Another disillisioned past contributor

That’s fair. No sarcasm in my answer. I mean it. It was a fair answer to my question.

I don’t know how you can make it better. I don’t know how to make it all work. I’m sorry, I wish I did.

I know I was NOR fair in my response to the fine and suspension I received. I do think my reaction would have been different had the wording not been so inflammatory. I was angry over what I felt was a harsh reaction to one infrequent indiscretion. I’d had a bad week personally that you could not have been aware of which I am SURE colored my responses as I felt the weight of the world on my tired shoulders.

I’m sure the responses I saw from you (which was probably colored by the weight of the world on YOU that I could not see) just made me feel MORE antagonistic, your antagonistic response fueled my antagonistic response, ect….. Maybe a happy medium is needed, maybe it’s time you let this site fall as it may……and maybe your pushing it a bit in the direction you would prefer……I’d hate to see it go……but I hate to feel the way about you that I do now too. Maybe even those of us who thought we were “old friends” that could have a difference of opinion without it getting so nasty just need to find another “good guy” to look up too……..but I hope you and I can continue to be “old friends” even if we never were or ever will be “old buddies.”

And maybe you need to stop being so angry about all the people who do take advantage and remember that some of us just cross the line because we too had other issues on our minds. I (and I’m sure some others) did not cross the line with the intent of seeing where your good will would end……..I crossed it without thinking at all about what was in the Rules or Not ………and I deserved at least the good courtesy of being reminded where the line was rather than yanked back so harshly into line, then reminded that you wanted the crap out (with the STRONG implication that I WAS the crap) and an invitation to leave.

I’m not saying I DESERVE better because I have made financial and time contributions……..I’m saying if you actually want this site to continue…..well then I at LEAST deserve to be treated with the same respect I *think* I have generally shown to you and the other members on this site (AGAIN~ I am NOT suggesting I did not cross a line that I needed to be reminded of).

And the other old timers should be given at least the respect you think they would give to you……….

Be honest…….if you look at my history…………………….

Did I sit down that evening and decide to see if I could annoy you into giving me a warning (or God Forbid Banning Me!!!) or did I just have a thoughtless moment……we all have one sometimes. You do…..I do……and sometimes some of the “oldtimers” on this site do.

Have a nice day
Thanks for your time.

I can't begin to speak for anyone but myself, and certainly not for a majority of people on this site. I'll try to give you some of my perceptions, though.

1) This site, and especially the BOI, had a reputation for being in-your-face. It was tough, and if someone got a whiff of BS, the gloves came off. It may have gotten ugly, but it worked. Granted, it sometimes got too ugly, but it still worked.

2) The people who gave the site its reputation were the members. There was a core group, to be sure, (sometimes called the...what was it? The Dirty Dozen or something?) but everyone had a voice if they chose to use it. The reputation became widespread enough that others who also had a vision for creating a hobby/industry that was not commonly known for its scams decided to come here as well.

3) It grew. With growth comes consequences. Time, money, riff raff, etc. It needs policing. It needs structure. It needs some cash. Those who wished to be moderators offered. Warning points came into play. Reputation points came into play. Donations came in. Banners sold. Those who really wanted to be part of doing something good for the hobby/industry responded rather favorably to the needs that were communicated.

4) The cost issues continued to grow, and a "paid" status was initiated. (If that is not the most condensed version of that process that's ever been recounted, I'll be amazed.) Some of the stalwarts of this site got agitated, thinking it had changed the tone of the site and that it would become preferential. Most took a 'wait and see' attitude, assuming there would be pros and cons to the system.

5) The paid status seemed to do nothing to help in the separation of the wheat from the chaff, as it's stated on the front page, so new systems were put in place to clean up the neighborhood.

6) There were some pretty regular appearances of impropriety of how the rules were applied. While I don't want to rehash the many posts and threads about it, I think if you did a search on "inconsistent" you'll find several. (I have not tried this, by the way, so it's just a guess. If you feel like that was never brought up as an issue, then just skip the rest of this post, because it will be irrelevant.)

7) There was a severe lack of balance. For the sake of argument, let's define a bad guy as someone who lies and/or scams, cheats, etc. and does nothing positive for the site in the way of good information or help for newbies. Let's define a good guy as someone who helps out and/or puts the heat on the bad guys, advertises, and tries to be a positive for the site. The good guys got no recognition or consideration for the positive things they did, but as much punishment for any negatives as the bad guys.

8) Rich asked often about others opinions. When they were offered, he would typically respond by explaining why their opinions were wrong, and then classify the opinion giver as not a value to the site anyway. Invitations to leave were offered on a very regular basis. It seemed that while some good guys were getting kicked pretty hard for their tactics with the bad guys, it was perfectly acceptable for Rich to be antagonistic and hostile to the very people who had been cheering him for a long time if he didn't like their opinions.

9) People left, either quietly or in flames. Many, many others stayed, but just shut up.

In summary, it's really not that anyone didn't want the site to be cleaned up. They just wanted to fight fire with fire, and to be given some degree of consideration for all of the really outstanding things they did as a member of this site. They wanted consistency in the application of the rules. The folks that left when the "paid" status was implemented sneered and reminded those that were being discarded that now that their money was paid, they were disposable. Some people took that very personally.

