What happened to BOI????

[Wolfy-hound]

I think it was a effective way to show people you are serious. Those that just don't "get it" why you would possibly not want to have a huge perpetual headache for nothing can go jump.

I'm sending more funds right now, as an ammo purchase went south. I add funds via my banner, is that okay too?

 

[geckoprincess]

So you did. Well, welcome then your highness.

If you look around you'll see a few people with BLUE text for the screen names. They have been shown the door by Rich. Alan was not the first and certainly he won't be the last.

Your highness? Whats with the bear bating?

 

[MedusaCoils]

Yep, I agree. I've heard of some other sites similar in nature to the BOI whereby the owner will DELETE a negative thread about someone if money changes hands. Personally, my opinion of that is that it stinks.

But again, it's the manual nature of this that is a stumbling block. Once I am retired, that may not be an issue, but right now adding one more thing to my "have to do" plate just isn't very attractive to me.

I realize that you are a really busy guy! I don't blame you for shrugging if off. But, I just have to wonder, how many or how often a pass request would come up?

How about appointing a member of the forum or a moderator to do the job? Well, except that tired and cranky one. I am sure you could come up with a few trustworthy volunteers and then you can choose one of them?

Just a thought,

Wayne

 

[WebSlave]

I think it was a effective way to show people you are serious. Those that just don't "get it" why you would possibly not want to have a huge perpetual headache for nothing can go jump.

Yeah... I posted a notice at the top of the BOI. Hasn't had ANYONE even read it yet. Oh well.............

I'm sending more funds right now, as an ammo purchase went south. I add funds via my banner, is that okay too?

Sure, every bit helps. Wish there was a way to directly measure the amount of financial support targeted for the BOI, but that would take a lot of effort to implement and would be messy any way I've looked at it. I guess I need to weigh my decision heavily on just raw paid memberships when January 1 rolls around. Quite honestly, by then I expect traffic to have increased substantially in the classifieds section to where the BOI may be even less of an issue then it would be right now.

 

[WebSlave]

I realize that you are a really busy guy! I don't blame you for shrugging if off. But, I just have to wonder, how many or how often a pass request would come up?

How about appointing a member of the forum or a moderator to do the job? Well, except that tired and cranky one. I am sure you could come up with a few trustworthy volunteers and then you can choose one of them?

Just a thought,

Wayne

Actually it came up quite frequently when the BOI had the paid member access in place. Since there are even less paid members now then when I first implemented that project, I would expect to get a LOT of those free pass requests.

I'll have to run it by my programmer to see how much trouble and expense it would be to create a new member group that would have a variable automated time out on it. I think he kind of likes these off the wall requests I come up with all of the time. I think some of them became official mods on vBulletin.org later on....

 

[Wolfy-hound]

Well, officially ALL my contributions can be marked BOI. Groo says so.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

Yeah... I posted a notice at the top of the BOI. Hasn't had ANYONE even read it yet. Oh well.............

I did a little while after you posted that the BOI was active again, when i saw it

 

[WingedWolf]

I can't think of a single reason why not to make the BOI available for paid contributors only. Of course people will complain, but that's not the point at all. Complaints can be easily enough ignored. It's completely fair to charge for access--yes, you may have to give free access to people whose names come up in threads, but it may be possible to allow moderators to deal with some of that. Maybe you can make a series of accounts with known passwords, in which the passwords are locked and can't be changed except by a moderator. These accounts could be given temporarily to people who need to respond to a thread, and then a mod can change the password, and pass the account to the next person who needs free access. That might cut down on part of the hassle.

 

[DAND]

To hell with the passes. The scumbags have enough breaks as it is, why give them another? If they want to post they can pay just like everyone else. Make them carry some of the weight since without their presence in the first place the BOI would not be a necessity.

 

[Lucille]

To hell with the passes. The scumbags have enough breaks as it is, why give them another? If they want to post they can pay just like everyone else. Make them carry some of the weight since without their presence in the first place the BOI would not be a necessity.

