moderators role - moderation vs. personal involvment

MITE THREAD

Page 1 fine

Page 2 fine

Page 3 fine

Page 4 Fine

Page 5 fine

Page 6 fine

Page 7 it starts from what i see with Anthony. With remarks such as this : Maybe, just maybe, that's because you're upset that we don't let two bit jobbers into our show. Points i beleive are warranted for roughness.

Mickey replied with :GO [**censored**] YOURSELF. and You want to stick up for your show fine, but you want to insult me and my business with a statement like that, then sell animals to us "too bit jobbers". SCREW YOU.
Ok points for Vulgarity and roughness needed.

Page 8 more flames. no points though

Page 9 more of the heat . no points

Page 10 no points

Page 11 have to admitt I bounced to see how many pages long this Flame war would be with frustration. Saw 35 and really wanted bang my head on the keyboard.

Otherwise page 11 is fine no points.

page 12 no points

Page 13 Anthony tries to explain things calmer and more proffesional kudos.no points

Page 14 little heat showing again.

Page 15 Jay Owens: I am not going to go back and give Anthony or Jim warning points if for no other reason than I'm sick of all of the bellyaching about how unjustly you're being treated.

Ok i must agree that in this case and knowing he is their friend he is shelterring them and is abusing his powers.

Followed by Mickeys post: Crying and whinning? POST THE [**censored**]ING EMAILS YOU PIECE OF [**censored**]>

NOW THE FILTERS OFF< YOU DR JAY CAN GO [**censored**] YOURSELF. I WILL SEE YOU IN TINLEY.

ANTHONY C. IF I EVER SEE YOU I HAVE A PRESENT FOR YOU TOO YOU [**censored**]ING PIECE OF [**censored**]. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO THE [**censored**] YOU ARE INSULTING WITH BASLESS FACTS>

RICH IM SORRY, BUT YOUR MODS A [**censored**]ING ASSHOLE>

POST THE [**censored**]ING EMAILS YOU PIECE OF [**censored**] DR JAY>


OK LOTS OF POINTS THERE....

Rich stepped in with a fine well deserved one. then Jay posted and Anthony in what appears to be backslapping each other in a "ATABOY Fashion" not sure if you should give points for it but it really looks bad to other members that a Mod is protecting friends in this manner.

Page 16 no points

Page 17 no points

Page 18 No points

Page 19 no points

Page 20 no points

Page 21 no points

page 22 no points

Page 23 no points

Page 24 Hot but no points deffinate time for a warning to tone it down though

Page 25 THANK GOD ONLY 10 MORE PAGES. no points though

Page 26 no points

Page 27 no points

Page 28 realvenum uses profanity its masked and points given.

Page 29 no points

Page 30 Neoscales :Wow, almost half a page of nearly incomprehensible nonsense (again). I’m certain you have a point; it’s just so damn hard to translate it into anything that reads coherently.

quote:The def of "we" from cambride

Jason I see you have access to a dictionary. What about spell check and a basic grammar manual? (...and it’s “Cambridge” not “cambride” there whiz kid).

But really - you should consider writing less, making your points more apparent and specific. Mining your posts for information is tedious at best.

-Randy May

I think points for roughness warranted.

And also for Mickeys vulgarity :

ANTHONY CAPONETTO [**censored**]S LITTLE BOYS

Page 31 no points

Page 32 mikey: If you're threatening physical violence, you're going to have to do a lot better than talking [**censored**] over the internet because let's just say that I'm not easily intimidated.
Points for language

Page 33 no points

Page 34 no points

Page 35 No points and its over thank god

Ok that is my views on that thread.

Rich ask people frequently to help fauna and give input if anyone wants to give input anyfurther on this entire topic you better put yourself through that hell i just went through.

Rich. I have had a problem with a member on Gary's Board. Though I have full adminstrative controls as well as moderator functions I took no action yet took it to both the Moderating team and Gary directly as I was involved in the thread. The Moderating Team examined it and then Gary handled it. We can not always be fair or impartial and I know that. People may not always appreciate or agree with us. When a problem arrises such as this where a Moderator is involved it should be taken up for talks with other site staff members.