Those are my Cliff Notes.

My confusion over your last post is due to the fact that you are again asking why people are leaving, virtually on the heels of your posts in another thread claiming that your crackdown has had the desired effect. If the board is becoming what you want it to be, then don't worry about it. Any of it.

My intent was to say “I know I was NOT fair in my response to the fine and suspension I received.” (as in I reacted extremly) I don’t want to edit my above response~ as I am always a bit suspectfull that more than the bare minimum was edited when I see a potentially controversial post was edited.

I really wish I had a magic answer how to solve your problems with this site Rich. I know I have wondered in the past how you supported your regular business with only advertising on this site~ if this site is really causing you so much trouble~ then I’d say return whatever percent is due to each contributor and let it go if you must.

I’d be sorry to see it go…….but if that’s the way it needs to be…………


I’m so sorry to see this going the way it has. I still have a lot of respect for you……even if maybe not the rose colored glasses I had before. I hope we can at least still respect each other.

Have a good day….
And thank you for your time….

Rich,
Once again, you make many good points. But I do still think that a fine and suspension, as it was applied in my case, was disproportionate, and likely would be in similar cases. As I have stated, you currently have it on the same level as conveying threats, and I cannot rationalize that. My issue is not about you trying to clean up the site. In the specific context that I did use those terms, I do not think it rated as name calling in a simple disagreement. The "fool" and "clown" had been participating and shown to be a scammer, thief, and liar. I do not see to where any disgression was used in deciding the fine and suspension. If its a fuzzy line or gray area, as illustrated by your examples, then how does it go right to a suspension and $10 fine? While I agree that you do not have time to read all threads and research such, if the choice is there to exercise some restraint in punishment, than what is the tripwire that decides just to max it out? If it is to rise to the same level as a threat, then when is that evaluation made? Put another way, I think it very possible for you and the moderators to address your concerns about cleaning up the site in an instance such as this, be effective in doing so, and not put yourselves in the position as being perceived a bit too heavy-handed. The quagmire that it creates, illustrated in the questions that you raise, such as "Is it the same to call someone an idiot vs. saying that they are acting like and idiot", the answer is affirmative. Both are insults, and if I were on the receiving end, I doubt I would distinguish between the two. I believe that applies to just about all of your examples. Again, going back to the post I was involved in when I incurred the fine. If I had chosen to say "IMO, what you are doing bears all the characteristics of larceny", or "IMO, you are what my Mother would have referred to as a very bad person", would the recipient have taken those politely? While I understand your concern about escalating situations, I have seen moderators escalate situations, at times justifiably so, but that is why you condemn words like "fool" and "clown", because of what they can lead to. There are times when if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you just have to call it a duck !! That is why I have no problem with some of the spats the mod's have engaged in, but if you are going to toss around fines and suspensions willy-nilly for labels which "may" lead to escalations, I would only ask that you see if the label was used frivolously, or if it was possibly even a softer choice of words than "liar" or "thief", which may have been quite applicable at the time, if contempating a fine and suspension. And if you don't have the time, and since words such as these are not always egregious and beg to be looked at in context, then they merit a lower level of warning. Jeez Rich, I have been threatened with gunplay in your site before, and that individual received the same Penance that I did for calling a thief and scammer a "fool and clown". I'm chagrined ! Is the only safe thing to say "IMO, what you did is wrong" if someone has in fact ripped off another? It may sound sarcastic to others, but I do not intend it sarcastically. Given the thread in which I was engaged, I am wondering what would have happened if I had said "that is stealing", instead of "burn this fool" in advising the thread starter to continue to pursue legal action ? Here's one of the current dilemmas: I would like to know about the use of the terms "thief", "stealing", "scammer", or "liar", etc, as individuals who could be accurately described as such are often the topic of, if not actual participants in, BOI threads. If its going to vary, depending on the situation, then I recommend a reconsideration of the warning points as it applies to such. Its kind of tough to divine through the grey area that can make it "no offense", or a $10 fine and suspension, and I say this after reading your explanations here, the rules, and having observed the administration of penalties. If it were 1-2 points, still with the 10-point threshold for accumulated points being a fine, then I believe that the system would still accomplish what you want it to do, and at least in my view, gain a greater degree of percieved fairness. Again, I thank you for your time.

But I am going to paste some of your words here again, as they so well expressed the underlying issues, and I am in huge agreement:

7) There was a severe lack of balance. For the sake of argument, let's define a bad guy as someone who lies and/or scams, cheats, etc. and does nothing positive for the site in the way of good information or help for newbies. Let's define a good guy as someone who helps out and/or puts the heat on the bad guys, advertises, and tries to be a positive for the site. The good guys got no recognition or consideration for the positive things they did, but as much punishment for any negatives as the bad guys.

8) Rich asked often about others opinions. When they were offered, he would typically respond by explaining why their opinions were wrong, and then classify the opinion giver as not a value to the site anyway. Invitations to leave were offered on a very regular basis. It seemed that while some good guys were getting kicked pretty hard for their tactics with the bad guys, it was perfectly acceptable for Rich to be antagonistic and hostile to the very people who had been cheering him for a long time if he didn't like their opinions.

