Setting it up legally is another issue, but the first step has to be taken some time, somewhere by some one. We can't long expect these scammers to fly below the radar of the law. Eventually they will come into the gun-sight of some politican that wants to make a name and they will say when we speak up.."If you feel that you should be a "self-policing" community, why havent you been doing that?" and....they will more than likely bring up the same arguments that I did..too many people not wanting to be involved, trying to hold onto some "moral" clause while scammers continue to feed off everyone elses morals, having none themselves.

Visual: A person wades though a swamp and comes up with a ton of leeches sticking on him...he leaves them on because he's an animal lover and believes that "they have a right to live too"; he later dies because they bleed him to death. farfetched..but that's how I see scammers and those that try to hold onto a moral standpoint when dealing with them. (move over Wilomn). They may not have done anything overt to US personally, but that's only because they haven't had the chance yet.

Seriously, with new diseases coming in..it may be a matter of time before CDC takes notice and steps in?

Scammers put us all at risk of losing our animals one way or another...some may think this may be the extreme way of viewing the situation, but given that so many have already lost collections, I don't think so.

In my opinion you are on a good track, but it would take some thought to craft a policy that would be neither overinclusive so that for instance, those who have differing opinions on business policies are not harmed if reasonable minds could differ; nor underinclusive, for instance; not taking issue with parts of the deal that while they may not techically be a scam are nevertheless wrong (like shipping certain critters USPS that are not supposed to be shipped in that manner).

Plus, there would need to be some safeguards; you would not want a sharp dealer to open a sham issue at the beginning of the selling season as a way to remove a competitor's ads for a while.

It is important too, to allow people some freedom to speak, and with the current policies in place they can do so and be met with the feelings of the community; that can sometimes be more valuable than a policed silence.
Good thread, Deborah.

Deb, did all these quotes come from another thread? Or are they a compilation of several threads?

It would be nice if "bad guys", scammer's and the like would find it difficult to advertise anywhere. I don't believe it is necessary to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that an individual is bad for our hobby/industry in order to ban their ads. Kingsnake seems to do it on a regular basis, and, though people complain, there hasn't been any lawsuits that I am aware of.

Originally Posted by kmurphy

Deb, did all these quotes come from another thread? Or are they a compilation of several threads?

It would be nice if "bad guys", scammer's and the like would find it difficult to advertise anywhere. I don't believe it is necessary to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that an individual is bad for our hobby/industry in order to ban their ads. Kingsnake seems to do it on a regular basis, and, though people complain, there hasn't been any lawsuits that I am aware of.

The posts are a compilation of one thread, but please drop it. It was simply an idea that I had without researching the history of the site. It was not an intention to cause more work for Rich or those entrenched in the history of Fauna.

I have been informed that Rich doesn't need a garage-breeder know-it-all coming in and causing trouble and as I hate nastiness, I woudl prefer to drop it.

Deborahbroadus, you just started this thread today and you want to drop it already?

I would like to have a link to the main thread, thanks.

Its a real brain fart of a thread I'll tell you that.

Very interesting thread topic Deborah!

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

The posts are a compilation of one thread, but please drop it. It was simply an idea that I had without researching the history of the site. It was not an intention to cause more work for Rich or those entrenched in the history of Fauna.

I have been informed that Rich doesn't need a garage-breeder know-it-all coming in and causing trouble and as I hate nastiness, I woudl prefer to drop it.

First of all, that was rude and uncalled for. I don't know who told you that, Deb, but shame on you whoever you are.

Nothing says Rich has to discuss, compile or implement anything you propose in this discussion. It is simply what it is, a discussion. I didn't see where you even mentioned Rich or Fauna as being a venue for anything other than this discussion.

I have to do some errands, but I'll be back in a little while. I don't see any reason why we have to shoot down anyone who cares to discuss something that has the potential to benefit all of us. Brainstorming an idea is the quickest way I know of to get ideas and issues together and closer to resolution.

If we all acted like a bunch of ignorant peasants every time someone proposed an idea then this site probably wouldn't be here now would it......

Play nice children.

Originally Posted by LakesideBoas

First of all, that was rude and uncalled for. I don't know who told you that, Deb, but shame on you whoever you are.

Nothing says Rich has to discuss, compile or implement anything you propose in this discussion. It is simply what it is, a discussion. I didn't see where you even mentioned Rich or Fauna as being a venue for anything other than this discussion.

I have to do some errands, but I'll be back in a little while. I don't see any reason why we have to shoot down anyone who cares to discuss something that has the potential to benefit all of us. Brainstorming an idea is the quickest way I know of to get ideas and issues together and closer to resolution.

If we all acted like a bunch of ignorant peasants every time someone proposed an idea then this site probably wouldn't be here now would it......

Play nice children.

I agree.

Whoever said it must hate the free interplay of ideas.

While every discussion doesn't bear fruit, those who participate benefit in many ways: listening to the ideas of others, the community bonds that come from courteously listening to those who care enough about a site to invest time thinking about it.

If you don't think a particular discussion is your cup of tea, no one is forcing participation, but to quash an idea from its inception doesn't benefit anyone.

Actually Maggie, this was discussed in some detail while you were on hiatus. I don't recall which forum at the moment but I think the general consensus was that short of Napoleon or Hitler taking over and forcing everyone to obey some sort of guideline there is no way to enforce any sort of standard other than a case by case basis.

There are those like me who don't want a GGC. It can be used as a negative, and it was in my case, by those with personal grudges. Wanny guess which 5 dimwits, none of whom had ever done business with me, voted me a bad guy? Go ahead and try, it's not to tough to figure out.

Then there's the whole "what if" syndrome. "What if" someone is lying? Who's going to make that call? We do as a group after we've done some investigating or looking into our navels or whatever we do to come up with our positions on any given subject, but if you try to regulate that, I'm out. I don't play well with others and have no desire to be part of an organization that abidicates doing so as the only way to operate.

Being The Wild West is really the best way that has come up out of several years of trying different approaches to what you would like to achieve.

Your goals are admirable, I'll give you that.

Good luck on the rest.