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

[Bill & Amy]

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.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

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?

 

[hhmoore]

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.

 

[Cat_72]

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".

 

[Cat_72]

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

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.

 

[WebSlave]

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.

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....

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?

 

[Cat_72]

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.

 

[WebSlave]

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.

 

[Cat_72]

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.

 

[Seamus Haley]

"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.

 

[Mike Greathouse]

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?

Just to set the record straight Rich, my exit from Fauna was, not as you imply, based upon a my way or no way ultimatum. Yes, in my opinion, the new program should have been a membership-wide program. Afterall, it is the membership as a whole that makes a site thrive. In the end, I actually commended you for making an effort to return to some type of moderation here.

My exit was based directly on this conversation:

Rich,
While I agree with you completely and I applaud your efforts to increase the level of moderation via the new program, there is one issue which would seem to need to be addressed by senior management.

There are a handful of individuals here (names are not important as everyone knows who they are) that contribute nothing to this community other then a high level of disruption. They have been given all of the rope in the world and have used every strand.

They are demeaning to the members here and to the site itself. Although the entertainment level is occasionally increased, it is my belief that they very likely, prevent other more well intentioned members from participating here.

Sometimes you just have to make a stand and take out the trash.

To which you replied:

Been there and done that, Mike, and all I got for my efforts was heaping big servings of CRAP from quite a few individuals. To give you a PERFECT example, check out this thread -> http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73508

So what I have done is to give everyone here the potential to make this site what they want it to be via their own efforts. Yes, I set the bar high, which I think most people will recognize is a necessity to try to limit abuses that most likely would result. Obviously some people will say it is TOO high and will want me to do all the dirty work and catch all of the resulting flak because of it. Thanks, but no thanks. I've done my best with this iteration of the changes here to try to empower the members to do what they THINK needs to be done, yet tried to limit the damage that could be caused by blatant abuses. No, it's not perfect, but perfection is just some pie in the sky idea that will be different for everyone anyway. But the way I am looking at it, is that each member CAPABLE of issuing warning points is voting with their warning. If 40 members positively, absolutely wanted to get someone justifiably booted out of here, it would take them all, acting concurrently, only less than TWO WEEKS in order to do so with that current 500 point threshhold.

So if you all want the trash taken out, then by all means, do it yourselves....

Sorry Rich,
I will not pay you $100.00 for the "privilege" of taking out the trash on your website. There are many other member-friendly sites where like-minded people can discuss reptiles, without all of the nonsense.

See you around....

That is certainly one of the choices you can make, Mike. See ya....

That's probably for the best.
Good luck and I hope that you find what you're looking for here.

Goodbye.

It was the I don't care attitude presented by you in that and numerous other threads that brought me to the realization that I was supporting a effort that no longer wanted any support.

In all fairness, it does seem that there has been an increased effort as of late by you and several others to improve the experience here for the other members. For that, you are to be commended.

Good luck.

 

[Griz]

I have spent the better part of this morning mowing my farm. It's funny what pops into your head when it's just you and a mower. Sometimes it's humorous and sometimes it not. Today was the latter.

Rich, this post really is not for you. A lot of wiser people then I have given very solid advice but you see it as criticism. So, my comments here are more for the masses when deciding how to spend their time and where to put their value.

In order to get a Fauna Good Guy certificate, it takes the vote of the membership. While some do not put much value in said certificate, others put a ton. I reckon it's all in one's perspective of the value of Fauna. Either you're a believer or you are not.

If I were a known scammer, had multiple bad guy threads, then what better way to offset those threads then by telling people that you're a mod on Fauna. After all, common sense would tell a potential buyer that surely a site as credible as Fauna would not allow a scammer to be a moderator. Would it? Nah.....that just could not happen.

Yet here we are. We have Good Guy certificates being earned but yet moderator status being bought. What's the difference? To the outside world, it would appear that the integrity of FaunaClassifieds has a price. I have never put a price on my integrity. I have never put a price on the integrity of my agency.