9) People left, either quietly or in flames. Many, many others stayed, but just shut up.

Brilliantly put!

Originally Posted by ms_terese

I can't begin to speak for anyone but myself, and certainly not for a majority of people on this site. I'll try to give you some of my perceptions, though.

1) This site, and especially the BOI, had a reputation for being in-your-face. It was tough, and if someone got a whiff of BS, the gloves came off. It may have gotten ugly, but it worked. Granted, it sometimes got too ugly, but it still worked.

That is a matter of opinion, some of them to the contrary. From my perceptions, many people felt it was TOO rough and tumble and in many cases were afraid to post their own opinions in fear of being attacked by some of the more antagonistic members participating on the BOI. The attacks and antagonism were becoming indiscriminate and focused on anyone and everyone. People were being attacked simply because they had a differing opinion, or maybe sided with an unpopular opinion. So people were becoming afraid to state their own opinions or do anything OTHER then act in a herd mentality by agreeing with the guy that yelled the loudest and longest. I did not take this lightly, because I saw it myself, and regretfully had to agree with that assessment. Maybe this was a failure from the start on my part by not curtailing such activity when it began. I too saw it "work", but in retrospect, the cost was too high from the collateral damage it caused.

Originally Posted by ms_terese

2) The people who gave the site its reputation were the members. There was a core group, to be sure, (sometimes called the...what was it? The Dirty Dozen or something?) but everyone had a voice if they chose to use it. The reputation became widespread enough that others who also had a vision for creating a hobby/industry that was not commonly known for its scams decided to come here as well.

Yes, that is true, but some of the members were causing a growing reputation that was not at all flattering. Matter of fact, it was beginning to prove very much damaging to the future usefullness of the BOI because it threatened to choke off ALL participation except from the very few who were beginning to act like the BOI was their very own playground and they had carte blanche to say and act there however they pleased.

Maybe I was hearing the wrong reputations that people were thinking this site has, and if I had not seen it with my own eyes, I might have rejected such opinions as being sour grapes from bad guys who had been outed. But in my opinion, the balance of "the site doing good" over the "site doing harm" was beginning to tip the wrong way. The BOI was leaning far too much into the direction of what a few thought and the rest of the people be damned for their contrary opinions. When I began considering the paid memberships, I felt that the balance was teetering at about even, and regardless of the outcome, I really had nothing to lose. I could either shed the monkey on my back, or begin dragging this site back to something respectful and effective. Trust me when I say that you have NO idea of the repercussions I have had to bear up under because of my involvement with this site. The amount of hate mail from all sides was very discouraging, to say the least.

Originally Posted by ms_terese

3) It grew. With growth comes consequences. Time, money, riff raff, etc. It needs policing. It needs structure. It needs some cash. Those who wished to be moderators offered. Warning points came into play. Reputation points came into play. Donations came in. Banners sold. Those who really wanted to be part of doing something good for the hobby/industry responded rather favorably to the needs that were communicated.

Depends on your perspective. Voluntary donations, although much appreciated, would not have covered the bills I had to pay to keep this site running and functional. And as anyone will tell you, voluntary donations are a pretty poor way to try to run a business when your bills are not voluntary. Banner ads have helped tremendously, but they are about as unreliable to depend on for income as donations are. They would come and go at the drop of a hat and the turnover was astonishing to behold. No, I could not continue this endeavor with all of the expenses being guaranteed and the finances solely produced from voluntary hand outs from the members. Don't get me wrong, I deeply appreciated the efforts of everyone who tried to help, but I began to resent having to take funds from my SerpenCo business (which included a war chest to hire attorneys when needed if someone were to follow through and sue ME because of what I allowed YOU, in a collective sense, to post on this site).

As for moderators, I was, and still am, very conservative in choosing people to be placed in that position. Having the wrong people as moderators can be every bit as bad, or worse, then not having any or not enough. Maybe I am being naive in thinking that perhaps the proper incentives (or more accurately, disincentives for doing wrong) will be a better path to take rather then having this site knee deep in people looking for something to moderate.

As for the hobby/industry responding favorably, sorry I just disagree. This site has been in the past and still is, completely ignored and shunned by what people consider to be the *big* names in this industry. And I defy anyone to show me one shred of evidence otherwise. It does bother me to some extent, but not enough to lose any sleep over. This site will do just fine without them, and in years to come, when the big names of today are out of sight and out of mind, the big names of tomorrow will have likely gotten their start right here from the exposure the BOI can bring to a Good Guy.

Originally Posted by ms_terese

4) The cost issues continued to grow, and a "paid" status was initiated. (If that is not the most condensed version of that process that's ever been recounted, I'll be amazed.) Some of the stalwarts of this site got agitated, thinking it had changed the tone of the site and that it would become preferential. Most took a 'wait and see' attitude, assuming there would be pros and cons to the system.

