Another disillisioned past contributor

Well, the warning system as it is now was made so because of technical considerations as well as practical ones (in the sense of how I wanted it to work). The warning system itself is a hack that was made by someone a while back for an older release of vBulletin. I asked my programmer to incorporate this hack into my copy here of vBulletin, then when I upgraded to a newer version (but not the NEWEST), he had to extensively modify the code to fit. This latest change was a further hack of a hack, in that he modified it further to accommodate some specs I presented to him in how I wanted it to work for the current iteration.

There were compromises, of course, that were necessary based on how the old code worked and how extensive new modifications would need to be in order to make it work in certain ways I had requested. The original code already had the facility to ban a person automatically when they reach a certain point level. I wanted that to be a fine and suspension whereby the member would get an email concerning the suspension plus a way to pay the fine through PayPal. All of this would be transparent to me and not require any manual intervention for it to work. If you recall, at one time I maintained a thread that showed all members who had been fined and suspended. This was getting to be a real pain in the butt. I felt that when I cracked down on the abuses here, it would get MUCH worse, so automating this process was one of the top priorities.

BTW, this is why the original email sent said "ban" rather then "suspended". Quite frankly, I just never noticed the wording simply because I don't get a copy of that email sent, so I had never actually read one.

Now the problem is that there were a couple of ways to do things.

(1) When someone reached the suspension limit, the automated suspension would kick in and they would be suspended until the fine is paid and the system would then automatically lift the suspension. At that time the warning points would be cleared and then the member would be starting with a clean slate with zero warning points on their record.

(2) As above, when the fine was paid, the warning points would NOT be cleared, which would then jeopardize the member with the fact that any even minor 1 point infraction would kick the fine and suspension into gear from that infraction.

I had to choose one of those two scenarios. In #1, I felt the major drawback there was that there would then be no history available for warning points assessed to members. This concerned me, because one of the strengths of the present system is that it gave everyone an easily viewable audit trail of what myself and the moderators are doing here to enforce the rules. When someone claims that so-and-so had been unfairly placing warning points against a particular member, it is a simple matter for me to look into it (and anyone else as well) to review the posts that got the warning points, and therefore determine the truth of that allegation. I felt this would be an adequate safeguard against any moderator (or myself as well) going off the deep end and not being accountable for it other then by hearsay. So quite honestly, I really did not want to give this up.

Yet #2 has issues as well. Is it fair that someone who has 9 points already on their record to get fined and suspended for something minor, such as putting 5 lines within their signature area or putting in an animated avatar? Why no, it is not. But on the other hand, is someone with over 50 points and who should obviously be rather conversant with the rules around here, really just making a mistake, or are they just trying to see how far they can push the limits with yet another offense, even minor?

Yes, perhaps I could have paid my programmer more money to further hack the system to make it perfect (if such a thing is really possible), but with all things considered, I felt that the compromise would have to do until I felt it worthwhile to address the shortcomings sometime in the future. For now, the sharp rap on the knuckles seemed the only way to get peoples' attention, even if some aspects it are notably unfair.

As for the trader ratings and GGC polls, only paid members can vote on them. This was done simply because to do otherwise would have been foolish on my part. If it were otherwise, anyone at all could register 100 times with bogus member IDs and skew the ratings or polls however they wished. This could be done either to slam someone they didn't like, or to give false pats on the back to someone they liked.

As for the karma system, to be honest I just don't remember what restrictions are in place there. I think there was an issue with people posting negative karma (or "reputation" at that time), that I needed to restrict, but I am not positive what I may have done.

I have started a reply to this thread I don’t know maybe 4 or 5 times, then erased it, scratched my head, started another post and viewed the thread again, hit my head on my monitor a few times, erased my post.
I agree with many points made by all, but I don’t have the stomach to keep stewing over any of it.

I will just ask a simple question to anyone.

Why do you support this site? Or as of late, Why did you support this site? Is that not the “Big Picture” here.