It may be a false accusation the pass is requested for. The accused might be innocent, might not be a scumbag at all, after all, in a small but substantial number of BOI accusations, it turns out the complainant is a bad buyer, and the seller had been perfectly reasonable.

Since the whole problem with keeping the BOI open now is Rich's expense in fighting a suit which may be baseless and easily defended yet costly, I can see why he may not want put someone else in a similar situation and demand payment from a possibly innocent accused who came to defend themselves on the BOI, even though he is not required to allow that access to the accused.

 

[DAND]

It may be a false accusation the pass is requested for. The accused might be innocent, might not be a scumbag at all, after all, in a small but substantial number of BOI accusations, it turns out the complainant is a bad buyer, and the seller had been perfectly reasonable.

Since the whole problem with keeping the BOI open now is Rich's expense in fighting a suit which may be baseless and easily defended yet costly, I can see why he may not want put someone else in a similar situation and demand payment from a possibly innocent accused who came to defend themselves on the BOI, even though he is not required to allow that access to the accused.

Rich wouldn't be demanding payment from anyone. Just as you and I had the choice to contribute or not, these people too would have the choice to or not. I'm sorry, but if $25.00 is too much for someone to spend to clear their "good" name then they very well may not have had much of a name to speak of in the first place.

 

[MedusaCoils]

Rich wouldn't be demanding payment from anyone. Just as you and I had the choice to contribute or not, these people too would have the choice to or not. I'm sorry, but if $25.00 is too much for someone to spend to clear their "good" name then they very well may not have had much of a name to speak of in the first place.

I agree that the BOI should be a "pay to access" forum.

BUT!

If, in order to access the BOI, you would be required to "upgrade your membership", then technically, that would be "demanding payment."

Let's change the scenario.

Let's say that one day, you receive a ticket, (MV Related) in the mail. On the ticket, you were being fined hundreds of dollars, for running a red light (a camera caught it). But, when you look at the date and time of the ticket, you weren't anywhere near that intersection. Actually, you were punched in at work. Plus, the accompanying photo wasn't of your car or license plate. But, the ticket was addressed and issued to you. So now you have decided to fight it and you check the "Not Guilty" box on the ticket and mail it back. Now you have to go to court.

You know, and you have proof that you are innocent, but when you get to court, they are going to charge you a non-refundable fee, just to defend yourself. Regardless of the fact that you are innocent. Is that right?

Now to twist it back.

Let's say that the ticket you got was a BOI thread and the fine you face is the potential loss of business and $$. Is it fair to force a person to pay to defend themself? I think not!

That's why I think a one time, 24-48 hour pass is reasonable if, your not already a contributing member. 24-48 hours if plenty of time for you to rebut the claim and show proof to the contrary. After that, and if you need to put up the good fight, then it will cost you a contribution to access the BOI.

JMO!!

Wayne

 

[DAND]

I agree that the BOI should be a "pay to access" forum.

BUT!

If, in order to access the BOI, you would be required to "upgrade your membership", then technically, that would be "demanding payment."

But I do not believe Rich has said anything about having to "upgrade". Nonetheless, if he were to do so, you, he, she or whomever has the choice to pay it or not.

When you go to the gas station, drug store, restaurant or when you decide to get a cell phone, cable or internet are they demanding payment too?

Let's change the scenario.

Let's say that one day, you receive a ticket, (MV Related) in the mail. On the ticket, you were being fined hundreds of dollars, for running a red light (a camera caught it). But, when you look at the date and time of the ticket, you weren't anywhere near that intersection. Actually, you were punched in at work. Plus, the accompanying photo wasn't of your car or license plate. But, the ticket was addressed and issued to you. So now you have decided to fight it and you check the "Not Guilty" box on the ticket and mail it back. Now you have to go to court.

You know, and you have proof that you are innocent, but when you get to court, they are going to charge you a non-refundable fee, just to defend yourself. Regardless of the fact that you are innocent. Is that right?

Now to twist it back.

Let's say that the ticket you got was a BOI thread and the fine you face is the potential loss of business and $$. Is it fair to force a person to pay to defend themself? I think not!