In some ways, the "preferential treatment" claim is somewhat accurate. Just as it is true that the voting public chooses the direction (in an academic sense) of public policy, so too do the paying members who have a vested enough interest to pay to state their opinions, choose the direction of the BOI. The hope is that many more good guys would be willing to pay for this privilege then bad guys would be willing to do. Just as you would hope that a majority of the voters are voting for who is the best person to be elected rather then the worst one on election day. In my opinion, the paid memberships went a long way to just allowing the wheat into the BOI through no other reason then the false logons and subsequent bogus posting got stopped dead in its tracks.

As for the "wait and see" comment, how do you determine this to be the case? What data are you using to make this claim? How do you recognize the "most" and where are they right now?

Originally Posted by ms_terese

5) The paid status seemed to do nothing to help in the separation of the wheat from the chaff, as it's stated on the front page, so new systems were put in place to clean up the neighborhood.

I disagree with this one. The BOI got cleaned up considerably because of the paid membership requirement. It stopped the false registrations to post bogus information and opinions on the BOI virtually overnight. There were uncountable occasions of someone being suspended from the site and being back on under a false registration within 10 minutes. Sometimes MANY times under multiple registrations, and it was driving myself and the moderators up a wall trying to ferret them out. That has ceased to be an issue. Yes, it is still possible for someone willing to pony up $10 per registration, but this is highly unlikely and even if done, definitely short lived and inconsequential.

The *new* system was put into place because of the general nastiness and antagonism that members here were inflicting against new members and anyone else who became the "scapegoat of the day". I witnessed this myself taking place in some of the discussion forums, so it was NOT something unique to the BOI at all. There were instances of someone just taking a dislike to someone because of an offhand comment and basically hounding them at every turn for no other reason then because they just didn't like them personally.

Originally Posted by ms_terese

6) There were some pretty regular appearances of impropriety of how the rules were applied. While I don't want to rehash the many posts and threads about it, I think if you did a search on "inconsistent" you'll find several. (I have not tried this, by the way, so it's just a guess. If you feel like that was never brought up as an issue, then just skip the rest of this post, because it will be irrelevant.)

And no, I have no interest in explaining this "inconsistency" claim. My only comment is that anyone who expects such a thing is living in a dream world that is entirely inconsistent with how nearly any realistic and effective system on earth enforces rules and regulations. NO one who enforces the rules of any type can be everywhere all of the time. To expect this site to be more perfect than the legal system, the IRS, internal security procedures, etc., etc, with a much smaller budget, is being just a tad bit unrealistic. But as mentioned this has been addressed many times before, and I believe my response has stayed pretty much consistent concerning inconsistency.

Originally Posted by ms_terese

7) There was a severe lack of balance. For the sake of argument, let's define a bad guy as someone who lies and/or scams, cheats, etc. and does nothing positive for the site in the way of good information or help for newbies. Let's define a good guy as someone who helps out and/or puts the heat on the bad guys, advertises, and tries to be a positive for the site. The good guys got no recognition or consideration for the positive things they did, but as much punishment for any negatives as the bad guys.

That does not describe how the BOI is supposed to work at all. There never was any claim, nor expectation that there would ever be a balance between good guys and bad guys. Nor could there be. A "bad" guy is someone who has taken advantage of someone else in a commercial transaction of some sort. As far as I am aware, no one here has been officially labeled as a BOI "bad guy" (except perhaps in some people's minds for their own personal reasons) because of the information they have posted on this site outside of details within the BOI. That is, good or bad information posted for new members in the discussion forums. That is what the Karma system is supposed to be used for, but like most other things, it has been abused and twisted from it's original intent. Yes, people HAVE used the karma system as their attempt at punishment for someone determined (in their minds) to be a bad guy via information posted within the BOI. This is NOT what it was designed for.

The BOI and the labels expected to be applied to people mentioned there are external events, in that what they have done is external to THIS site completely. Even if they advertised on this site, the actual transaction is an external and independent event. Their business transactions and the perceptions of the people reading the details presented from all sides determines in the minds of the readers, whether one side or the other (or possibly both) are good guys or bad guys. This site does not make that determination at all. YOU do. It is YOU who will read those reviews and judge accordingly. It is YOU who can vote on the Good Guy Certification polls or the Traders Ratings. We (the moderators and I), outside of our own personal opinions, do not make those determinations at all. It is not our position to close a thread with a closing statement that states "Yep, this guy is definitely a bad guy. Case closed."

Internally, things like the warning system and the karma system are used to make determinations of how people act on THIS site and nothing else external to it. It makes no difference here at all what you say or do on some other site. You cannot get a warning point for threatening me or anyone else on some other site. You cannot get a bad karma rating because you used large amounts of profanity somewhere else in describing anything here. Those external issues are irrelevant to the internal ratings systems

Originally Posted by ms_terese

8) Rich asked often about others opinions. When they were offered, he would typically respond by explaining why their opinions were wrong, and then classify the opinion giver as not a value to the site anyway. Invitations to leave were offered on a very regular basis. It seemed that while some good guys were getting kicked pretty hard for their tactics with the bad guys, it was perfectly acceptable for Rich to be antagonistic and hostile to the very people who had been cheering him for a long time if he didn't like their opinions.