I know why I do. I support and believe in the concept of BOI regardless of the rule changes. I don’t find the need to agree with every new rule or decision made here and I don’t agree with some. If I disagree, I have and will in the future post my opinion on it and move on. If a rule is made and becomes so unbearable that it causes my support to disappear, I will no longer contribute. Seems extremely simple to me.
As long as I find this site useful and an asset to my interests, my support will continue.

While I am a contributor here and show support monetarily and try to be helpful to those who seek it, I don’t expect to have a voice on how anything is managed on here. I post because it is something I want to do. I contribute because it is something I want to contribute to. I don’t expect anything for my contributions because my contributions are self-serving in the sense I derive satisfaction for whatever reason.

I was going to post here about all the points I agree with that were made by members and the ones I agree with Rich on, but does it really matter? I don’t think so. This is Fauna now with rules we have to work within. Can you still support this site as it is?

I can. It’s still valuable to me.

Interesting bottom line assessment, Dennis.

And I guess what this further boils down to is that I have to ponder on what it is about the rule changes that make this site much less valuable to some members. And that is probably what puzzles me the most. Why is my desire to clean up this site, and having to get pretty strict in order to do so, such a burr under the saddle for some people? Is it a case of people wanting things to change, but the grass was not actually greener on the other side of the fence? Or is it a case of people wanting the rules only enforced against the "other" guy" and got incensed that it encompassed their actions here as well? As an example, in some cases, I have gotten reported posts where people would say, in essence "I want you to give that idiot warning points because he called me an idiot."

Sure, no one is going to like everything I do here, but I find it difficult to accept that I am actually getting arguments that people may be mostly in agreement that derogatory name calling is bad, but some is not so bad and should be allowed. And the argument ensues about where the line actually should be drawn. Yes, I know that someone can really be a "liar", but does actually calling someone that term, even if it is the truth, do anything helpful within a thread? The recipient of such a label goes immediately on the defensive, and generally will respond in like kind, with some other derogatory name applied to the person who called them out. And it spirals downhill rapidly from there, where serious discussion has basically ended, and just replaced by emotional outbursts of no real substance or value to anyone. Why give a bad guy a reason to avoid the real issue of the thread by then turning to personal attacks that only obscure the real issue with smoke and loud noises?

My goal with all of this is to try to make this site more useful and more valuable to everyone. In my opinion, this is not possible if it had continued on the road it was on with all of the considerable pettiness that name calling and emotionally contentless posting that was taking place. To those people who found value in being able to post in that manner, and those people who found value in the entertainment aspect of reading such outbursts, I do hate to disappoint you, but if I have any say in this, that aspect of this site is now over with.

The site is still of value to us, and I think it a safe conclusion to draw that we would not be here with our time if it were not. We have also stated such rather directly. I keep getting the impression from what I read that there is no acknowledgement of a middle ground in the use of some terms, or the context in which they are used. The last time that I checked the poll, of the 40% or so that dissented with leaving the current level of enforcement exactly is it now is, about 94% (all but one) suggested a little more moderation, or scaling back. The choice was there to return it to being wide open, and it was not chosen but by one entity out of about 30 total votes. If you want to argue the merits of the current rules and their enforcement vs. that one lone vote of dissent for no rules, you already have an overwhelming plurality of people who agree with you, including every participant in this thread.
Let me take issue with this part of your post Rich:

Yes, I know that someone can really be a "liar", but does actually calling someone that term, even if it is the truth, do anything helpful within a thread? The recipient of such a label goes immediately on the defensive, and generally will respond in like kind, with some other derogatory name applied to the person who called them out. And it spirals downhill rapidly from there, where serious discussion has basically ended, and just replaced by emotional outbursts of no real substance or value to anyone. Why give a bad guy a reason to avoid the real issue of the thread by then turning to personal attacks that only obscure the real issue with smoke and loud noises?

