Is the Fall From Grace fatal to the Good Guy Certs?

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

The way I see it most people over here don't give a rat's behind that NERD plays with their hots within inches of bystanders. If you weren't afraid to post it, you would. But all I see is everyone ganging up on people who did speak out against it. Hypocrites.

Karen,

is there any way we can all take a deep breath and de escalate this thread, and speak to one another in a manner that will result in understanding and perhaps an agreement to where we can make the world a safer place?

I can think of no one I know that wants to be bitten by a venomous snake. Let's begin with that as an assumption that might be true of everyone, and one small step at a time, build ways to make sure that scenario doesn't happen, that our hobby allows both freedom to own hots, and promotes safety, that they should not hurt people.

Yeah Karen, I could tell that by looking at the pictures that is was something I would not do, that is for sure. Yet considering I had never seen, met or talked to a NERD member before in my life I did not KNOW who the hell those people were. And to be perfectly honest I do not walk through life trying to play GOD and say what is right and wrong for others. I can only do that for myself and then try to associate myself with others that are like minded. You have never seen me say crap about people and their hots other than it is their right to own and free handle them if they choose.

As far as the rest of your psycho babble, you remind me of PETA. You take crap out of context, mis-quote people, take quotes that had nothing to do with you and try to act like they involved you. Sad and pathetic.

You are a real piece of work, you fit in just fine in todays society of hate mongers, politicians and control freaks. All you see is what you want to see and you do not give a damn about anything but yourself and your twisted way of looking at the world.

Originally Posted by Jim O

Actually, once again you need to get your facts straight. So you see, my suggestion (not demand as some have accused me of) was in direct response to his apology and admission that he was wrong. I was reminding him that as long as he was apologizing that he should also take that action. Of course it was his choice, and one he made of his own free will.

Post # 61 you say "A retraction of the "Bad Guy" at http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/for...ead.php?t=65172 would also be in order." How did I misquote or misrepresent you there? I rearranged your sentence practically word for word and attributed it TO YOU. This is not MLA format term paper, I am not going to go around formally citing everyone.

Originally Posted by Jim O

I suggest that since you are so interested in relating the factual history of that thread you actually read it yourself Whitney, rather than rely on what others may have told you. If you had done that you would actually know the factual basis for the apology I mentioned earlier in this thread. Actually, if you read this thread in its entirety it's in here too. In college I believe they call it referencing the original source material. At least they did when I got my degrees.

Oh, and do ask David if I gave him some positive Rep Points and told him he was a good guy, would ya?

I have read the thread several times. Re-reading it will not make me see eye to eye with you on it. Making (wrong, especially in this instance) assumptions about my sources of information is not appreciated from this side of the computer. Again, I ask, did I not attribute your post to you and rearrange it practically word for word?

Its none of my business who gave David negative or positive reputation points. If he wants to make that information public, that's his business. I merely stated that not one adult apologized to him on the thread. You said you were almost tempted to give him positive reputation points and then that we all have made mistakes and must learn from them. If that's an apology that's news to me. Apologies usually entail saying "I'm sorry &/or I was wrong."

Rich - I can't do anything other than believe your explanation of the timeline of your actions. Thanks for making it plain again.

Lucille - if collaborating on a test isn't plagiarism and cheating, I don't know what is. Besides, seeing as all assignments for my classes with online components are time sensitive, waiting around for someone on a board to reply is an exercise in futility. My professors know how to use google. I'm sure a few responses are randomly googled to see if they were taken from somewhere else. I am not so stupid as to jeopardize my standing as a student to ask for help on a public message board. Its just not worth it.

Originally Posted by Shrap

You have never seen me say crap about people and their hots other than it is their right to own and free handle them if they choose.

Again I say, "Someone is freehandling venomous snakes and letting children touch them and stand within striking distance. Whomever it is, should be ashamed and apologize to the entire community for their irresponsible behavior. That is not a "I think you should do such and such because its my moral imperative" situation. Putting kids at risk for accidental envenomation or infection due to a deep bite shouldn't be a matter of perspective. There are simply lines that everyone acknowledges shouldn't be crossed, and blatantly endangering kids is one of them."

If someone wants to freehandle that is their own deathwish, but doing it around children, that is completely unacceptable and inexcusable to me. Isn't it to you?

When people let emotions run high, it is often true that they see things in the context of that emotion. Part of those emotional highs have to do with the creation of this thread at the same time that the NERD thread was running hot. Now, I had no knowledge of that thread, so I didn't create this thread with any desire to address issues brought up in that thread. This thread was in direct response to the Bill Leverton thread and an issue I felt needed to be addressed that was brought up in that thread. But that thread did not need to be polluted with a pertinent but off-topic discussion. So I brought it to where it belonged, here in the feedback forum.

This does not mean to say that this thread isn't fine for addressing the issues of the NERD thread, whatever they might be, but this thread is NOT about free-handling hots, it's about the good guy certification program.

There were two main issues brought up and I think they've been amply addressed....

1. can someone vote on the GGC poll who has NOT done business with an individual.

2. There was an apparant change in the GGC that disallowed some people from voting on the GGC, what was that and why did it happen?

The first issue is one of semantics and understanding. SOMEWHERE it says that a person who has completed a transaction is encouraged to go to the GGC and vote there. It does NOT, however, say that a person cannot vote on the GGC whenever they see fit! Some saw the first statement of encouragement to vote when a transaction is completed as the set rule... that one should ONLY vote after a transaction. That is a fine interpretation and every individual is encouraged to vote according to what their feelings dictate is the correct way. BUT it has never been explicitly stated that "One should NOT vote until/unless they have an interaction with the specific business" Thus this controversy should be laid to rest. Vote when you think it's right.