My interpretation of the chronological order of this issue is quite different from yours, it appears. Yes, I have often asked for opinions, often on things I have been thinking long and hard on and had exhausted everything I could think of with no clear path to what was *best*. In many instances, what I was hoping for was a fresh idea or an approach that I had just not considered, or perhaps a unique perspective of something I had considered. When opinions were offered that I had already addressed and rejected as being unsuitable, unworkable, or unfeasible, I told those people exactly that and why. "Wrong" is not entirely accurate, as in my opinion, "inappropriate" was a more accurate term to apply. As a for instance, I was approached about hosting options for my servers. Someone offered a company for me to take a look at, and although I mentioned that I had already investigated this option, that company was not suitable for my needs because (1) the servers were underpowered and (2) they did not offer managed services for those servers. Yet this was interpretted by that person that I had just rejected his opinion out of hand with no real consideration. In another case, one member adamantly felt that my charging a fee to post on the BOI was dead wrong. He felt that I should charge for the classifieds only, and allow the BOI to be free. I thought I explained it fully that the BOI needed this in place to help weed out the bogus information being posted by false member IDs. And secondly, the classifieds was struggling enough as it was being for free, so charging even a minimal fee would most likely be the death knell of the classifieds section here. Even though I expressed my opinions about why I felt that contrary opinion was inappropriate, I was blasted soundly by that member every which way from Sunday. I could go on and on with this one........

As for the claim of "good guys" being blasted because of their treatment of the "bad guy", I am not disputing that at all. That is because I wanted the site, overall, to be raised to a higher level. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the manner in which people were acting, regardless of which side they were playing, just presented a bad image of this site in general. New people were absolutely appalled by it, regardless of the fact that they only jumped into the middle of an argument and could not tell the bad guys from the good guys. All they saw was the bashing going on back and forth. Yes, giving someone enough rope to make themselves into a bad guy may have seemed appropriate in some instances, but the overall IMAGE of this sort of behavior was generally more negative then positive for this site as a whole, when BOTH sides were wrapping ropes around their necks. THAT is what I needed to curtail. If someone is wrapping a noose around their neck, no one really needs to make a party out of it by doing the same thing to their own neck. All it does is to obscure the real issues to an outside viewer and in some respects completely invalidate any valuable information that thread could have provided when someone just shakes their head in disgust at ALL participants.

Concerning the offers to leave this site, look at this logically, please. If I decide to make a change in the overall management of this site, any member has only three likely avenues to any change I may make:

1. Stay, accept it and comply with the change
2. Stay, reject it and deal with the resulting consequences
3. Leave and go on to another site more in keeping with how they want to post their messages.

MY reactions to the arguments that would ensue from people choosing #2 can only be the following:

1. Stay the course and dole out penalties as appropriate, hoping that the long term results make the short term aggravation worthwhile
2. Modify or drop the changes instituted, likely prematurely and based solely on a minority opinion presented

In most cases I will likely choose option #1, and in so doing, some people will adamantly disagree with this decision. In such a case, I really have no other choice but to wish them well when they go off to that other more perfect site they seek. I really have NO other choice if I decide to stay the course and this is unacceptable to them. If I dropped every change simply because a single person adamantly disagreed, where would I be then? Generally speaking, it is THEM that make that ultimatum about leaving by their own actions.

As for this statement:

it was perfectly acceptable for Rich to be antagonistic and hostile to the very people who had been cheering him for a long time if he didn't like their opinions.

Sorry, but you lost me completely on what that is supposed to mean.

Originally Posted by ms_terese

9) People left, either quietly or in flames. Many, many others stayed, but just shut up.

Perhaps, but overall, who were the people who left, either "quietly or in flames"? Why did they do so? One person got banned permanently. After around 150+ warning points under his belt, how many more should I have allowed to accumulate before either (1) the idea of his actions here not being acceptable would finally sink in, or (2) everyone else would get the message that the rules really meant nothing at all. There was no teeth in the penalties so just ignore them and do as you please.

Some others got fined and suspended and probably felt that an eventual permanent ban was in their future anyway, so why come back? And I have to agree. When I instituted the crack down on the rules, I felt that there were going to be at least a half dozen people who would get booted or leave voluntarily. They were not targeted, but I felt pretty confidently that they would not be able nor willing to accept the new limits on how they choose to express themselves. I would have greatly preferred that they accept the changes and comply, but I had to do what I perceived was necessary to be done. I have no desire to ban people at all. I just want things to run here in a method that MUST be better then it has in the past. I have to do what I have to do in order to try to accomplish this. And the sooner the better, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by ms_terese

In summary, it's really not that anyone didn't want the site to be cleaned up. They just wanted to fight fire with fire, and to be given some degree of consideration for all of the really outstanding things they did as a member of this site. They wanted consistency in the application of the rules. The folks that left when the "paid" status was implemented sneered and reminded those that were being discarded that now that their money was paid, they were disposable. Some people took that very personally.

In short, that is no longer acceptable on this site. ANYONE using "fire" will not need to be fought with "fire" because they will get fined and suspended and will then be a non issue. There is nothing anyone can do outstanding enough to be above the rules and have to comply with them. Can you imagine the outcry I would get if such a policy existed here? "Hell, just pay Rich $250 and you can do whatever you want on that site!" Yeah, that sure would help the credibility here, now wouldn't it?