I try to be fair and when i think i cant or feel the urge to hit the warn button I ask for others opinions. I would give a friend points and even BAN one if i felt their was justification in fact I just took such an action with a member that was for years a friend.

It is very hard running a site and worrying about someone and how they think of you is a waiste of time. Yet at the same time any site staff member or owner when confronted with this type of problem needs to examine it closely.

Now My coffee best be ready.

Rich you are doing what is needed now. Reviewing it is best and all the members can ask. I would not think it to be fair if you just took the members word for it and did not review it.

And either way you decide is not going to be wrong. Look at the facts and make a judgement.

I still think that a larger mod team to discuss things like this would help you. You can have mod levels(I know you can lol) And you the admin then the global mods then the mods. Then you get views on things and you can better make judgements......

But IMO you are doing it right bro!

Would it be considered overly bold of me to ask why three mods/admins from a competing site are here in this thread and so golly gee overly concerned about the welfare of this site???

Or are you guys just overly concerned about Dr Owens for some reason?

It just looks strange to me.

Would whoever lifted the rock jolly crawled out from under please put him back under it and tamp it down firmly this time.

Now a rhetorical question (look up the word, wilomn):

If Dr Owens gives wilomn warning points for his post, does that mean that he could never afterwards post in this thread, no matter that his name is mentioned in it??? Would him stating nothing that did not disagree with my post infer that he agreed with my post by default, therefore he must be biased???

Or if he posted a contrary opinion of my inferrences, would that mean that he could not then give warning points to wilomn's posting, thereby being biased towards wilomn and against me???

Think about it, Wes, my dark shadow. Its tricky.

Because Rich as earned my respect and He needed outside views...........I gave it to him. I couldn't care less if this was Jay doing it or Ken doing it or anyone else. I am just telling him what I see

And what does it matter that I own another site. I do not compeat with Rich. I do not care if a member posts a link to here on my site. It is not a competition at all. Maybe that is a big thing is we all look at it that way. Instead of seeing that every site offers something different and we all have room here in the herp world.

Rich does not make money off this site. I do not make money off mine. So how can it be a competition?

I know what Rich is going through. Maybe you don't maybe you do? I couldn't care less. This has nothing to do with jay personally really. It has to do with him on a mod level..............

Since the question is "rhetorical", ie- concerned primarliy with style or effect- and this "concern" seems to be all the substance jolly has, and while I am NOT concerned as much with them, style and effect that is, as I am the truth, I will simply repeat my previous query.

Would whoever tipped the rock that jolly crawled out from under PLEASE put him back under it and TAMP IT DOWN FIRMLY?

Originally posted by Roger Jolly
Would it be considered overly bold of me to ask why three mods/admins from a competing site are here in this thread and so golly gee overly concerned about the welfare of this site???

Or are you guys just overly concerned about Dr Owens for some reason?

It just looks strange to me.

Just pointing out the facts pure and simple. Thanks for your concern, but I think you are trying to make a point of a subject which you have no idea about. I suggest you read the forum a little more closely and maybe you might be able to better understand the going on's before you jump to some far fetched opinion.

It would seem to me that people in this community have gotten quite paranoid of late. I don't post here much, but I do read on occasion. I am also a moderator at another forum having nothing to do with this one. This issue has spurred some discussion there about the jobs of moderators and consequences for abuse of power, which is why I am here reading today.

First of all, I think it's highly improbable, if not impossible, to find someone who never gets emotionally involved in any issue relating to something they care about. From what I understand, both threads started in the BOI (where warning points were deserved and issued,) and were later moved to "HELL" which is where Jay started posting his own (biased) opinions. I don't see a problem here. Is "HELL" supposed to be unmoderated for the general public, but moderated if you're a moderator? Are they not allowed to post there, or something? I thought that's what the "HELL" forum was for. Is it me? Am I missing something? I don't see that any wrong has been done here.

The KC thread was not moved to hell untill nearly page 25, long after many instances of "bias" were percieved. Also the use of information from the thread, to do harm to my business outside of the thread, was while the thread was in the show section.

Just a bit of background info to answer your question.