Mods who are SOOOOO smart they don't even have to read the guidelines

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Ah, Wes, I see you are back. And accusing me of accusing you of being a liar. Since you are probably still groggy from being away, I'll make this easy on you. Show me the quote where I accused you of lying, please. I'll simplify this a bit by telling you the posts in question on this thread are #49, #56, and #194.

So would I be mistaken in accusing you of LYING about me accusing you of lying previously?

As for the issue of Mr. Clark, prove it to me. I've stated the evidence I have seen, as well as my assessment of that evidence. Personally it is my firmly held belief that you just have a problem with anyone acting in an authority capacity in any form. And your response is to try to undermine them as well as the system under which they are operating. That is my opinion, and from the manner in which I have seen your interactions with moderators HERE, I would go so far as to say it is pretty solid.

Heck I would go so far as to say that you, Wes, don't have a leg to stand on to tell ANYONE how they should act in a public forum. NO one here has EVER accumulated as many total warning points over the years as well as being suspended and banned as many times within the existence of this site as YOU have. In my opinion, YOU, my friend, do not have this site's best interests at heart and are clearly interested in causing as much trouble as you can and to undermine ME in every way you think you can in the process. I've given you MANY more chances than anyone else on this planet would have for you to finally get it together and join in this Fauna community.

Truthfully Wes, I do admire the way you post in some instances, and enjoy your interaction with the bad guys. But the destructive baggage associated with you has become far too weighty. It's your choice, my friend. Lose the baggage, or take another train. It's your choice to make, but this train is moving on down the tracks, either with you or without you.

NO ONE can ever TRUTHFULLY say I haven't given you a chance.........

But THIS is the LAST one, Wes. Make sure you choose wisely about what you want to do.

AHahahaHAHAHahahaHahahahaaahAHAHAHa

Well, thanks for the laugh.

We have differing opinions.

You make the call rich, you're the king.

I have pointed out what I thought was in need of improvment, especially since YOU went all Wild Wild West. There are a couple of mods here who I am not alone in questioning the abilities of, though truthfully, even if I were alone, I'd still question them. But, respectfully, that IS my opinion.

IF you truly think that I am out to damage this site, something which I have denied a number of times, the boot me for good. IF you're just playing to the crowd, then stop saying that.

I have NEVER wished ill on fauna. YOU may not have been able to percieve that but you, and I mean no insult here, are not the be all and end all of human evolution. You're a guy with a damn fine site that breeds some damn fine corns. Neither of those make you any better suited to judge my motives or myself than anyone else here.

Why would I lie to you rich? It's not something I do. I could, but I just don't like it, I think it lessons the one who does it. I have changed my mind on things, just ask Jay, but that doesn't mean that I didn't mean what I have said at the time I've said it. Can you say the same? I don't know because, like you, I have no special qualifications to enable me to know you and your motives, other than my gut, which is usually right about bad guys, which I don't think you are.

You have built a picture of me for yourself that is not a true or accurate representation of me. That's cool, do as you will. BUT, when you decide that there is ONLY ONE WAY a thing can be, you rule out too much. I'm not neil "the liar" gubitz or sal "the theif" tornambene. They are stuck as they are, nailed for WHAT they are, destined to be as almost all of us see them.

I think you see a version of me that is shared by few. Again, that's cool, but I will, on occasion, say that you're wrong. Only when I think you are though, because to say so when I don't would be a lie, and I don't like doing that.

I think you implied heavily enough that I had lied that it was taken as a statement by many. You say otherwise. I have no need to argue this point with you. I say I did not. That is good enough for me. You say I am trying to do harm to your site strenuously enough that it is believed by some. I say it is not so. That too, is good enough for me.

What you do from here is entirely up to you rich. I'm trying to play by your ever changing rules, regulations and guidelines. If you can't tolerate and accept that, then give me the heave ho. But if you do, know why you're doing it and let me know as well if you would.

As I've told you before, leaving a message in pm when I'm booted is pretty much useless since pm's are inaccessable when access to the site is denied.

Sorry to confuse, I was replying to Rich's last post....post #261 I think.