That's why I think a one time, 24-48 hour pass is reasonable if, your not already a contributing member. 24-48 hours if plenty of time for you to rebut the claim and show proof to the contrary. After that, and if you need to put up the good fight, then it will cost you a contribution to access the BOI.

JMO!!

Wayne

Again, I'd have the choice of taking the day off, driving downtown, paying to park, waiting in line and sandwiched between the inevitable non-showering individual and the woman with three screaming children with colds, and so on... or just paying the ticket.

That's life, making choices isn't it? Either way it'll cost you. Rich has made the choice that he is not going to flip the bill anymore. We have the choice to help keep the BOI or not. Someone gets accused of something on the BOI, they have the choice of paying the amount to participate on the BOI or not.

 

[WebSlave]

This has all been debated in the past when I originally talked about the paid requirement for anyone posting on the BOI. The argument has been presented that malicious or bogus claims might be filed, but the counter argument was that with the restriction in place, most bogus claims would be curtailed because the people most likely to do such a thing via an anonymous registration, would already be filtered out.

But still, there would be legitimate concerns posted that may or may not have merit, as we have all seen cases where the facts presented were subject to varying interpretations. Quite frankly, I would like to think all of the good guys in this industry would like to help out the BOI. Obviously they have not. And at this late date, I seriously doubt that is ever going to happen. My honest opinion is that although I may very well decide to limit the BOI to paid members only, it will just a matter of beginning to close the lid to the coffin on that forum, and allowing paid members who have tried to help keep that demise from happening, one last peek inside before it gets put into the ground.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Let's say that one day, you receive a ticket, (MV Related) in the mail. On the ticket, you were being fined hundreds of dollars, for running a red light (a camera caught it). But, when you look at the date and time of the ticket, you weren't anywhere near that intersection. Actually, you were punched in at work. Plus, the accompanying photo wasn't of your car or license plate. But, the ticket was addressed and issued to you. So now you have decided to fight it and you check the "Not Guilty" box on the ticket and mail it back. Now you have to go to court.

You know, and you have proof that you are innocent, but when you get to court, they are going to charge you a non-refundable fee, just to defend yourself. Regardless of the fact that you are innocent. Is that right?

Now to twist it back.

Let's say that the ticket you got was a BOI thread and the fine you face is the potential loss of business and $$. Is it fair to force a person to pay to defend themself? I think not!

That's why I think a one time, 24-48 hour pass is reasonable if, your not already a contributing member. 24-48 hours if plenty of time for you to rebut the claim and show proof to the contrary. After that, and if you need to put up the good fight, then it will cost you a contribution to access the BOI.

JMO!!

Wayne

Maybe not, but it isn't a comparison to your scenario of a ticket. Unlike your scenario it isn't a requirement to defend yourself here as it is a ticket from a governing body. Even if it were, defending yourself in court is no different as I have learned. At any rate, the majority of threads here aren't disputing that you didn't have a transaction compared to the ticket scenario where you didn't drive your car. The thread is usually about a transaction that you are guilty of having. Majority of the time your defending your actions in that transaction as you would a ticket that you find unfair or not given in the principle of the law it was cited to you in.

Many years ago I was fishing off the shore in Ventura, CA. I caught a fish that was undersized. By the time I got it to shore through the seaweed and off the hook, I knew it wasn’t going to make it. I put it in the water and sure enough it was a floater. Well, I know it was a mistake but it made no sense to me just to waste the fish and let it float along shore and wash up, so I tossed it into my bucket. No sooner than the fish hitting the bucket I could see a man running towards me at full speed from my left side. It was a park ranger running down the beach at full speed with binoculars in hand. He had watched me toss the fish back in and knew it was dead before I decided to put it in the bucket. He was so exhausted time he reached me he couldn’t catch his breath. I asked him if he was OK and was he going to make it. He just proceeded to write me a ticket. I asked him if he witnessed that the fish was dead prior to placing it in the bucket, he stated yes and that he was running just in case I tried to throw it out again before he reached me.