Ah, the "consistency" bugaboo again. Please use the keyword search for that one.

And who was discarded? Who is "disposable"? Sorry, but this statement is not clear to me.

Originally Posted by ms_terese

Those are my Cliff Notes.

My confusion over your last post is due to the fact that you are again asking why people are leaving, virtually on the heels of your posts in another thread claiming that your crackdown has had the desired effect. If the board is becoming what you want it to be, then don't worry about it. Any of it.

The crackdown is having the desired effect of weeding out the antagonistic posting that has taken over this site in the past. It has also eliminated some of the people (mostly voluntarily on their part) who I felt were often contributing to this problem. What my question is asking is why would some people leave BECAUSE of the cleanup? Why would people get offended that offensive mannerisms and postings are being curtailed? Why would anyone NOT want the site cleaned up and made more hospitable for those people just trying to post facts and opinions without being subjected to antagonism for their efforts?

To be honest, if that is what those people expected and wanted from this site, and no other, then I am not sorry at all to see them go. Just as I had hoped that the cleanup would clean out the people who were engaging in this sort of activity, I have no qualms in admitting that I am not disappointed at all to see the people who want to READ such crap, and that being the ONLY reason they come here, go along with them. Yeah, I fully realized that there would be a certain percentage of members and viewers here that were here solely for the drama and spectacle. And yes, I COULD have catered to them and given them just that, if that is what I wanted to do. And quite likely people would have been quite willing to PAY much more for the entertainment that would ensue rather then what I want this site to offer. But I did not want that here, so if that is all they wanted, then yes, I guess this site had nothing more to offer them. And to them, I say, good luck when you go off to that website that better suits and meets your needs.

So when I asked "why are people leaving" I did hope you would tell me something other then what I already suspected. So let me rephrase the question: "Are people with something valuable to contribute who want this site to succeed and able to help it do so leaving, and if so why?

I do not consider people who have been acting in a destructive manner here deciding to leave as being a negative issue at all.

Originally Posted by Chamco

Rich,
Once again, you make many good points. But I do still think that a fine and suspension, as it was applied in my case, was disproportionate, and likely would be in similar cases. As I have stated, you currently have it on the same level as conveying threats, and I cannot rationalize that. My issue is not about you trying to clean up the site. In the specific context that I did use those terms, I do not think it rated as name calling in a simple disagreement. The "fool" and "clown" had been participating and shown to be a scammer, thief, and liar. I do not see to where any disgression was used in deciding the fine and suspension. If its a fuzzy line or gray area, as illustrated by your examples, then how does it go right to a suspension and $10 fine? While I agree that you do not have time to read all threads and research such, if the choice is there to exercise some restraint in punishment, than what is the tripwire that decides just to max it out? If it is to rise to the same level as a threat, then when is that evaluation made? Put another way, I think it very possible for you and the moderators to address your concerns about cleaning up the site in an instance such as this, be effective in doing so, and not put yourselves in the position as being perceived a bit too heavy-handed. The quagmire that it creates, illustrated in the questions that you raise, such as "Is it the same to call someone an idiot vs. saying that they are acting like and idiot", the answer is affirmative. Both are insults, and if I were on the receiving end, I doubt I would distinguish between the two. I believe that applies to just about all of your examples. Again, going back to the post I was involved in when I incurred the fine. If I had chosen to say "IMO, what you are doing bears all the characteristics of larceny", or "IMO, you are what my Mother would have referred to as a very bad person", would the recipient have taken those politely? While I understand your concern about escalating situations, I have seen moderators escalate situations, at times justifiably so, but that is why you condemn words like "fool" and "clown", because of what they can lead to. There are times when if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you just have to call it a duck !! That is why I have no problem with some of the spats the mod's have engaged in, but if you are going to toss around fines and suspensions willy-nilly for labels which "may" lead to escalations, I would only ask that you see if the label was used frivolously, or if it was possibly even a softer choice of words than "liar" or "thief", which may have been quite applicable at the time, if contempating a fine and suspension. And if you don't have the time, and since words such as these are not always egregious and beg to be looked at in context, then they merit a lower level of warning. Jeez Rich, I have been threatened with gunplay in your site before, and that individual received the same Penance that I did for calling a thief and scammer a "fool and clown". I'm chagrined ! Is the only safe thing to say "IMO, what you did is wrong" if someone has in fact ripped off another? It may sound sarcastic to others, but I do not intend it sarcastically. Given the thread in which I was engaged, I am wondering what would have happened if I had said "that is stealing", instead of "burn this fool" in advising the thread starter to continue to pursue legal action ? Here's one of the current dilemmas: I would like to know about the use of the terms "thief", "stealing", "scammer", or "liar", etc, as individuals who could be accurately described as such are often the topic of, if not actual participants in, BOI threads. If its going to vary, depending on the situation, then I recommend a reconsideration of the warning points as it applies to such. Its kind of tough to divine through the grey area that can make it "no offense", or a $10 fine and suspension, and I say this after reading your explanations here, the rules, and having observed the administration of penalties. If it were 1-2 points, still with the 10-point threshold for accumulated points being a fine, then I believe that the system would still accomplish what you want it to do, and at least in my view, gain a greater degree of percieved fairness. Again, I thank you for your time.

