And you all wonder why I have to make the restrictions I do...

Originally Posted by hhmoore

That situation has nothing to do with that person being a mod...lots of people refuse to go to the BOI and be questioned. There has never been a rule requiring somebody to participate in a BOI thread about them. Also, being a moderator does not make any of us "above the law", and that statement has been made repeatedly. BOI issues in the discussion forums has never been accepted, and going after chasing after someone in that manner would always have been squashed. If you want to call a person out for business practices - do it...just don't make the attack on them as a moderator.

Already did, no answer to yes or no questions.

Originally Posted by Bill & Amy

There is a mod that doesn't answer any questions with a direct answer or gives no answer at all. He thinks this is a big word game and is lying constantly. How do you put pressure on someone to answer questions in the BOI when they constantly post outside the BOI and won't come in there and answer? I've tried to always follow the rules when posting on any of the forums here, I've never been issued warning points. But how can you put pressure on someone to answer questions in the BOI, if you can't pursue them outside the BOI when they are mods?

I agree. if a site mod has a BOI thread go up and will not answer questions in that thread, why on earth should they continue to be allowed as a moderator of this site? I dont feel thats really right. Dosnt that kind of go against the whole " Mods are Still Subject To the Rules" thing? I mean heck, if i could pay 100.00 and not ever have to answer questions in the BOI if MY business practices took a nose dive. Im all For it! ( i would never really....)
Wouldnt it be a better idea, to pressure them into answering said questions by revoking their modding abilities if they avoid comment? I mean, if the BOI is our tool at outing the scumbags then, how can you out a person if they wont answer questions in the thread?
But its OK to revoke someones access to the site or certain pages ( not meaning one specific incident here....) even though they PAID to be here. But if THEY cross a certain line they get stuff revoked, while a mod, whos on the BOI and avoids questions, has nothing happen to them?

It seems like some of you are under the impression that participation in a BOI thread is mandatory. There is no rule that states "if you are named in a BOI thread, you will go and respond to the questions of the people". Not for mods, not for business owners, not for registered members. If one chooses not to participate, then the cards fall where they may...in other words, it will certainly be clear that the questions are being avoided, and people inquiring will make the decision as to whether they want to conduct business with the person.
Bottom line is, if you are calling a moderator out for their business practices, they are no better than anybody else...but if in the process you attack them as a moderator, you are in the wrong. Just keep to the "business" at hand.

Originally Posted by Mooing Tricycle

I agree. if a site mod has a BOI thread go up and will not answer questions in that thread, why on earth should they continue to be allowed as a moderator of this site? I dont feel thats really right. Dosnt that kind of go against the whole " Mods are Still Subject To the Rules" thing? I mean heck, if i could pay 100.00 and not ever have to answer questions in the BOI if MY business practices took a nose dive. Im all For it! ( i would never really....)
Wouldnt it be a better idea, to pressure them into answering said questions by revoking their modding abilities if they avoid comment? I mean, if the BOI is our tool at outing the scumbags then, how can you out a person if they wont answer questions in the thread?
But its OK to revoke someones access to the site or certain pages ( not meaning one specific incident here....) even though they PAID to be here. But if THEY cross a certain line they get stuff revoked, while a mod, whos on the BOI and avoids questions, has nothing happen to them?

And if you pay your $100, and then decide you don't want to be a mod anymore....you're just SOL, lose that $100, and have a "personality disorder".

From the keyboard of one of the esteemed moderators here.....

Originally Posted by Dave Lawson

BUT ON TO YOU, YOU JUST STATED THAT YOU WANT TO BE A LITTLE GIRL.
In your fantacy of being a little girl are you waring a dress and are you calling Berry daddy? I mean you did say that Berry was the warden and you were only a little co that wanted to be a little girl, Does warden Berry spank his little girl when she is bad?

Yeah, that's the kind of folk that's gonna work hard to keep this site clean and running smoothly. We should respect our moderators, all of them.

That's just messed up.

Originally Posted by Bill & Amy

Take it or leave it? What happened to the sense of society that was here? What happened to protecting people from getting screwed by scammers? Now with the new rules scammers can hide as mods and not be accountable. People will come here and think they are trustworthy people because they are mods of the BOI!!! WTF!!! Hey Rich, I bet you don't let Luis Torres come here and be a mod. According to the new rules he's more than welcome and he wouldn't even have to answer questions in his own BOI thread.

I just can't believe we even have to have this conversation.