Now, I understand the law and realize that the intent to size limit regulations was to protect the species from over fishing. The original intent was not for people to litter the beaches with dead fish. I would have preferred the little guy’s mommy to bite my hook or that I could have released him alive but when participating in a over regulated government controlled natural activity such as hunting or fishing nothing ever works with any common sense. In a scenario such as this I only have control to waste what I kill or not. I would like to think, I was taught better than that. Natural law trumps man’s law from my point of view in situations such as this. Unfortunately for my opinion it costs a great deal due to the fact that man sits as the judge and nothing but man’s law has any bearing.

So far I have nothing to cry over and understand all the repercussions of my actions. It wasn’t until I went to court that I understood what a farce our justice system has become.

The judge perfectly explained my options to me. One, I could fight the ticket but in doing so if I was still found guilty all the costs of the court I would be added to whatever penalty I received.
Now, if I choose to fight such a ruling based on that the intent of the law to write tickets as a deterrent to actually protect a species by letting go undersized fish so they can survive not leaving dead fish on the beach, it would have cost me a pretty penny to stand up and add a little common sense to a courtroom.

I’m guilty of having the fish in my possession which is all that really matters in the eyes of the law so disputing the ticket really wasn’t in option so I wasn’t going to waste my time or money doing so. I accepted the ticket.

What really troubled me was what happened next and really is the driven purpose of my point.

The judge then stated to me my two options. I could either pay $250.00 and receive a misdemeanor on my record. Doesn’t sound too good? Or the next option of paying $350.00 and I would only receive an infraction, the same as any traffic ticket and it wouldn’t stay on my record. How’s that for justice!

Joe Blow who is working hard just to cover the rent might find that paying that $250.00 a lot easier and walking away with his name tarnished the rest of his life.

Well, I found the options revolting to any fair sense of justice and at that time if I would have had enough guts or would have acted on principle, I would have asked to retract my non-contest of the ticket based not on the amount of money but the fact that those that could afford to pay a higher amount would receive less a penalty than those that couldn't, for the same offense.
If the penalty was simply $250.00 or $350.00 whichever, it really isn't the point and the law required that I receive a misdemeanor or a infraction I wouldn't be so disgusted about it.

But, to tell someone that they will either receive a heaver or lighter conviction based on what they are willing or able to pay is an abomination to any sense of the word justice.
That is unfair and unethical. Rich charging for a tool he developed to all that want to use it, is not.

Well, instead I paid the $350.00 and walked out thinking that our justice system was no better than paying a bribe in third-world countries.

If it were optional, I wouldn't have graced the court with my appearance.
Fair or not I have to play by the rules set forth by the courts and it costs a lot.

Here you have the option of not participating at all. Your not a citizen of Fauna and have the option of not taking part in this community if you don't desire it. The weight of what is posted here only carries as far as those individuals that read it and how each individual interprets every individual post. If you are found in the wrong here by the majority of viewers your not legally guilty of anything by those individual views alone. It is only individual opinions that some may agree with or not.

You don't have to defend yourself. If you choose to just like anything and comparable to legal issues it might cost you something.

Look at it from Rich's point of view and why this thread is even a topic.
He has kept this forum up at the risk of exposing himself to financial hardship.
There are those that would like to see it fail based on information that they beleive is unflattering to themselves on the BOI. There are those that would like to keep it up but don't want to absorb any of the cost and beleive that Rich has to endure all the burden or the BOI is some how not as just.
For example all these types of posts they state, "it's suppose to be a "free tool" open to the public if not, it should be disbanded. "

Then there are those that want to help and have tried for years to lend a hand. At this point, I think Rich has given enough. IF it means reduced risk and less of a headache for Rich to require paid members for everyone to participate then so be it. You are not required to participate. If it is a burden to anyone to come here then they don't have too.

Fair, maybe not to some but this isn't a governing body, it's a tool. Maybe one you should pay for. The concept of a tool such as the BOI being free and someone dishing out the expenses and abundance of sacrifice and self risk to run such a place sounds good, yes. Rich did it for years and as he stated he can't take that risk any longer. Who could blame him? As far as I'm concerned he can charge everyone and there really isn't an ethical problem with it. It's not the rule of law here, it's a tool. Either you value the information enough to participate in it or you don't value the information or its influence on you and you don't.