Jim,

I was having second thoughts myself about the severity of my enforcement of the rules, so I posted a poll asking for opinions:

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...lts&pollid=575

Not too many people seem concerned about it enough to post their opinions in the poll, but of those that have, I seem to have at least some general support for my methods.

Quite frankly, I expect that I will go into a more lenient mode sooner or later as things appear to have stabilized here. I just felt that this was necessary right now to put the brakes on abruptly to get the results I wanted as quickly as possible. Yes, I could have gone to a much softer approach with more levels of warning penalties, but I think that noticeable results would have been much longer in coming.

So for the time being, calling any person derogatory names, even if you feel you can prove the label to be true, will likely get you warning points. What I want people to do is to put some brainpower into what they post here. I want them to be careful about what they say, not only from an ethical and common courtesy standpoint, but from a legal perspective as well. Yes, you can be sued for what you say here by the person or business you say such things about. It won't matter whether you are right or not when you get that $15,000 bill from your attorney to defend you. You will have to pay that bill, regardless. So why not just protect yourself and THINK hard about what you are going to say on a public message board instead of possibly getting yourself into a defamation and libel lawsuit because of something you posted before thinking hard enough about it? And yes, I could easily be drawn into that lawsuit against you as well. And quite frankly, I am not really that interested in spending my time and money in my attorney's office defending your "right" to call someone derogatory names in public. THAT is the major reason I have had to build up a legal fund for this site. This site, and the way people are posting on it, are a legal liability to me. Yes, I am legally protected by federal law against being convicted of wrong doing because of what someone else posts here, but I am not immune to the expense and hassles of the litigation necessary to prove to a judge that I am immune from liability. So this also played a big part in my consideration of charging the membership fees to help foot these kinds of bills. Why should I have to have my money from my other business tied up for this kind of situation HERE?

So I want people to simmer down with how they post. I want them to think hard about the words they use. I want them all to become more professional in appearance and have the postings appear to an outside viewer to have been well reasoned, thoughtful, insightful and helpful. If someone has nothing more insightful to say in a thread then "This idiot is a clown.", then I just don't want them saying it here and will take whatever steps are necessary to keep that from happening in the future. Instead of taking up their time to think of cleverly descriptive derogatory terms for someone, apply that time more constructively in the thread to try to help it reach a resolution.

Calling someone a derogatory name does not help. Actually it hinders the resolution, because in many cases such name calling will often get the target of such names set in stone with their stance or just get them to say to hell with all of this and leave. When someone sees one or more people verbally attacking them, do you really think that he/she will keep it rational from their end and have much incentive at all to maintain a cool head about the situation? This sort of thing does nothing at all for the attempt to resolve the problem for the other party, and actually does neither side any good at all.

So all in all, unless someone can give me a well reasoned and logically sound argument about why name calling, even only moderately derogatory in nature, is good for anyone, or of any use at all on this site, except allowing you to blow off some steam when you get emotionally involved in the thread, then I am still inclined to be VERY restrictive on such use here.

I also think we are pretty close in agreement, and only one position that you stated is in my crosshairs:

So for the time being, calling any person derogatory names, even if you feel you can prove the label to be true, will likely get you warning points.

You did mention that you may scale back a couple of the warning criteria and/or penalties, explaining that the needed shock-to-the-system may have been achieved. I can understand and agree with that approach. But if I may parse the above statement, I am concluding that the current status of a derogatory term is that there is some judgment involved that may produce no warning points, or likely result in a fine and suspension. I obviously think that's quite a leap, which is consistent with my unpleasant surprise at the fine and suspension that I received. I cannot argue that I could have used kinder words, but I also viewed that there are times when the tribunal that is the BOI is a legitimate place to label a thief a thief, a clown a clown, etc., as there is a peer pressure component to the use of direct and unflattering terms. Sometimes the only thing to be salvaged from a thread is to let others new to the hobby see that they do not want to get even near to the actions chosen by the so-labeled thief or clown. It is also not an uncommon approach in trying to bring around a perpetrator who is faced with a choice to make, and is similar to what would be called a "hard cell - soft cell" bit of persuasion. There have also been many occasions where one of the "Gang of Twelve" had gotten abusive, as you mention, and others of us stepped in and called out the offending entity. I also agree that many were intimidated from coming to someone's defense. I am not suggesting that you allow things to go back to how they were. You have set a standard, and except for some tweaking, should stick with it. I am only trying to illustrate that some of the use of derogatory words was not just ill-intentioned name calling, and should warrant a lesser penalty.
As an example, I know you are aware of Paul Wyble's thread about a threat against him to use the BOI as an extortion tool, where he has yet to identify the entity. For the casual reader, it was moved from the BOI to the General Business Forum, although if he puts a name to it, it would seem to meet the criteria for a BOI thread. I have encouraged him to name the alleged extortionist. While terms such as "clown and idiot" can certainly be avoided, "extortion via BOI" is quite derogatory and yet could be quite true. I think that I will be able to navigate any post I may make so as to not incur another suspension and fine, but I also see a large grey area again for many other less-informed or less-literate posters (with our exchanges here being the primary source of education), where the use of terms such as "thief and liar and extortionist", although harsh and derogatory, may also be applicable and not-ineffective. There is no perfect answer, but again I appeal for a more tiered system of warnings with regard to such instances.
Rich, I don't think anyone can doubt the enormity of time, effort, and headaches that you have put into this site. It is pretty unique, and has shown its value countless times, especially in some of the "hindsight" posts. It was in recognition of those things that I made a contribution of several hundred dollars last year, offering an animal for auction and forwarded all funds received, without holding back shipping fees. The animal fetched what I could have earned if I had sold it via normal means, and while I am thankful to the bidders, I also feel that the charity was all mine. The point has been raised that sometimes such contributors feel as though they may have purchased special privileges. That was never my intent when I pointed out my contribution. My intent was to demonstrate that I had put my money where my mouth is with regard to respect for the site, and that I had some notion of due-process that I felt had been run rough-shod over. To your enormous credit Rich, you have taken much time and explained in detail the thought processes behind the policies and your actions. I am still a bit miffed, but like everything, it is waning with each passing day.