"Hide" as mods and "not be accountable"? Just how in the world did you come to that conclusion?

As for Luis Torres, he is banned from this site, so there is no possible issue with him becoming a paid member. In that particular instance, I have direct personal experience with dealing with him and can certainly act as a judge concerning his participation here. In all but a very few other situations, I have no direct experience at all with either party in a dispute, and could only use their actions HERE as any sort of criteria for ME to judge THEM. Quite frankly, I think I have been pretty consistent in trying to restrict the evidence I use to judge anyone to what I have actual experience in seeing with my own two eyes.

Seriously most people would not even KNOW a Benefactor or Endowment level member has the capability to issue warning points without spending the time to find that out or running afoul of the rules. So are you suggesting that I should first investigate anyone applying for those memberships, and then JUDGE them worthy based on my picking one side of a dispute over another? Sorry, but no, I am not going to do that. I will only judge them in how they act here and react accordingly if needed. The warning system was designed with all of the mods in concert in order to keep things running smoothly. I have and will step in when it appears necessary, but for the most part, I am allowing the system to mature and be used as it was designed.

Originally Posted by Bill & Amy

There is a mod that doesn't answer any questions with a direct answer or gives no answer at all. He thinks this is a big word game and is lying constantly. How do you put pressure on someone to answer questions in the BOI when they constantly post outside the BOI and won't come in there and answer? I've tried to always follow the rules when posting on any of the forums here, I've never been issued warning points. But how can you put pressure on someone to answer questions in the BOI, if you can't pursue them outside the BOI when they are mods?

So if this person were NOT a mod, how would you put pressure on him to FORCE him to answer questions? So are you seriously claiming that I should somehow step in as the sheriff and force someone to do your (and others) bidding to answer a question, or else? What exactly would that "or else" be?

Ok, anyone, please show me a rule anywhere that says anyone MUST answer questions posted on the BOI, mod or otherwise. Or if an unwritten rule of some kind where it was EVER enforced or proven workable. Please, I don't remember writing something of that nature, but obviously it must be there with people getting upset at some people for violating this "rule". I know there is a rule against pursuing other members outside of the BOI, but that applies to all members and not exclusively to mods of any sort. This was done to contain the necessary rough nature of the BOI within the BOI and not have it spilled all over the rest of this site. This particular problem was being taken to extremes by certain parties here, and needed to come to an end. It certainly has nothing at all to do with mods in particular, and I am pretty baffled how it can be interpretted that way by anyone.

And also explain to me in simple terms how a scammer becoming a warning system mod becomes "protected" in any fashion. Really, I want to know. Obviously you see something in the way this system works that I don't......

Oh, and concerning that "Jack the Ripper" statement I made that some find difficult to fathom... the humor here is that I am being blasted for my stating that I feel it is best to judge people HERE on the merits of how they act HERE in the role of a warning system mod. Using this criteria rather than any sort of external events or issues unrelated to the job they DO as mods. And it is also apparently handily overlooked that I have given all the mods the capability of dealing with any abuse that should crop up, if they CHOOSE to do so. Although there have been some rough patches in the road, all in all, things haven't really gotten out of hand, considering the POTENTIAL problems possible.

Now the humorous part about my being blasted for NOT taking into consideration external events related to the warning system mods, about this time last year, I was blasted for entirely the opposite reason for my sanctions against forum moderators for what they did elsewhere. I was POINTEDLY told I should ignore what people do external to this site as it just is not relevant to what they do HERE, as moderators nor as members. Really, people, can't you see the irony in all this? On one hand I'm blasted for not taking into consideration something external to moderatorships, yet on the other blasted because I did. No matter where I put the fence line, many of you are fully convinced that the grass is greener on the other side and blaming ME for where I put that fence. You think it should be two feet further south and someone else thinks it should be 3 feet further north. And both get mad at me when I don't move it in either direction because, well heck, I think where it is, is just fine until proven otherwise....

Originally Posted by Griz

But when people value the donations of "less than worthy individuals" before they value their site and people like Bobby, Mike Greathouse etc then who wins? I know who loses.

Griz

Hmm, who exactly is it that determines who is "less than worthy"? What criteria is used in order to make this distinction? Opinions? From one person or a majority?

Perhaps it is the perspective that is the issue here. With both of the examples you mention, the choice presented to me was, "Do things here MY way or I am leaving." This has happened time and time again here.