For the sake of what brevity is possible, I choose only to discuss the situation of where someone who has lied, or stolen, or scammed, is labeled as such, which is the essance of the question that you raised. Surely if that were the only tactic, or word choice used by all who posted in a thread to the affirmative, that someone had lied, then the possibility of a solution would be proportionially diminished. It is of greatest value to the complainant, usually the thread starter, to maintain some level of civility. But there is also value, in some circumstances, for the majority of the contributing public, after having seen the evidence, to voice varying levels of disdain if someone has behaved in a criminal manner. There is absolute value in the individual in-the-wrong seeing that the community does not agree, and sees their current status as unacceptable, perhaps mildly unacceptable by some, and completely repugnant by others, if that is their feeling. If a derogatory label is used, I cannot lend my support to the opinion that the discussion of a criminal act (within our ability to consider such) only then takes on an ugliness, or only then turns the "defendant" immediately defensive beyond the point of a reconciliation. I also fully acknowledge that it can make a bad situation worse, but just as in my earlier hard-cell soft-cell example, there is a time and a place for antagonism if someone is in the criminal hotseat. Your own earlier words in a prior post Rich suggest that the use of derogatory words is only "very likely" to earn a warning. I agree that is as it should be. I agree that it also may be applicable 90% of the time, if anyone had the time to read the entire context, which they do not. All of it is subjective. And forgive me, but I readily admit to enjoying a good debate. The continuing concern to me, that I have raised in every post, is that it not be an all-or-nothing penalty, that is, "no-warning" or "suspension and fine", and that suspension and fine only be for the most egregious use of derogatory terms. I have asked several times for someone to explain to me how the current enforcement of the use of words such as "clown or idiot or liar, etc" is justifiably equivelent with conveyance of a threat of bodily harm, which is where it has been placed in the heirarchy of offenses. There is middle ground to be found, where instead of debating 0 or 10 points (with the automatic fine), the issue would be more along the lines of "you gave me four points instead of just two, and I disagree". While my example displays that disagreements will always exist, it also displays that disagreements can be entertained, just as some well-placed direct terminology can, without maximizing the antagonism inherent with making the point.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

I have started a reply to this thread I don’t know maybe 4 or 5 times, then erased it, scratched my head, started another post and viewed the thread again, hit my head on my monitor a few times, erased my post.

lol... ME TOO. Well, maybe only 2-3 times and I didn't hit my head on the monitor, but I just can't figure out WHAT my opinion on both this issue or the "status poll on recent crackdown..." is. At one point I had a lengthy reply all ready to go and had even spell-checked and previewed it, but I changed my mind on posting it and I'm not real sure why. Maybe it's because I know my opinion on any topic or issue here isn't worth the paper it's written on (figuratively speaking) but I guess I still like to think that it might help, even if only in a miniscule way.

But, since Dennis' question narrows it down a bit, ...

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

I will just ask a simple question to anyone.

Why do you support this site? Or as of late, Why did you support this site? Is that not the “Big Picture” here.

I support this site because I honestly feel that it has been an invaluable source of advice and information on MANY aspects of reptile-keeping and propagation. I have a ton of books on reptiles, many of which I've had for nearly 10 years, yet I can honestly say that I've learned more applicable information here. Books don't really cover ethics and general practices of the herp industry the way Fauna does. The "buyer protection" that the BOI offers alone is worth more than my contributions to this site. Even though some of the petty stuff does get really irritating at times, it's still just that--petty. In the grand scheme of things not being able to look beyond the petty stuff at the "Big Picture" would easily allow someone to get bent out of shape over relatively insignificant details.

Okay, maybe I will add part of one of my previous replies.

When I got my well-deserved warning points I was embarrassed, not angry. Even though I had been here a relatively short amount of time compared to some members, I knew better. Period. I just got defensive, ticked off and bent out of shape over relatively insignificant crap that wouldn't have meant a darn thing a few months down the road. My tuition doesn't buy me any special privileges or leniency at school, and I wouldn't expect my contributions here to do that either. Furthermore, if I don't agree 100% with the school's policies (and believe me, I don't.) I have two choices. I can either just deal with it and not let it get to me, or I can embark on a crusade to overhaul the school's policies and practices and throw my weight and opinions around trying to tell the administration how things *should* be done. Although it's really tempting at times, I have to remind myself why I'm there and I just have to sit back and "play the game." Maybe it's not the best analogy, but it's the only one I've got right now.