Originally Posted by critical bill

So the guy isn't cut out to be a behaviour therapist. The issue to me is about two mods whom seem to know just when to become mods on a thread in which they were not previously acting in that capacity and simply to exercise a privilege that other mods have used fairly and for the right reasons. At first I chalked it off to inexperience, but it soon became apparent from the multiple warnings that they received that this wasn't the case. Honestly, how often does a mod need to be reminded by another mod or a super mod not to abuse a system before that mod has his privilege taken away?

I gather from what you posted that you feel that all the mods and super mods who issued warnings two these mods all day to not abuse the system are wrong for doing so. No offense but in my opinion the two mods were wrong for abusing the system and they were warned correctly and appropriately.

And by the way Rich, if you really want to cut down on the animosity between mods and members you might try eliminating or restricting the comment box that goes along with the warning points. Sometimes the stupid things a mod will say in that comment box is more or less equivlent to what it is your being warned for.

Originally Posted by varnyard

Rich, it is something how you choose to overlook post #8 on the Ed thread, Eds comments:





But you want to cut me down for my response back to him in post # 20. Ok Rich, your right, he is doing a great job.

Dennis, you still think that is not what he meant?

I am done, you need not worry that I will waste my time with this, I have better things to do, Ed wins!!!

So let me get this straight, Bobby. You want me to comment on EVERY post in that thread? Why? I'm really not sure what you are saying. Is ED stating this in a comment he made while acting as a moderator towards you? Or as a private party? The points I was addressing were related to his actions as a moderator. Nothing more, nothing less. THAT was the issue that needed to be addressed.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

In my opinion, Bobby was addressing Ed as a moderator and making claims about his role in how he moderates on this site. Although many mods will be reluctant about taking part as a moderator in a thread they are also participating in, there is NO restriction against them doing that. Therefore, in my opinion, this warning IS legit in that Bobby was antagonizing Ed within the context of his moderating actions.

Maybe I'm in the wrong place to discuss this but since you have made this public I am going to respectfully disagree. Feel free to move this post to a private area if you prefer.

There is more than one issue here. At the top, Bobby mentions that Ed lies (he has done so in this thread and elsewhere) and that he then acts like a "good Mod". Honest observation and fair criticism. The other comment is with respect to when the new infraction for attacks outside of the BOI was added and how Ed almost immediately went and found an old post from Wes and warned him. On that occasion Jay Owens warned Ed for abuse of warning system. So again, it's hardly like Bobby was complaining about something less than legitimately wrong with Ed's moderating "skills".

Now for your take that this was "legit", yours is the vote that counts. But bear in mind that Jay and Dennis and several of the others of us dinged Ed for dinging Bobby in a somewhat negative thread about Ed. While it is true that there is no restriction against particpating in and moderating a thread, it is extremely risky to moderate a thread about oneself. In this post the issue was Ed's character, and part of Bobby's argument was that he was a less than fair moderator, as evidenced by his going after Wes on that occasion. Now if the bulk of Bobby's post had been about Ed as a moderator, I suspect that many of us would have dinged Bobby for it. But those same people mentioned above all gave it a pass.

You know, sometimes people just dig their heels into the sand simply because they are too stubborn to recognize that which most everyone else already has. Maybe it's stubborn blindness, maybe it's a character flaw or maybe it's simply lack of respect for others.....But one things for sure, it's NOT err'ing on the side of integrity. What a shame.

Griz

Originally Posted by Griz

You know, sometimes people just dig their heels into the sand simply because they are too stubborn to recognize that which most everyone else already has. Maybe it's stubborn blindness, maybe it's a character flaw or maybe it's simply lack of respect for others.....But one things for sure, it's NOT err'ing on the side of integrity. What a shame.

Bob,
In all fairness, sometimes people dig in their heels out of defensiveness when they feel like they are being attacked. That's not to say that they are right for doing it, but it is a very normal human response. Just a thought...

It takes a pretty strong person to introspect in the face of criticism and admit when they are wrong. Not everyone can do it.

(For the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, rather I'm offering an additional point of view. )

Originally Posted by Jim O

Maybe I'm in the wrong place to discuss this but since you have made this public I am going to respectfully disagree. Feel free to move this post to a private area if you prefer.

There is more than one issue here. At the top, Bobby mentions that Ed lies (he has done so in this thread and elsewhere) and that he then acts like a "good Mod". Honest observation and fair criticism. The other comment is with respect to when the new infraction for attacks outside of the BOI was added and how Ed almost immediately went and found an old post from Wes and warned him. On that occasion Jay Owens warned Ed for abuse of warning system. So again, it's hardly like Bobby was complaining about something less than legitimately wrong with Ed's moderating "skills".