Interestingly enough, using those two examples, Mike felt the warning system mod powers should apply to ALL members, not just the higher paid members. Bobby, on the other hand, apparently has some personal issues with some of the people here acting as warning system mods and is also "out" because of our differing opinions.

So here we have a classic case of a decision of mine getting some people irritated at me over the same event, but for two entirely nearly opposite reasons. One because I didn't allow this power to MANY MORE people, and the other because the power is granted to a few people he doesn't like.

Honestly folks, can't you see the irony in all this?

Originally Posted by Webslave

Oh, and concerning that "Jack the Ripper" statement I made that some find difficult to fathom... the humor here is that I am being blasted for my stating that I feel it is best to judge people HERE on the merits of how they act HERE in the role of a warning system mod.

Why judge these people only on things they do as a mod here, when they can pull all kinds of other crap HERE, that you CAN see with your own 2 eyes.......if you choose to see it, anyway? Do you really expect people to respect people like Dave Lawson? Do you really think he's "part of the answer?

And what you don't seem to understand is that no one is claiming that there is a "rule" requiring that mods answer allegations on the BOI, just wondering why folks of the type that would have bad guy posts are mods to begin with....and why they remain mods even when they are known scum.

Originally Posted by Cat_72

Why judge these people only on things they do as a mod here, when they can pull all kinds of other crap HERE, that you CAN see with your own 2 eyes.......if you choose to see it, anyway? Do you really expect people to respect people like Dave Lawson? Do you really think he's "part of the answer?

And what you don't seem to understand is that no one is claiming that there is a "rule" requiring that mods answer allegations on the BOI, just wondering why folks of the type that would have bad guy posts are mods to begin with....and why they remain mods even when they are known scum.

Quite simply and bluntly, because I am giving anyone with enough incentive and interest to take a hand in running this site how you all (collectively) want this site to be. I have had enough of the bashing concerning my own thoughts on what is best, so YOU all take the wheel for a while and see if you all can do any better. Which, of course, I am being bashed for as well. Quite frankly, if you are not willing to grab the wheel, then you have to take a back seat to those who are. If people have complaints NOW about this system, imagine how it would be if I had made the hurdle lower in order to participate...... No, I PURPOSELY made it high, and I'm rather glad I did.

Of course there will have to be some fine tuning along the way, but those steps will be things that just couldn't be determined at the beginning. For instance, I can see the need to make "warning system abuse" a stiffer penalty and perhaps lower the suspension trigger somewhat. All in all, even with a handful of people trying their best to torpedo this program completely with their insinuations that there is something dirty about people wanting to pay the higher memberships in order to help out, it's not going all that badly.

Will this be better or worse than with myself and the system mods holding the wheel exclusively? Beats me, but I intend to find out, regardless of the usual circumstance of some people not liking anything that happens around here.

Originally Posted by Webslave

Quite simply and bluntly, because I am giving anyone with enough incentive and interest to take a hand in running this site how you all (collectively) want this site to be.

Incentive and interest? I thought it was money.

While there are a couple folks who have upgraded their memberships that do have helping out in mind....you can't actually believe that folks like Dave Lawson bought that mod status to do what's nice and warm and fuzzy for the site.

I can think a couple folks who would make great mods, and would probably do so if they were given the opportunity.....but maybe can't spare the $100 to do it. I guess that makes them less qualified to be fair, honest, and have a real interest in helping the site. They just can't quite reach that high hurdle.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

"Hide" as mods and "not be accountable"? Just how in the world did you come to that conclusion?

...

Ok, anyone, please show me a rule anywhere that says anyone MUST answer questions posted on the BOI, mod or otherwise. Or if an unwritten rule of some kind where it was EVER enforced or proven workable. Please, I don't remember writing something of that nature, but obviously it must be there with people getting upset at some people for violating this "rule". I know there is a rule against pursuing other members outside of the BOI, but that applies to all members and not exclusively to mods of any sort. This was done to contain the necessary rough nature of the BOI within the BOI and not have it spilled all over the rest of this site. This particular problem was being taken to extremes by certain parties here, and needed to come to an end. It certainly has nothing at all to do with mods in particular, and I am pretty baffled how it can be interpretted that way by anyone.

I think, although of course can not be certain, that there may be a little bit to the pursuit thing, but I also think it was addressed already- in multiple ways.

