Rules Clarification Requested

Here's is post #78 from the Bobby Pruett Thread in the BOI, authored by me today. Here's a link to that part of the thread:

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...3&page=8&pp=10

My request is better addressed here in the Feedback Forum.

Dr Jay etc.

Alec's request about the warning points caught my attention, so here goes.

Here's the applicable BOI statute verbatim, cited in both dings:

And here's the comments you guys gave as the reason for assessing warning points:

And here is the post by Alec that was dinged, #72 above:

First off, there is no currently stated rule against name calling. Bobby Pruett has been shown to be many less-than-honorable things, such as a thief, liar, stalker, etc etc etc. Maybe some would call those "statements of fact", while the term "garbage" is more an analogy. Are you guys telling the members of the Board that use of the word "garbage" as a label is an offense now, and if so, can we get Rich to clarify the rules so that anyone who reads the rules will know ? Can we then get a clarification on the use of the other words which I referenced ? Can you then mesh this with Rich's post the other day that more leniency is to be expected in the BOI regarding "abusiveness" ? Can you also let me know what is the purpose and meaning of the word "overly" as in "overly abusive" ?

It may be as simple as some discussion or edict by Rich in the Mod-forum about a new standard of enforcement. That's fine. If so, I would hope that there was enough respect for participants and paid members here to be given the opportunity to know it. Thanks in advance .

Beside's the above discepencies which I saw between the cited infraction and the rules, there is another one that also jumps off the page:
Does Bobby Pruett meet the definition of "another member"?

Opinions and explanations are obviously solicited, although one ad-hoc mod seems to have already endorsed my interpretation of things. In advance, I do not expect all gray areas to be removed from this or other rules interpretations, judgement calls, etc. I don't think this is about "gray area". Its specifically about "name-calling", and name calling directed at a non-member, or at least certainly a non-participant. Note that Alec, the offender, claims to be owed money by Pruett, and is not someone stalking Pruett's shadow from thread to thread.

Jim I guess I better refrain from using any kind of word that means refuse. But Jim you know the ole saying, "If it looks and smells like refuse, it is refuse.". This including and derogatory terms that "overly" refer to it

I won't kid you, but I thought using the word "garbage" showed considerable restraint. As I mentioned in the other thread, God help us should anyone resurrect a TSE thread. "He was at times a troubled lad ....... but God bless him !"

The silence is a bit deafening.

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

The silence is a bit deafening.

As I understand it the issuing of warning points or not issuing of warning points is solely up to the discretion of the adjunct moderator (or super mod) who reads the post in question, and his/her interpretation of the particular infraction as pertains to the forum rules as stated.

In other words~
Whoever issued the point is the only one who can decide if the word "garbage" is in fact derogatory and to whom he/she considers it derogatory.

Agreed Cheryl, but "derogatory" is not the standard. Dr. Jay, whom I hold I very high regard here, said specifically that "name calling is not allowed". While I do not believe that to be a verbatim interpretation of the rules, I also do not see that is has been adopted as a general interpretation anywhere either, as in all my recollections where "name-calling" was cited, it was where the target of the antagonism was a participating component of the debate. As I noted, there are several "stretches" of every explanation of the rule to have it embrace calling Bobby Pruett garbage. If it had just been John Apple dinging Alec, no big deal. But having a Super-Mod do it, stating it as he did, seems to affirm it as more the standard. The "rule" rather than the "exception". Alec cried foul of course when the warning PM's came in. That's what got my attention.

Jim, I look at it this way.

When you're writing a post, usually you know when you're walking the line to get dinged. Sometimes you do (get dinged), sometimes not. I mean, look at my warnings. Were they warranted? Personally, I don't think so. Frankly, I've said worse things here, and never gotten slapped for it. John Apple gave me one, and I LIKE John Apple.

If someone thinks I have stepped over the line here or there, and dings me, I don't lose any sleep over it.

At the rate I'm going, I'll be dead before I get booted. Needless to say, at that point, I will not be renewing my club membership.

Jim R.
All that you said is true, although I am not going to give your warnings an evaluation ... LOL. If "name-calling" is to be the standard, with this as an example, then so be it. That is my request for clarification. If that is the case, I do think they need to amend the rule explanation a bit <cough>. I realize that it will go "undinged" many times because it was not seen by someone with a bullet chambered. But it occurs and goes unchecked many times more than that, and not for lack of ammo. I do not like singling out Dr. Jay, as my respect for him is genuine. But he called another entity here a "liar" last week, who was participating in the debate. I can understand that there is an added degree of antagonism to such name calling when it is at someone, and as such it would be higher on the radar. But this example of Pruett represents probably the most benign form of name-calling possible here. Its not in a gray area of the rules. Its just calling Bobby Pruett garbage.

Jim, I think it's a gray area, left to the discretion of the mods. If I called you Jimbo, nobody would think twice about it, most likely. If I called you &%^$%^&^, (which I wouldn't), that would be a foul. Everything else is somewhere in between.

If I was trying to administrate this joint, I certainly would not want to have to micro-manage to that degree.

Jim R.,
If this is about "discretion", then let them say it as such, although it would be a poor excuse. Your example does not fit this, as has been indicated, as calling me "&%^$%^&^" in a thread is not to call someone "garbage" who is not a party to the thread. Interpretations of what may be "overly abusive" is certainly subjective. I want to know if any name calling is now deemed as being "overly abusive". I can't even see this example as "abusive". As I said, it can't be more benign.

We all have to make choices about renewing membership here, doing it for bucks, etc. As someone who has put over $400 into Fauna coffers in the past three years, I am asking for a simple clarification.

Well, that is a valid question. I don't know the answer. Gotta hit the sack.