Now for your take that this was "legit", yours is the vote that counts. But bear in mind that Jay and Dennis and several of the others of us dinged Ed for dinging Bobby in a somewhat negative thread about Ed. While it is true that there is no restriction against particpating in and moderating a thread, it is extremely risky to moderate a thread about oneself. In this post the issue was Ed's character, and part of Bobby's argument was that he was a less than fair moderator, as evidenced by his going after Wes on that occasion. Now if the bulk of Bobby's post had been about Ed as a moderator, I suspect that many of us would have dinged Bobby for it. But those same people mentioned above all gave it a pass.

Well, let me ask the site mods about this one. Jay, Dennis, and Ken, have you EVER given warning points to someone who was posting in an antagonistic manner towards you in relation to your MODERATOR duties? I know I have, and am quite certain I have not restricted them from doing so. The only qualms I would have is if they used the warning system in a retaliatory manner against someone posting about them outside of their moderator duties here.

And I believe this SHOULD apply to the warning system mods as well. It is certainly appropriate for them to use the warning system against those members posting about them in an antagonistic manner CONCERNING their warning point useage on this site. They have every right to defend the actions that they are engaging in at my request. This, I believe is only fair and fitting. They may choose to do so, or choose not to, but I have not restricted them from acting in this manner. I can't see why I would tell any mod that they are powerless to defend themselves from anyone attacking their actions on this site FOR this site. And nor would I.

Oh, one other thing, after re-reading your post. No, I have NOT restricted the mods from noting older posts with infractions and acting accordingly to assess warnings about them. In retrospect, perhaps this is fitting to quell those complaints about uneven enforcement of the rules. After all, I do believe that nearly all of the rules now in place have been in place through most of the history of this site. So why not? Does it matter that someone posted profanity 2 days ago or two years ago? It's still profanity and has pretty much always been against the rules. So no, I have not, and am not, telling anyone that older posts are exempt from being examined. There is no statute of limitations here, as far as I am concerned. And as an aside, yes, pissing off a mod just might get them digging for such things.....

Anyway, does this help to clear things a bit?

How many threads in the BOI aren't antagonistic? So if one of the mods has a bad guy thread and we are antagonistic towards them, they have the right to ding us? So the bad guy has more rights just because he paid for a higher level of memebership. I can see it in the regular forums, but not the BOI.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Well, let me ask the site mods about this one. Jay, Dennis, and Ken, have you EVER given warning points to someone who was posting in an antagonistic manner towards you in relation to your MODERATOR duties? I know I have, and am quite certain I have not restricted them from doing so. The only qualms I would have is if they used the warning system in a retaliatory manner against someone posting about them outside of their moderator duties here.

And I believe this SHOULD apply to the warning system mods as well. It is certainly appropriate for them to use the warning system against those members posting about them in an antagonistic manner CONCERNING their warning point useage on this site. They have every right to defend the actions that they are engaging in at my request. This, I believe is only fair and fitting. They may choose to do so, or choose not to, but I have not restricted them from acting in this manner. I can't see why I would tell any mod that they are powerless to defend themselves from anyone attacking their actions on this site FOR this site. And nor would I.

Oh, one other thing, after re-reading your post. No, I have NOT restricted the mods from noting older posts with infractions and acting accordingly to assess warnings about them. In retrospect, perhaps this is fitting to quell those complaints about uneven enforcement of the rules. After all, I do believe that nearly all of the rules now in place have been in place through most of the history of this site. So why not? Does it matter that someone posted profanity 2 days ago or two years ago? It's still profanity and has pretty much always been against the rules. So no, I have not, and am not, telling anyone that older posts are exempt from being examined. There is no statute of limitations here, as far as I am concerned. And as an aside, yes, pissing off a mod just might get them digging for such things.....

Anyway, does this help to clear things a bit?

We'll just disagree on this one Rich.

So to answer your question, crystal clear (just like mud ).

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Well, let me ask the site mods about this one. Jay, Dennis, and Ken, have you EVER given warning points to someone who was posting in an antagonistic manner towards you in relation to your MODERATOR duties?

Yes I have.