Jim,

Believe me, making rules is no picnic. There will always be gray areas in all of them. How do you define "profanity" or "derogatory" in a universal sense that will be accepted by all? Well, you can't. I had thought of making a list of actual words that would be forbidden, but that also is a fruitless task. My first thought had been to prohibit descriptive words or terms that are derogatory in the sense that they cannot possibly be a true descriptor of the person they are aimed at. But suppose someone really is a "clown" as a part time job? Or really a "bastard"? The proof of "thief" or "liar" may be easier to prove, but in so doing myself and the moderators will be asked to make a call as a judge in these matters to agree with that assessment by allowing the label, or disagreeing by not allowing it. And I just do not want to be placed in that position. Nor do I want to have to research whether someone really is a "clown" or a "bastard" either.

So this HAS to be a gray area, and often will be determined by context and at the discretion of the moderator reviewing the post. Insomuch as possibly using such terms may help to guide less literate or less informed viewers, really, that is not appropriate, in my opinion. Just as you likely formed your opinion from reading the post, so should they form theirs based on their own interpretation of the information presented. After all, your interpretation could be wrong, could it not? Which is exactly why I do not want to be placed in the position of being a judge in such matters. I know for a fact I am not infallible, and I have no desire whatsoever to be looked upon as having an influential say in such matters. I just think it is best to let all interested parties post what they can in order to try to be helpful in issues and let the cards lie where they may on the table. But I request that the discussion not be forced into a more combative level by any participants using terms that will escalate the tensions with name calling and derogatory comments. If you feel the need to cross into the gray area, just be careful and recognize the possibility of a penalty for doing so. Do you REALLY need to call someone a "liar" if the facts are obvious? What exactly makes a person a "clown" where you feel justified in calling them such?

All I ask is people to use restraint. Lord knows I am trying to follow my own advice when I get jumped on, so let's look at it this way: If I can do it, then so can you. I am certain that my temper is no milder then anyone else's here. And I certainly have felt sufficient cause to just end a thread with a few well chosen derogatory comments and that would be that. And no, I am not referring to this one at all. But there have been ones in the past where it took an enormous amount of restraint from just not outright banning the person bashing me right after calling him/her some really choice names that were running through my mind at the time.

So as I have stated, if I can do it, then so can everyone else. Further, if it is expected of me, then I feel I can expect the same from everyone else as well.

Rich,
Again, I am starting to get a guilt trip for occupying so much of your time, and I mean that in all sincerity, for you have been most generous. I agree with your statement that:

How do you define "profanity" or "derogatory" in a universal sense that will be accepted by all? Well, you can't.

and for that reason, I believe that all that I have espoused in all of my posts is a sliding scale. I am not lobbying for a system that requires a moderator to split hairs, but something perceived as more fair than where use of words such as idiot, thief, liar, etc is $10 and instant suspension. I would suggest that the automatic penalty should be 1-3 warning points, and that if it is to go any higher, that there me a cited reason relative to the context in which the derogatory word was excessively inappropriate. Your decision would still be binding, as it is now. But I think it would avoid some of the unnecessary perceived arbitrariness that currently exists. IMO, if you and the other mods had a chance to go back and apply it consistently to all instances where derogatory labels had been used in the BOI in the last six months, I think there would be a chorus asking for the moderators to be a little more moderate. Quite understandably, you do not have the time. I think that the BOI, or any organization, is better if the laws are perceived as more fair. If perceptions were more in that direction, there would be less feedback by members feeling that they had been blind-sided. The poll that you directed me to this morning does not, IMO, reflect percentages that I would interpret as a vote of confidence for the status quo. Certainly not a consensus, as just about 50% are for change from the current structure, with most of them advocating mild change.
On an unrelated note, I have heard reference to the trader ratings, karma, etc, as being there to provide quick references on someone's history. If I have not done my research to find an easy answer to my question, then egg on my face. But is not the ability to affect someone's ratings limited to paying members, or may any guest give input? If its the latter, then I have no concerns, and commend you for making it so. If its the former, then I feel the value of such ratings is greatly diminished. Thanks again for your time and insight.