Another disillisioned past contributor

I read where you said this of Cheryl's last post

Further, although it certainly is not intentional, you are stating by implication in your complaint that I SHOULD create a dual class system here in how I enforce the rules. The implication is that I need to divide the membership into "valued member of this community" and the "others" in the manner in which I enforce the rules.

So I went back and read her post three times, and came to the same conclusion that I thought I had after the first time. I do not draw any conclusion that Cheryl, intentionally or otherwise, was asking for a dual class, etc. My conclusion is that whether intentionally or otherwise, you have mischaracterized what she said. All I saw Cheryl saying was that she had valued the site, and thought that she was a valued member. You instituted the pay system to get rid of a lot of the nonsense, and it may have achieved that goal. It also made us all paid members who chose to stay. Additionally, some of us made significant add-on contributions. At this point, I think that the statement that all members were valued members would have been accurate. Cheryl felt like a valued member. All of that was done under an existing set of rules. The rules changed, with much explanation on your part as to why you did so, what you hoped to accomplish, etc. Many of us concur with the need for change, although we will differ some on the specifics. Cheryl and others in this thread have tried to draw a distinction between the new rules and the gusto with which they have been at times enforced, for they are not voicing much disdain for the rules. Some members have left the sight because they ended up in a urinating contest with moderators, and the "gusto" of the moderator was, in the view of some members, more antagonistic than it needed to be, making mountains out of what should have stayed molehills. Some of the involved members were more than willing to go out in a ball of flames. Cheryl and MS Terese are not inclined to be such flamers.
I for one still post pretty regularly. I certainly do it with more caution now. I also think that the added caution has improved the overall quality of what I have to say once it is in print. I have always enjoyed the site, as well as posts by the above contributing individuals in this thread. I would ask them to consider jumping back in, as they have much to offer. But like me, take the extra time to choose more careful wording. The site is better if you stay.

Is there one person on this site who wouldn't run right to webslave and complain if I called them the name that Cheryl used to get her suspended? The answer would be a big fat NO. And if I didn't get suspended and fined, you would all be pissed. The melodramatics here are borderline suffocating. She broke the rules by being antagonistic and using inapropriate language, period. She got off with a cheap slap on the wrist. I personally think Cheryl should submit a public apology to the recipient of the derogatory name, but I don't believe she is sorry at all. Who was the arrogant person who wrote....

"Do unto others, then split"?

It wasn't me.

Chris,
We all have our opinions, and certainly mine has gotten me in trouble before. But being as you and I have never met, or traded notes, I was surprised to see that you are still able to ascertain how I would react and feel in whatever situation Cheryl managed to put someone in !! Shazzam !! Can only speak for myself though !!

I think you're making a poor generalization of the members here, Chris.....I can't speak for anyone else here, but I know I'm not into the whole "run to Rich" scenario. I think I could count the number of posts I've reported since I've been here on one hand, and most of those belonged to a certain troll that is now gone. The only issue I had with the whole deal was the fact that while another poster was given a single warning point for the same infraction, Cheryl was "banned". I understand why it happened, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. As Jim stated so well above,

Many of us concur with the need for change, although we will differ some on the specifics. Cheryl and others in this thread have tried to draw a distinction between the new rules and the gusto with which they have been at times enforced, for they are not voicing much disdain for the rules.

As for your comment about everyone would be angry if I "I wasn't suspended and fined"...well, I personally don't wish to see ANYONE suspended from this site, unless they are a blatant troll or troublemaker, of which Cheryl is neither.

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

Is there one person on this site who wouldn't run right to webslave and complain if I called them the name that Cheryl used to get her suspended?

I wouldn't

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

She broke the rules by being antagonistic and using inapropriate language, period. She got off with a cheap slap on the wrist. I personally think Cheryl should submit a public apology to the recipient of the derogatory name, but I don't believe she is sorry at all

I never implied I was sorry for saying it to the person I did. I'm not, so a public apology would by hypocritical. I am sorry it caused all the problems it caused.

I am not upset over the slap on the wrist. I'm hurt and disappointed over the way it was done.

If the treatment I got when I broke the rules is the way oldtimers and new comers are being treated, well then thats the way it is. If I where new I would have been insulted and probably not come back. I'm not new~ so I was more than insulted, I was insulted and hurt by the treatment I got. Thats all there is to it. It has absolutely nothing to do with who wrote:

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

"Do unto others, then split"?

I didn't write it either. And when I didn't like the way I was treated I didn't "split" I expressed my displeasure.


We all have to live in our own skin. Rich has drawn his line in the sand and decided how he wants to deal with issues of this nature. I've made my position that I don't like how I was treated clear.

Of course, this now begs the question of what do YOU think the "most important elements to being a welcome member of this site" are now?

I have no idea. I stopped trying to figure it out months ago.

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

Is there one person on this site who wouldn't run right to webslave and complain if I called them the name that Cheryl used to get her suspended?

Uhhh.... that would be me. I would not say a word to Rich about someone calling me names, but that is just me. First, I don't need Rich to fight my battles for me and second.... I really got over name calling and worrying about what other people thought of me about 15-20 years ago. Again, that is just me.

I am sorry it caused all the problems it caused.

Shouldn't the word "it" be replaced with the word "I" ? But not for your own actions....

Before I turn in for the night, I did want to get a few random comments into this thread, lest I seem to have gotten too caught up in more specific aspects discussed here. So, in no particular order:

1) In a side note to Sammy "Schrap", I noted with admiration that he had over 800 posts and no warning points. He's always effective too!

2) The "flame wars" that used to hijack some threads have diminished noticeably.

3) I know full well that instituting discipline and change always brings some pain. I can maintain all I want that I did not rate a $10 fine, and that the target of my comments was a fool and clown. But if my participation in the fine-suspension-pay fine-redemption process helped to clean things up, and buy Rich a six-pack, then its not all for naught !! (humor attempt).

4) The site needed clean-up.

5) Ladies, don't go. We need you desperately, as a forum full of men stinks up the joint real quick. Ugly too. I mean really ugly.

6) Rich, tweak the system a little, to include getting back to where rep points and Karma, etc, register in a sensible way. If the awarding of such points is worthy of being able to be made, then let it reflect just as trader ratings etc. My Karma points awarded can swing by 100% in a week or two, but under my avatar, its about a 2% change. You yanked 50 or 100 (I forget) in my CP when I was fined, but nothing changed elsewhere. I happen to believe that Karma should not be touched by you in a warning situation, as Cheryl alluded to, as you are already assigning warning points which last forever, and I thought that karma (rep points, etc) was for the masses (a little Karl Marx lingo .... commies weren't all bad). Karma should not be awarded for posting a certain number of times, but solely for feedback from the readers, IMO.

7) And last, but not least, the BOI has saved honest people tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, and is the scourge of the dishonest people who dwell amongst us. Those same scum (non-specific, objective, if the shoe fits ... I meant to say "not so nice people" etc) love the more lax seas in which they can prey elsewhere. Kind of like "The Club" (the one that attaches to steering wheels).

Thanks Rich for all that this site is, and it is a lot. Ladies, don't go. Your perfume smells so nice emanating from my computer !!

Jim,
Just a quick note. The number beside your green dots really isn’t your Karma rating. That number is the amount of points you have to give or take. The green dots represent your karma and the total point value is listed in your user control panel.