Warning Points System Mod

Originally Posted by Golden Gate Geckos

OK, but I still don't understand why it should be so entertaining to spend so much time and effort to watch people hang themselves.

Oh really? Then why are YOU here?

Rich, while you and the other super-mods did not "earn" your original appointments from a peer-review standpoint, you have now withstood the test of time in a peer-review system. You also chose your super-mods with prior knowledge of their abilities, not because they paid you $100 .... I hope.

As for $100 members having more to lose ? With all things being relative, to include that not all with power paid $100 to begin with, I would disagree somewhat, and also continue to feel that it is a more flawed criteria that other available standards.

I thank you for addressing the issue regarding which nametag a moderator may be wearing at any given time. I would hope to see a standard from on-high that advises moderators to realize they while they may choose to play when not in uniform, that the standards change accordingly. In your police example, I would expect a call for back-up. But in another police example, I would expect a different level of standards and violations if I was belligerent with an officer writing me a ticket while on duty, or getting in an altercation with the same officer off-duty in a bar over a girl .

Originally Posted by Golden Gate Geckos

OK, but I still don't understand why it should be so entertaining to spend so much time and effort to watch people hang themselves.

Well, I can only speak for myself but I like it for the phsycological aspect of it. It's interesting to see how people react to different situations. Some react better than others and different situations cause others to react differently. It's just human nature.

Originally Posted by Golden Gate Geckos

OK, but I still don't understand why it should be so entertaining to spend so much time and effort to watch people hang themselves.

Let me try to enlighten you on this one.

There is a small circle of people here who actively wish I was not a member. I know for a fact that owens, loosewheel and dandy would love it if I would be rash enough to either get myself banned or provide sufficient cause for rich to ban me.

Knowing this, knowing that they are gunning for me brings in group dynamics. dandy wants so very very desperately to be seen as a big man, a serious player to Fauna at large but especially to his group of cohorts and, of course, his idol Rich. dandy NEEDED to get that first shot off to impress those for whose approval he so craves. owens followed not far behind. She who hails from Tx has yet to enter the fray publickly but, if she runs true to her past, has been quite active in the unseen background.

Now, many of us who KNOW all of the above are quite quite amused that dandy did JUST AS WE KNEW HE WOULD for the reasons we knew he would.

That is some HIGH humor. He may well have impressed his cronies by his daring doo, but in reality he has merely shot himself in the foot by his NEED to brag about it, to make it public to MAKE SURE everyone knew he got off the first shot.

People who have such needs are often lacking pride and value of self. Hmmmm, ponder that dandy. People who need others to tell them how cool they are or what a good job they did are often notthe most secure folks out there, often not the most intelligent, often not the nicest people out there.

None of this is new. I've said it all before. He is JUST intelligent enough to know that he was insulted in the past and is now doing what he can to even up a score that only he can see.

And it backfired.

THAT'S the funny part.

Had he just done it and shut up, none of the last 20 posts would be here, or maybe 40 by now. But he didn't, couldn't, wouldn't BECAUSE he NEEDS recognition as the guy who got the first shot at ME, WILOMN, no one of consequence.

That's the funny part.

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

Rich, while you and the other super-mods did not "earn" your original appointments from a peer-review standpoint, you have now withstood the test of time in a peer-review system. You also chose your super-mods with prior knowledge of their abilities, not because they paid you $100 .... I hope.

So what you are saying is that you are not giving those members a chance to prove themselves with this same test of time? Why not?

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

As for $100 members having more to lose ? With all things being relative, to include that not all with power paid $100 to begin with, I would disagree somewhat, and also continue to feel that it is a more flawed criteria that other available standards.

There would never be 100 percent agreement with my choice, no matter what it would have been.

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

I thank you for addressing the issue regarding which nametag a moderator may be wearing at any given time. I would hope to see a standard from on-high that advises moderators to realize they while they may choose to play when not in uniform, that the standards change accordingly. In your police example, I would expect a call for back-up. But in another police example, I would expect a different level of standards and violations if I was belligerent with an officer writing me a ticket while on duty, or getting in an altercation with the same officer off-duty in a bar over a girl .

All persons capable of being in a moderator capacity are "on duty" at all times when they are logged in here. That has to be how they are treated, which realistically, if you treat them belligerently, then that is still a violation of the rules. The difference of a single point in the warning total is not all that substantial of a complaint issue.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Yep. My criteria was that if someone were willing to put the extra effort of paying MORE than most to help financially support this site, then obviously they must be willing to help in other respects. As for the forum moderators, if I trust someone enough that they have that responsibility, then I will certainly trust them with this task as well.

Just because someone will pay more to this site does not mean they have the mental fortitude, wherewithall, etc to be able to handle it.

Your fooling yourself if you don't think there are at least a few sitting back in their gray leisure suit, hairless cat in their laps, right pinkie in their mouth, just waiting to play Dr. Evil.

If that's the type of person you want running your site then that's a sad commentary as to how you value this site. And you know which of the new mods are capable of handling this. Respect the site Rich and others will follow.

Griz

Originally Posted by WebSlave

So what you are saying is that you are not giving those members a chance to prove themselves with this same test of time? Why not?

Rich, get real here. That's the problem, some of these people have proven themselves incapable over the test of time. Your definition of proof must be different then mine.

Griz

Originally Posted by Griz

Rich, get real here. That's the problem, some of these people have proven themselves incapable over the test of time. Your definition of proof must be different then mine.

Griz

But then he would be chastized for being subjective and excluding certain members. He has made a level playing field for all members in this category. So now, when they do screw up and I am sure a few will, all of the evidence that will be used to remove them will be there for all to see. No subjectivity will be involved but of course there will be some I told you so's.

Originally Posted by Griz

Rich, get real here. That's the problem, some of these people have proven themselves incapable over the test of time. Your definition of proof must be different then mine.

Griz

There's story Griz, a real old one, about these guys who so complimented an Emperor (just so there is no confusion Rich is a sometimes King) that they convinced him that only a chosen few had the abilities to see and appreciate the wonderful garments with which he was arrayed.

It's just an old story, but I've liked it and likened it to similar situations in my own life.

Do you think those old stories could have any bearing on modern day life or is that just me stretching my overworked imagination?

Originally Posted by DThomas

But then he would be chastized for being subjective and excluding certain members. He has made a level playing field for all members in this category. So now, when they do screw up and I am sure a few will, all of the evidence that will be used to remove them will be there for all to see. No subjectivity will be involved but of course there will be some I told you so's.

Bah....

Rich already has all of the information he needs to be exclusive. Nothing like rewarding those who have already proven themselves incompetent.

I just sold one of my boa's for $1000 over the weekend. I am going to take that $1000 and send it out to the top 10 worst Karma users on the Fauna board in $100 increments. This way, each of them can have the keys to the castle as well. Sure, Rich will benefit from receiving $1000 but will the site? Would the site be better off? This is starting to become less and less about the site....

Griz

PS It will be the top 10 worst DESERVED karma recipients vs those who got thrust down into the pits in one swoop....