• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Open discussion on the new "west"

S

Stardust

human
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,266
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
at my home
Please zero profanity.
Here is a place where we can discuss our thoughts/ concerns about the new (not even sure what to call it, so for lack of a better word rules) set in place here at fauna now.

I am not very optimistic about this whole thing as I can see many many flaws in it. As someone who has been trying to write any kind of drama out of my life I do not plan to participate in it, meaning giving out warning points, not that some won't give them to me lol.

I do, however, have faith in quite a few fauna people here that I have gotten to know over the years. Perhaps there are a lot more then I know about and this will not be abused to the extent (with the exception of a few) I am inclined to think it will be. I hope not.

One of the problems that I am worried about is newbies coming to this site. They are not going to want to pay for a newly visited site therefore being more of a sitting duck.

Anyway, I would like to hear other views pertaining to this.
 
There is a very large online community called Craigslist that is a classified system but with online forums as well, that uses a system that actually removes offending posts by popular vote. It you visit the forums it is a real eye opener, they are often explicit and opinionated, and their posts are certainly not decimated by this system. Craigslist estimates that 15% of posts are removed by the community, that means that 85% are deemed fit for publication, and that is the vast majority of posts. Craigslist editors also say that when removed posts are examined, 98% contain rule violations, so there is little frivolous removal.

Humanity has lived by a social compact for millenia (I won't hit you, because I know you can turn around and hit me back) and while of course we all know that people do in fact hit each other, most do not and the social compact is one of the reasons why.

I think there are certain things that many of us, as a community, are against: racist remarks, spam, etc. This system will help get rid of that sort of thing. The grey areas will be more difficult. Perhaps we will all try to say what we want to say more carefully, and if the system encourages that, it is a worthwhile effort.
 
I will keep this discussion here, as what I took from Rich' post he did not want it there. At the WWW2 thread he wanted input on the rules. That is at least what I gathered from his words.

I agree with Cat that the other site is set up differently, although this could go into more that direction.

My take on this, and I could be far off base, is that Rich is relieving himself of the whining and complaining and what all that entails, being pulled in many directions. For that I can not blame him.

I would suggest that people look at their profiles, signatures,comments and take a good look at where they may stand in the community, possibly a good look at one self and the role played here. That would be my unsolicited advice, lol.
 
I will continue my opinion here.....LOL.

There is a HUGE difference in removing posts, which ends up having no consequence whatsoever to the person who posted it (and they can just go back and repost it....as many times as they wish), and assessing warning points to a user, which can in the end cause THEM to be removed....and cost them REAL money to get back here. And the "offending" posts remain. I really fail to see any real similarities.

While I think Rich's idea is a good one in theory, I think it's going to create a big ol mess. New people aren't going to understand it..heck, there's people who have been on here for a long time now and still don't understand the karma or trader ratings system. And of course, like anything else, there WILL be people that abuse it.....either purposely or out of ignorance at the way it's set up. Some people get mighty pissy just over "karma"....just imagine what they are going to do when they get warning points.
 
Cat_72 said:
I will continue my opinion here.....LOL.

There is a HUGE difference in removing posts, which ends up having no consequence whatsoever to the person who posted it (and they can just go back and repost it....as many times as they wish), and assessing warning points to a user, which can in the end cause THEM to be removed....and cost them REAL money to get back here. And the "offending" posts remain. I really fail to see any real similarities.

While I think Rich's idea is a good one in theory, I think it's going to create a big ol mess. New people aren't going to understand it..heck, there's people who have been on here for a long time now and still don't understand the karma or trader ratings system. And of course, like anything else, there WILL be people that abuse it.....either purposely or out of ignorance at the way it's set up. Some people get mighty pissy just over "karma"....just imagine what they are going to do when they get warning points.
Click to expand...

I can see that happening as well. It looks like things are going to get mighty interesting very soon. :rolleyes:
 
Somehow, I don't think the word "interesting" quite fully describes it....LOL.
 
Cat_72 said:
Some people get mighty pissy just over "karma"....just imagine what they are going to do when they get warning points.
Click to expand...

Weve seen that TOO many a time!!!

I personally, dont think peoples names should be attached to the Bad Points, or whatever were calling them, Peer points? This only Drives people to target the one person who sent it in the first place. It should be anonymous, this way, noone can be singled out except for the person who actually broke a rule.

I also agree with the limit on how many times you can be punished for breaking one rule.
 
Ah, but if names aren't attached..that just allows the giver the anonymity to give little "digs" to the other poster just because he doesn't like them..and to do so without fear of repercussion. Names being attached make you think twice, and make sure youreally think the post is worth giving that point to.....
 
Cat_72 said:
Ah, but if names aren't attached..that just allows the giver the anonymity to give little "digs" to the other poster just because he doesn't like them..and to do so without fear of repercussion. Names being attached make you think twice, and make sure youreally think the post is worth giving that point to.....
Click to expand...


Well its going to happen anyway, and its much worse by attaching a name to it.

Hence why a limit on how many people "punishing" them for one rule would be limited. If they break a rule. they break a rule dosnt matter who gives it.
 
Mooing Tricycle said:
Well its going to happen anyway, and its much worse by attaching a name to it.

