Can We Enforce a Higher Level of Accountablity?

Originally Posted by lucille

If you don't think a particular discussion is your cup of tea, no one is forcing participation, but to quash an idea from its inception doesn't benefit anyone.

Isn't that sort of like squashing, from its inception, the idea that this may not be the best idea?

Originally Posted by LakesideBoas

First of all, that was rude and uncalled for. I don't know who told you that, Deb, but shame on you whoever you are.

Nothing says Rich has to discuss, compile or implement anything you propose in this discussion. It is simply what it is, a discussion. I didn't see where you even mentioned Rich or Fauna as being a venue for anything other than this discussion.

I have to do some errands, but I'll be back in a little while. I don't see any reason why we have to shoot down anyone who cares to discuss something that has the potential to benefit all of us. Brainstorming an idea is the quickest way I know of to get ideas and issues together and closer to resolution.

If we all acted like a bunch of ignorant peasants every time someone proposed an idea then this site probably wouldn't be here now would it......

Play nice children.

I will second that motion.

It's a GREAT idea, Deborah-- as is true communism. Unfortunately, as a species, we're not ready for either yet...

Originally Posted by varnyard

Deborahbroadus, you just started this thread today and you want to drop it already?

I would like to have a link to the main thread, thanks.

No, I don't particularly "want" to drop it, but I have seen how some turn discussions can turn into very nasty posts...and as I have already made my desires known about name calling ridicule of another's opinion and behavior of such like, I would never willingly make myself a target for those who seem to take pleasure in such interactions. I never turn away from a logical, honest discussion. But I have no desire to be raked over coals for someone's entertainment. I would have dropped it, actually because I do not feel the need to "prove" a thing. I do not have to prove the idea has merit; it can stand or fall on its own with discussion and with me trying to expand on what I see (envision).

Here ya go.


http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...2&page=10&pp=5

Originally Posted by Wilomn

Actually Maggie, this was discussed in some detail while you were on hiatus. I don't recall which forum at the moment but I think the general consensus was that short of Napoleon or Hitler taking over and forcing everyone to obey some sort of guideline there is no way to enforce any sort of standard other than a case by case basis.

There are those like me who don't want a GGC. It can be used as a negative, and it was in my case, by those with personal grudges. Wanny guess which 5 dimwits, none of whom had ever done business with me, voted me a bad guy? Go ahead and try, it's not to tough to figure out.

Then there's the whole "what if" syndrome. "What if" someone is lying? Who's going to make that call? We do as a group after we've done some investigating or looking into our navels or whatever we do to come up with our positions on any given subject, but if you try to regulate that, I'm out. I don't play well with others and have no desire to be part of an organization that abidicates doing so as the only way to operate.

Being The Wild West is really the best way that has come up out of several years of trying different approaches to what you would like to achieve.

Your goals are admirable, I'll give you that.

Good luck on the rest.

But isn't this what LAWS do? We don't have a choice, someone (representative consenus) decided which laws would benefit the better good and established a system to enforce it. I do not see (bear with me), how this is so very different.

The "what if?" That's why it could be all automatic..like if you speed you get a ticket, you have the opportunity to argue the ticket, but the ticket is there, what if the machine is wrong? What if you weren't speeding and the machine is broke? That's why there are checks and balances.

IMO, the Wild West has had its day and in those days the law of the gun was what was needed because there was NO SYSTEM in place. There were lots of "outlaws" that struggled against the changes in the "status quo" to no avail...they eventually fell by the wayside and more people saw the benefit of having some kind of guidelines in writing, or some kind of automatic system that helped to encourage people..some kind of penalties something that would regulate the trade more than it is now.

We may not like it..but those days are coming. With all the people out there scamming (remember the internet used to be free..remember there used to be no regulations..there are now and they are getting stricter and more enforceable as time passes) whoever is first to grab the "brass ring" may be in a position to have the opportunity when those days come to show a system already in place and get grants to shore up/improve that system.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

No, I don't particularly "want" to drop it, but I have seen how some turn discussions can turn into very nasty posts...

Dont be put off from it. say what you are thinking and what you are feeling. Ignore the comments and move on. Dont play to those games.

Originally Posted by Wilomn

Isn't that sort of like squashing, from its inception, the idea that this may not be the best idea?

But who is the judge and jury to decide without the whole community that this is not the best idea? Even laws were made by each group having a representative. I do not think the implementation of the idea would be "communism" but rather a democracy because we all would have a say.

We as a community deciding which bylaws guidelines should govern the trade because as it is, there is not much regulation right now..it is mostly people getting a bee in their bonnet and suggesting blanket laws.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

I do not think the implementation of the idea would be "communism" but rather a democracy because we all would have a say.

I never EQUATED your idea with communism. I just said it was a great idea AS IS communism. See? The way that your defensiveness skewed your perception of my post is a great example of how we're not ready yet for your idea. We'd all have to be "on the same page", and that's never going to happen...

Originally Posted by Roy Munson

I never EQUATED your idea with communism. I just said it was a great idea AS IS communism. See? The way that your defensiveness skewed your perception of my post is a great example of how we're not ready yet for your idea. We'd all have to be "on the same page", and that's never going to happen...

Oh boy...the discussion would go farther if we wouldn't imput motives to each other.

I wasn't defensive (I didn't feel defensive) I was explaining why I didn't think the comparison was apt. I am sorry if I didn't get my meaning clear.

While I agree and have admitted so in the thread on Alan Hall that, right now, this (Fauna) is the best thing there is.

I am sure at it's very inception when Rich first dreamed up the idea there were those who said it would never fly, that he was wasting his time and money and he should just scrap it before it got started. How many times do we hear today that this site is going to fail? In fact didn't Rich have a bet with someone that this site would be history by now?

While Deb's ideas may seem as far-fetched as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy right this moment it does not mean that the topic is not worthy of discussion just because some feel the goals are not attainable.

Deb is not proposing a change to this site that I read, she is proposing a wider ranging plan that could/would perhaps benefit all herpers. Is it worth discussing? We won't know until we discuss it, will we?

Deb, if you are serious about this, grab a note pad and write your proposals up like a business plan. Stand by what you propose, but don't let others destroy your convictions unless they prove to you just why something won't work. Let them show you others ways to accomplish the same goals, if necessary. There is a wealth of experience here in this hobby---tap it. Most people when approached in the right way are more than happy to discuss just about anything.

If your plan does have merit you will know soon enough.

I don't understand all this negativity first shot out of the hole. I was away from here for a while so maybe I see things a bit different than some who are here every day.

I see a lot of hand-wringing and pissing and moaning, but in the end, the "bad guy" ends up being able to continue his or her misdeeds elsewhere as we have no avenue for prosecution. Not always, but you have to admit it does happen a lot.

All of the major groups/organisations in this country have one thing we do not. Lobbyists and a solid presence in politics. Look at the NRA and the HSUS & PITA (our biggest detractors).

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. We're not squeaking very loudly at all. We sit back and lay down for legislation that hurts us because we have no outlet except word of mouth, in some cases.

Maybe it's time to let the 'Debs' of this hobby make their proposals. It can't hurt to listen.