What happened to BOI????

She is saying that she wants no freebies; that if there is something 'free' that in reality others pay for it.
She does not want others to pay.

Originally Posted by lucille

She is saying that she wants no freebies; that if there is something 'free' that in reality others pay for it.
She does not want others to pay.

I didn't take it that way, Lucille. Not saying I interpretted what she said correctly, just that the way I read the words produced a different meaning to me. MY interpretation was that this was a blast to those people who expect things to be free for them, regardless of who else is actually paying for it.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

I didn't take it that way, Lucille. Not saying I interpretted what she said correctly, just that the way I read the words produced a different meaning to me. MY interpretation was that this was a blast to those people who expect things to be free for them, regardless of who else is actually paying for it.

Perhaps I woke up on the wrong side of the coffee today, when 3 people I respect say they interpreted something differently, I have to think they make have a point, maybe I didn't see the forest for the trees.

In any case, while I do not agree that anyone has an entitlement to have free time here, I still believe that it would be good if possible to give an accused a brief way to respond without having to buy in.

If the only choices were buy in or not buy in, I'd opt for the buy in.

Dennis, Harald and Deb, if I misinterpreted, I apologize.

I admit that I am not internet savvy, this is my first computer (I worked alot for a long time..), but how would someone know they were listed as a "bad guy" unless they had access to the BOI? (if a "paid only" scenario did occur, which I support) A posted link in another forum, a friend, etc?

Why could they not simply email documents etc. to prove innocence directly to a "innocence project" type of email account to be reviewed by a (very patient and respected) moderator? If the moderator feels that they were wrongly accused they can post resolution...maybe even fine a "False Accusation Tax"...hehe!!

That way if for some reason they just won't pony up the money, there is another option? Would that not put the responsibility back on them instead of Admin?

Again, if ridiculous, I am sorry...in advance... I do not feel it is possible to please everyone all the time...nor is it your duty.

I just saw your other post, sorry to have continued the discussion. It is your decision to make and I am thankful you did this for as long as you have. I get it, now...and again, thanks for another year to do research, that was very generous.

The problem with that, Stacey, is that it would subject every person named in a bad guy thread to the mood of that moderator (if one were to be enough of a glutton for punishment to accept such a task). Try as we might to be fair, we sometimes have bad days...just like everybody else. Besides, how do you think we would feel after the day's 4th or 5th rambling, ticked off email from somebody that thinks they were wrongly accused of something. (you'd have to see some of the messages we get from people to really understand, lol)

Not to mention that it would also expose that moderator to significant legal liability since they would be acting as a judge in those matters. Basically significant evidence would then exist that the moderator who decided against the accused bad guy was responsible to the retention of that label by choosing the other party's evidence. I certainly would not allow myself to be placed in that position, nor will I place the moderators here in that sort of jeopardy.

Points taken.....

There is a reason this is the only brutally honest forum left......all the . Again, sorry. for whining.

Hmmm - that serving as judge thing was on top of my list when I opted to reply...I wonder why it never made it into my post...

Originally Posted by lucille

It sounds like you are agreeing that Rich should have to put up $50,000. every time someone challenges in court his right to have the BOI.

And he is dealing with those consequences, he very well may shut the BOI down, because a few suits like that would be an extraordinarily heavy burden for almost anyone.

You are plainly saying that others should not pay, and that he should foot this enormous responsibility himself. You are entitled to your opinion.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

Lucille, I think you read the post wrong. She was stating the opposite.

Dennis got what I'm saying- people should pay into the BOI- no free-passes. The thing costs money to maintain & is a great service to the Herp community. It was beyond nice to allow anyone to use it...

Lucille as you so rightly state the burden Rich bears is BS. Sorry if you were confused by my post.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

I didn't take it that way, Lucille. Not saying I interpretted what she said correctly, just that the way I read the words produced a different meaning to me. MY interpretation was that this was a blast to those people who expect things to be free for them, regardless of who else is actually paying for it.

Right again!!!