The second issue was part of several issues that had recently taken place here on the BOI... Rich doubted certain of his earlier decisions and allowed, for about a week, anyone registered could vote on the GGC polls. It only took a week before he realized that it seemed to be a bad plan, and he changed it back to the way the system was originally intended to be. Some will see the actual timing of this as something that is biased or suspect, however I do not see this to be true. Rich made a change, didn't like the change, and changed it back. End of story.

YES, it is STILL an emotionally charged issue, but this thread is merely about whether the actions of an admitted bad guy have materially damaged the credibility of the GGC ... I do not believe they have but wanted there to be a discussion. I did not expect or want there to be bashing and attacking of one another on this thread. But I knew when I started the thread that I was unleashing the dragon and time alone would tell if it was a monster or a pussycat.

Originally Posted by sirenofthestorm

Lucille - if collaborating on a test isn't plagiarism and cheating, I don't know what is. Besides, seeing as all assignments for my classes with online components are time sensitive, waiting around for someone on a board to reply is an exercise in futility. My professors know how to use google. I'm sure a few responses are randomly googled to see if they were taken from somewhere else. I am not so stupid as to jeopardize my standing as a student to ask for help on a public message board. Its just not worth it.

Whitney: Here is the post of yours that I responded to, offering help if you needed it. I do not see the word 'test', please correct me if I am not reading your post correctly. A simple 'no thank you' would have been nice.


"That is not why I don't want to pay, that is why I don't think that the Good Guy Certification is important to me at this point in time. I have homework due online at midnight and I'm leaving town for a day tomorrow so I'm not posting any more tonight. Please feel free to search through my posts back in january-ish for the real reasons I am not going to pay $10 to have my identity verified. I bother to post because a good debate can often clarify positions at the very least, and I think that alone is a valid reason to question why things have been done they way they were."

How about if I enforce some structure here?

This particular forum is about this site concerning feedback of how it is run and the direction it is heading. In other words issues DIRECTLY related to THIS site, and not external issues and events. While it is OK to mention specific instances as examples, it is NOT OK to use this forum as a launching platform to continue and expound on those particular external issues. If someone feels that NERD has engaged in an activity that reflects on them as a business or as persons in an ethical situation, then create a thread on the BOI and continue your discussion there. If people feel that they need to discuss the issue with Bill Leverton any further, then address the moderator who closed that thread or myself with your reasons for wanting that thread on the BOI reopened and it will be considered.

Otherwise, this thread is about the Good Guy Certification program, and I would appreciate everyone sticking to the topic at hand as closely as possible.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

How about if I enforce some structure here?

This particular forum is about this site concerning feedback of how it is run and the direction it is heading. In other words issues DIRECTLY related to THIS site, and not external issues and events. While it is OK to mention specific instances as examples, it is NOT OK to use this forum as a launching platform to continue and expound on those particular external issues... this thread is about the Good Guy Certification program, and I would appreciate everyone sticking to the topic at hand as closely as possible.

OK Rich, this is about the Good Guy issue surrounding NERD and my response to Whitney who also wants to bend the truth to suit her point.

Originally Posted by sirenofthestorm

Post # 61 you say "A retraction of the "Bad Guy" at http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/for...ead.php?t=65172 would also be in order." How did I misquote or misrepresent you there?

Like this. And I will put it into terms that I believe that you can understand. If you can't I have some adjectives that would well describe you but I am certain Rich would suspend me for saying them if he doesn't anyway.

This is what you said. Please note that I have added some formatting to make it easier for you to understand.

Originally Posted by sirenofthestorm

The instructions that you wrote stated that people should vote after business transactions. Jim pointed that out in the nerd thread to david and told him that a withdrawl of his negative vote was in order since he did not conduct a business transaction with them

That is not what I said and not what I did (and nor was it EVER in the instructions that one had to have had a business transaction -- Rich has made that clear and that has NEVER CHANGED). Dave said

Originally Posted by crazyrcorn

Okay, I WAS WRONG on NERD supporting voids and saying they do so, I truely sorry to KAra and Kevin. Yes I should have contacted them first, as we all know being up late at night does help us make good choices. I am also sorry for aounding cocky as someone has mentioned.

I responded directly to David's apology to NERD which he made of his free will. So, in direct response to David's apology I said

Originally Posted by Jim O

A retraction of the "Bad Guy" at http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/for...ead.php?t=65172 would also be in order

And that is how you mischaracteracterized my request for a retraction. It had nothing to do at that moment with anything else other than the fact that David had apologized, unless you also claim to be a mind reader and know somehow that I meant something different. Your insistence that it was because it was due to his not having had a transaction with NERD is contrary to the facts. I have made that plain and simple for you twice now. If you cannot understand how you are wrong, or choose not to understand, well I feel sorry for you.

This was a great idea for a thread. It's just too bad that a bunch of people decided that it was more important to spam the thread with irrelevant posts rather than actually discuss the topic at hand.

I would suggest going into your usercp and add the following people to your ignore list:

Jim O
sirenofthestorm
shrap
Karen Hulvey
Dennis Hultman
CaptainSlackass
bcfos
wilomn

...and then reload the thread. Believe it or not, when you get rid of the piles and piles of irrelevant crap, it actually is a thread that is about the GGCs, it's only a handful of posts long, and it's a much more enjoyable read.

And thanks for the red dot, Jim O. That really says a lot about you.

I posted how to make this thread so that it reads as if it's about the GCC, because that is the topic. However, in your hurried frenzy to red-dot me, you seem to have forgotten to leave a comment with your present.

What exactly about my post made it "an especially bad post?"

Originally Posted by Serpwidgets

spam the thread with irrelevant posts rather than actually discuss the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by Serpwidgets

What exactly about my post made it "an especially bad post?"

Spaming the thread with an irrelevant post.
By the time someone reaches your post, it's too late.