People go places that feed them, whether the 'food' is valuable advice, friendship, business contacts, and so on.
Of course, some people were getting bad nutrition here for a while. They fed on drama, spectacle, and the dubious pleasures of insulting others.
Those who had to have such in their diet are gone or leaving, and I hope that the remaining people make an effort to kindle friendships and help new members.
A little change for the good here is a way that we can improve the whole site. I would like to think we could all begin a fresh new year and focus on making the reptile hobby stronger and better.

Guess it’s an epidemic. I started to respond a couple times yesterday and changed my mind as well. Probably a good thing~ my car blew up yesterday and I doubt I would have come off sounding like anything other than a person with a HUGE attitude (considering I was in the middle of an attitude~ that makes sense).

But……considering I am the “disillusioned past contributor” who started this thread, I guess I feel like I have to give an answer.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

Why do you support this site? Or as of late, Why did you support this site?

That’s actually a pretty complicated question. Open to interpretation~ I’d say I have two answers:

Why did I support this site with contributions of my time and effort? And why did I support this site with financial contributions?

1. The easy answer. I felt/feel like this site encourages honesty and integrity, as well as offering valuable information. I’ve not had much time to contribute posts in the last several months~ but I’ve read a lot, I’ve referred a lot of people here, and I used to post rather often (I’ve even been known to put some considerable effort into things such as condensing the VERY long Fed-Ex thread into a manageable set of step by step instructions to follow). I FELT like a valued long time member of this community~ without a lot to say anymore~ but with valuable help when I had something to offer.

The financial answer is two-fold:

1. I paid the subscription cost because I feel like this site has been a valuable service, of which I have benefited in the past and I imagine I may benefit from in the future. That was a “service” I paid for. It was a free service when I first began frequenting this site, but when it went to a paid service I didn’t kick and scream…..I paid for the service. I also pay KS for a “service” to use their classifieds.

2. I “donated” money for a different reason. I don’t keep a running tab of exactly when I’ve donated~ but I imagine it’s customarily in January~ when bonus checks come out and I have a little extra cash in my hand. I’ve been in the habit for a couple years now of sending a little extra to this site then. Last year when I sent the little extra~ I just happened to send a little extra in exactly the sum that “forum sponsorship” costs. Rich made me a “forum sponsor” last year for my donation (which was very nice and I thanked him) but I didn’t give the money for a “Service.” The “support” or “donation” was made at the time because I felt like I was a helping out a community of which I was a happy participant. It was given because I enjoyed my time here, I felt like a valued member of the community.

When I found the e-mail telling me I was BANNED then I did not feel like a valued member of the community. A valued member of the community may have been warned, fined or even suspended. But I was BANNED. I know BANNED is just a poor word choice no one put much thought into……….but as I’ve said before I was BANNED for a poor word that I didn’t put much thought into either.

When I got that e-mail I was outraged. It hurt my feelings. A lot. I felt like I wasn’t wanted here, my contributions (financial and non-financial) were not appreciated, and I had been BANNED for a thoughtless moment.

I could have written Rich and whined that it wasn’t fair. I could have gone through every thread on this site reporting examples of others being punished less harshly (note that I am NOT the one who even brought that up in this thread) ~ but I didn’t. I’m sure that’s what a lot of people do~ but I’ve always kind of prided myself on not whining to Rich with every little thing, or asking for special privileges (this becomes important as you review my further outrage at Rich’s responses to me).

I paid the fine, discovered I had ZERO in the karma category (A banning, zero karma and ten warning points next to my name showing my contributions to this site for 4 years) and I came to the feedback forum to express my outrage.