Hence why a limit on how many people "punishing" them for one rule would be limited. If they break a rule. they break a rule dosnt matter who gives it.
Click to expand...


to add to that, people should not be hesitant to punish a post they see that is wrong, if it is in fact wrong. Why should people be afraid to use the system? then its not working effectively in the end, because its only ammo for more people to throw at one another.
 
Soooo......you don't think that having your name attached to that warning point may make you think twice before dealing it out? That the fact that someone can't see who gave it to them might just make folks a little tempted to just "zing" someone for the heck of it?

Remember, these are not like karma points..these are points just like the mods hand out....
 
Cat_72 said:
Soooo......you don't think that having your name attached to that warning point may make you think twice before dealing it out? That the fact that someone can't see who gave it to them might just make folks a little tempted to just "zing" someone for the heck of it?

Remember, these are not like karma points..these are points just like the mods hand out....
Click to expand...


The only thing im trying to say is, if somone broke a rule. they broke a rule and should be punished for it. it shouldnt matter so much who gave it to them, because it was their fault. Not the person handing it out.

i personally dont care so much because i cant do anything anyway. :shrug01:

But just for sanitys sake, and the avoidance of "Oh you gave me bad points for this, well ill give you bad points for this HAHA" posts... i think names shouldnt be attached.

*shrugs* maybe im just crazy?
 
Mooing Tricycle said:
Well its going to happen anyway, and its much worse by attaching a name to it.

Hence why a limit on how many people "punishing" them for one rule would be limited. If they break a rule. they break a rule dosnt matter who gives it.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets say there is no name attahced to the point. How would you know there was abuse of the system without Webslave having to review every warning point issued? Someone that doesn't like you could give you a warning point everyday until you were removed from the site and you wouldn't know if it was the same person or 20 different people.

Names are a necessity.
 
Cat_72 said:
That the fact that someone can't see who gave it to them might just make folks a little tempted to just "zing" someone for the heck of it?
Click to expand...

And, just at that i can see all the problems this will cause too. And i suppose its a good view on things.

Maybe this system could be applied to only a SELECT group of people, who are there to issue warning points, but dont have Mod powers? Sort of like a Judgment team? Im jsut throwing ideas out there that might actually have some use to everyone.

The Team of people can be elected by the members on this board through a poll or something. This would take the stress of rich's back but they would be an unbiased group on fauna that keeps things in check?
 
I also believe if you have a problem with something someone says stand up and tell them and have your name attached. If they give you warning points as a retaliation then that is against the rules also.
 
Bill & Amy said:
Ok, lets say there is no name attahced to the point. How would you know there was abuse of the system without Webslave having to review every warning point issued? Someone that doesn't like you could give you a warning point everyday until you were removed from the site and you wouldn't know if it was the same person or 20 different people.

Names are a necessity.
Click to expand...


true true, but i think he has it set up similarly to the karma system where, you cannot keep repeatedly giving out points to the same person until youve given them to other people. The system can still keep track of that i would think, even without a name actually visible on our end.
 
Well I have to agree with the concept that this will become interesting. I don't know enough about craigslist to make a comment one way or the other. I do agree with the idea that there is significant difference between removing a post and removing a user. I am a firm believer in the idea that just because you think it works elsewhere doesn't make it a fit for all situations.

The other issue is that Rich as set this for Paid Membership to use. So the concept of social compact is not valid since a participating member has no ability to prevent the hits via the "potential" hit back. This is now in Karma where you have to be a paid member to give negative Karma and to see who gave Karma. Keep in mind I am not saying anything to complain about paid rights, just simply stating a fact.

The concern I have is the social "clicks", those who band behind an individual for the attack. Rich states that the numbers will be significant to make it to banning, yet the pattern of persistant negative feelings between users will make for a fun score board. The peer points will be like golf the lowest score wins.

I do disagree with the concept of the the warning point being anonymous, I feel Rich has it right as I am under the strong opinion that if you have to put your name to your action that in itself might deter some from the hang em high attitude. Now my question is can all users see who gave the warning point to a particular user. If Stardust gives me a warning for a post can Cat, when she looks at my profile, know that Stardust gave me the warning? I know the warning system that was you could tell who and for what, but Karma you cannot and I think that is what led to the abuse.

I probably would not use it even if I paid. I do think that Rich has put the ball in the members court. Time to put up or shut up!
 
I wouldn't think that anyone but you would be able to see who gave you the points, Michael. There would really be no purpose in that, IMO.
 
Mooing Tricycle said:
true true, but i think he has it set up similarly to the karma system where, you cannot keep repeatedly giving out points to the same person until youve given them to other people. The system can still keep track of that i would think, even without a name actually visible on our end.
Click to expand...

If that is the way it was set up, so that you could not give the same person points repeatedly, then it would be slightly different.......though I still don't agree with nameless points, lol. But if it is not.....and you cannot see who is giving you points..how do you know when to complain that someone IS abusing it?

And as Bill said, if you're going to give out the points, be "man enough" (or woman enough" to claim it. If you are ashamed of giving it....then you probably shouldn't have given it in the first place.
 
Back
Top