Rich has been fair about the approach he has taken over the years for the members to take on some of the burden and to many have rejected his fairness on the issue.

Rich, nothing unethical for you to charge anyone to use your resource in any manner.



Behind enemy lines in the Peoples Republic of California where you can buy your way out of anything.

 

[Lucille]

, My attorney tells me that I am not OBLIGATED to allow anyone access to anywhere on this site if I don't want to, so I am legally in my rights to deny that access. But it just doesn't feel ethical to me. I don't feel comfortable demanding payment from someone to defend themselves from any bad guy accusation, whether justified or not.

It looks like people have varied thoughts on this, and I see each point of view and there is some good reasoning both ways.
I can agree to disagree, but my opinion remains the same.

Dennis, I am horrified by your fish experience, I'm so sorry it happened to you.

 

[KathyLove]

I am also horrified, but unfortunately, not surprised.

Sounds exactly like what I expect of the government's interpretation of justice. And as the economy has gotten worse, all levels of government are looking to squeeze whatever more they can get, in any way they can - doesn't have to be reasonable, logical, or ethical. My accountant told me that Florida is doing more audits recently to see if they can squeeze anything, too, for no other reason than to replace money in the coffers. Not surprising at all.

Sorry for the off topic post - just couldn't resist.

 

[WebSlave]

Yeah.... just wait till they expand the forfeiture laws to cover all minor law infractions. Used to be a big deal to be a felon, because that used to be an indication of a major crime on your part. And accordingly, you lost your right to have a firearm, among others. So yeah, it sounded REASONABLE that such constitutional rights SHOULD be denied felons. Well, now, very minor offenses are classified as felonies. If your car is on fire and you rush into a motel and take the fire extinguisher there without permission and they press charges, you are now a felon. If you trespass on a construction site, you can be charged with a felony. The list goes on.... And all indications are that it will get much broader in scope. All for justifiable reasons, of course. But felons are BAD people, aren't they?

Quite frankly, government has discovered a HUGE windfall with fines for legal infractions by the citizens. It is a lucrative method to collect taxes without having to vote on it through the legislature. Virtually another "sin tax" that no one wants to vote against. That tax collection base can be expanded at will by making more and more things "against the law". Sad to say that law enforcement has now been demoted to the class of being mercenary mobile tax collectors for the state. Used to be we looked at LEOs as being keepers of the peace and there for our protection. Now, it's with a different understanding that we see them as being there simply to collect money for the state in the performance of their duties. If an officer writes a warning instead of a ticket, do you really believe that isn't looked at as being LOST revenue these days? Do you think for an instant that the sales pitch for radar devices and automated traffic cameras aren't being sold to state governments using the projections of how much revenue they can earn for them with increased collected fines?

I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting to DEEPLY resent this blatant intrusion by the government under the sheep's clothing of "to protect the people".

Boy, is this going off topic, or what?

 

[MedusaCoils]

You guys are so literal! LOL! I wasn't trying to be. I was taking this, from a stance of being on the outside, looking in. Devils Advocate, if you will.

I was merely making a point of whether it was fair or not. Dennis, you were dealt an injustice and NO, it wasn't fair. So why do you feel the need to visit that on someone else?

Who are what does a 24 hour pass hurt? It's not a free ride. Not to mention that if a person got their foot in the door, maybe they would take that extra step.

Wayne

 

[WebSlave]

Actually, you would be surprised at the number of people who wanted those free passes back then just so they could create their thread or reply to an existing one. So obviously if I do it this way, it will mean creating an explanation thread about it (which most people won't read anyway) to detail my reasons for the change as well as the procedure to get that free pass. Obviously it will have to be a manual process, otherwise everyone and their brother would use it to make their hit and run posts on the BOI.

Heck, it would be a LOT easier just to say "screw it!" If you want to post on the BOI, then pay up or go away. I mean, really, what do I have to lose at this point? This trying to be fair to everyone is just wearing me down....