I was told that I was asking for special privileges (repeatedly told this), I was a whiner, I was compared with someone with 150 warning points, it was implied that I intentionally tried to get away with breaking the rules, it was implied that I was part of the crap and garbage that needed to be cleaned off this site, I was chastised for not having read and memorized every iteration of the rules and how many warning points are to be attributed for each infraction to have been posted in 4 years, I was accused of acting as though I were gold plated and the rules did not apply to me, it was implied that I was in the habit of making nasty and derogatory posts on a regular basis and he was amazed I had not been warned in the past, and finally~ I was invited to leave and never come back.

I am not a valued member of this community. That was made perfectly clear.

I may still pay the minimum for the service I use here, IF when it comes due it looks like there is enough participation to make it worth my money, but I won’t “donate” money. I am a “disillusioned past contributor.” More now then when I started this thread.

I can still respect Rich for what he’s tried to do here~ but I couldn’t respect myself and donate money to a site I am afraid to post on……..it only takes one thoughtless moment to become the garbage and the crap.

Cheryl,

I am sorry that you are taking this the way you are, but I was very serious about getting tough in enforcing the rules here. It just is not feasible to contact each and every one personally when they have engaged in an infraction and ask them if they are aware of their actions and the consequences. I have to determine those infractions at face value, regardless of who has actually done so.

Further, although it certainly is not intentional, you are stating by implication in your complaint that I SHOULD create a dual class system here in how I enforce the rules. The implication is that I need to divide the membership into "valued member of this community" and the "others" in the manner in which I enforce the rules. This further implies that a "valued member of this community" will be determined by a number of criteria, of which financial contributions will figure highly. I am sorry, but I am not going to do that.

My intention is to treat everyone the same, as fairly as I can, and regardless of anything other then the specific details surrounding the rules of this site. I will not ponder about who has broken the rules, looking at their past contributions here, length of time, nor how involved they have been as a participant. I will not try to determine if it is possible that they just don't know what they are doing in relation to the rules. All I, and the moderators, can do is to try to determine if the post is an infraction or not. Whether it is or is not, nothing else related to the member making the post is relevant in that decision.

I too began replying a few times and then scrapped it. I guess if Rich is seeing

people with something valuable to contribute who want this site to succeed and able to help it do so

leaving, then he should ask them directly why they left. Anything else is speculation.

Cheryl, as for your statement

I am not a valued member of this community. That was made perfectly clear.

I may still pay the minimum for the service I use here, IF when it comes due it looks like there is enough participation to make it worth my money, but I won’t “donate” money. I am a “disillusioned past contributor.” More now then when I started this thread.

I can still respect Rich for what he’s tried to do here~ but I couldn’t respect myself and donate money to a site I am afraid to post on……..it only takes one thoughtless moment to become the garbage and the crap.

I feel exactly the same way, and I don't even have warning points. I got the same feeling just giving an opinion that was solicited.

Why do you support this site? Or as of late, Why did you support this site?

I have in the past for many reasons, but the past is irrelevant. I'm not certain what I'll do when my membership expires. I'll decide then. In the meantime, I visit the site when I feel like it. I've never felt like I was an "asset" to it in any particular sense, because there are many people here with more knowledge than I have. I used to feel though, that the most important elements to being a welcome member of this site were honesty and integrity (that's why I applied for certification as a "Fauna Good Guy"). I no longer feel that way, so it's less important to me to be affiliated with this site. That doesn't mean I am loudly announcing that I'm "leaving" the site, it just means that I'm less committed to being part of its success than I once was. And that is not a big deal.

Originally Posted by ms_terese

I used to feel though, that the most important elements to being a welcome member of this site were honesty and integrity (that's why I applied for certification as a "Fauna Good Guy"). I no longer feel that way, so it's less important to me to be affiliated with this site. That doesn't mean I am loudly announcing that I'm "leaving" the site, it just means that I'm less committed to being part of its success than I once was. And that is not a big deal.

Of course, this now begs the question of what do YOU think the "most important elements to being a welcome member of this site" are now?