There was a situation not too long ago where some members were questioning the business practices of one of the Mods. The "questioning" ranged from requests for clarification to outright accusations of fraud and were spilling into areas that were less than appropriate for any of the stronger accusations- although historically, questions or links to BOI threads could be added to unlocked threads in the advertisement and discussion forums...

At any rate, the mod replied by issuing some warning points and used an incorrect "antagonism towards a moderator" violation- either intentionally to raise the points generated or unintentionally based simply on a misunderstanding of the violation (he felt antagonized and he was a mod; but was being questioned about business practices).

Given that warning points were issued to members who questioned the man's business practices for an unrelated infraction- I could certainly see some people decising to just keep quiet when they may have otherwise had a valuable contribution. The moderator was protected from legitimate criticism by the threat of warning points.

However... that being said, that issue was corrected in a timely and appropriate fashion. The definition of the violations- or at least a definition of their scope- was clarified and the mod in question stopped using that warning category for offenses that didn't fit the intention of the rule. He was penalized for the inappropriate uses with a few warning points of his own- lesson taught, lesson learned and problem corrected. At the same time, some clarification was given about the "BOI topic outside of the BOI" warning, although this is inherently somewhat subjective given the diverse nature of "BOI topics"- I am pretty sure that the supermods would be happy to offer an opinion if asked about a specific thread where the line may be murky. 'least I got a response when I asked and I was only asking for my own personal desire to avoid crossing it.

To a large degree, I think- especially with the brand spanking new changes to the point system- most problem cases would sort themselves out in fairly short order. The amount of scrutiny anyone abusing the system, or even getting close to it, is placed under is astronomical and habitual offenders are very likely to remove themselves through repeat transgressions.

I do believe that there could potentially be some other criteria though. The problems between members and mods in the past have found their origins mostly in interpersonal confict or as a result of disagreeing opinions (Or in at least one case, this real loudmouthed jackass that wandered over to the bob clark forums when he was asked to by his "buddies" on another site got banned for stirring up a load of crap and decided to pitch a fit when Dr Owens was supermodded) and those spats and headaches *should* have been treated the way they were, with an understanding that a personal feud isn't justification for demodding someone who hasn't done anything wrong. Hell, even occassional slips or lapses are just human nature and most the moderators would need, at most, an occassional correction... but there's at least one now who is being objected to for other reasons. It's not a personal feud or a disagreement or differing opinions that have members raising objections to a known criminal- a man that's an ethical cesspit, who rips off others, behaves in a manner that's simply reprehensible and who's been banned multiple times for his misconduct on the forums themselves- he's now representing the site and has his finger on the buttons. And that isn't going to sit well with.

I understand that a comprehensibe background check and exhaustive examination of each mod who's stepping to the plate and proving that they've got a vested interest isn't possible or reasonable. And I understand that there will always be complaints from some people who quite simply don't like one another due to differences of opinion or attitude. There's gotta be a line someplace though, where scammers and con artists and thieves about which there can be no doubt whatsoever are shut out of that system.

Been rambling a bit above there but... I said something on a thread not too long ago that I really wish you'd consider a bit Rich. I'm not going to go dig up the exact quote but it was something along the lines of "People who happen to disagree about a subject or who argue an opposing viewpoint are not always enemies until they are treated as such." Decent as a generalization I think and specifically when it comes to people who disagree or argue about a direction you have decided to take the website- most (admittedly not all) of them who bother to voice a disagreement are going to do so because they firmly believe that their viewpoint is the right one AND they actually care about the outcome of whatever it may be that they're discussing. They're not enemies and they're not bad people and sometimes- a bit lately- it seems like some of them are being treated a little more harshly than their concerned input deserves. There have also been a few that have made a decision to stop paticipating on the site because they believe strongly enough in their position to take that step... a few have managed to do so with respect and tact and dignity and, in their abscence, they have been treated to villification and some actions that I'd personally catagorize as "petty" (and I do know petty nastiness pretty well, from the inside as it were).

The flipside for everyone else though- and something I have to try to keep more in mind myself from time to time- is that if Rich doesn't follow your advice, or listen to your warnings or change things to suit your opinion of "what's best" it isn't going to be due to spite or malice. He just took your comments and weighed them and came to a different conclusion. Throwing a tantrum or issuing ultimatums or reacting with anger certainly isn't going to be the sort of thing that bridges the gap between your differing stances. If a decision is made that crosses your own personal lines and you need to disassociate yourself from the site; doing so with a little decorum would really have the biggest impact.