In my line of work, you can sell a quick 20 person group and get an immediate cash influx of $10,000. Money is very easy to make in my line of work. It's almost embarrassing. One day I had a gentleman by the name of Dan come into my office. He wanted to represent my agency. Part of that review process was to take a look at his existing book of business and determine it's immediate value to my firm. Here's the dilemma. His book of business would have created an instant increase in revenue of $80,000. Not too bad for a days work. But, what Dan did not know is that I know his mother. I know his mother quite well as her and my step-mother grew up together. His own mother said that I would be foolish to hire him as he has a long line of dissatisfied clients.

While the cash influx would have been nice, I simply would not put a price on the integrity of my firm. I've worked far to hard to build it and I would not allow "vermin" to come in through the door and get the keys. Sure, I highly doubt that the "vermin" that's been allowed through the front door of Fauna will have too much of an impact on this site. With regards to that, I think Rich is correct. But, is there a bigger picture? Shouldn't there be a united front against such "vermin"? Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard and some common sense? Should we create an environment whereby "vermin" are afforded luxury of the privileges while the respected members go elsewhere? Even the most basic of hotels know they have a problem when the "vermin" are starting to chase away their respected guests. The most respected of hotels don't really have to worry about it as they took preventative measures before they even had a problem.

Griz

 

[monkeywrench133]

In case any one missed it, Rich just posted this:

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?p=518607&posted=1#post518607

Bottom Line:

He raised warning points assessed for "warning system abuse" from 4 to 25.

and lowered the point threshold for suspension from 500 to 300.

 

[WebSlave]

I have spent the better part of this morning mowing my farm. It's funny what pops into your head when it's just you and a mower. Sometimes it's humorous and sometimes it not. Today was the latter.

Rich, this post really is not for you. A lot of wiser people then I have given very solid advice but you see it as criticism. So, my comments here are more for the masses when deciding how to spend their time and where to put their value.

In order to get a Fauna Good Guy certificate, it takes the vote of the membership. While some do not put much value in said certificate, others put a ton. I reckon it's all in one's perspective of the value of Fauna. Either you're a believer or you are not.

If I were a known scammer, had multiple bad guy threads, then what better way to offset those threads then by telling people that you're a mod on Fauna. After all, common sense would tell a potential buyer that surely a site as credible as Fauna would not allow a scammer to be a moderator. Would it? Nah.....that just could not happen.

Yet here we are. We have Good Guy certificates being earned but yet moderator status being bought. What's the difference? To the outside world, it would appear that the integrity of FaunaClassifieds has a price. I have never put a price on my integrity. I have never put a price on the integrity of my agency.
Griz

Well Bob, you tell me. Where is the point that the advice becomes criticism? Or is it always just "advice" no matter how often it is given, and no matter how strenuously it is attempted to be forced down my throat? Some people are under the impression that their opinion cannot possibly be unacceptable so obviously the recipient must simply be too dense to understand it. Or even though there is no demonstratable evidence that they know how better to run a site like this, their opinion MUST be better than mine. So they hope that through repetition that maybe it will sink into my thick skull. The fact that they may be understood, but not agreed with, is completely foreign and unimaginable to them. So tell me, what is the determination between "advice", "criticism", "antagonism" and "do it my way or I am leaving", which appears to be the typical path that such threads take around here when discussing my decisions on how to run this site?

And you bring up the Good Guy Certification program, with the intent to perhaps offer your own advice. Since you have brought up your contrary opinions several times concerning the warning system mods program, I assume you are trying to tie the two together, perhaps maybe even to criticise, oops, I mean offer advice on, one or both.

But as is obvious here, many people will get themselves worked up simply because they really don't understand how something works here.

Take this quote, for instance: "In order to get a Fauna Good Guy certificate, it takes the vote of the membership."

FALSE. ANYONE can GET a GGC for the asking. The votes made by the membership are used to see if you can KEEP it. This is stated pretty plainly in the writeup I did about this program and how to apply for it:

Quite simply, any business or person applying to take part in this program has to agree to do "good business". This is something that is subject to interpretation, but in it's most simplest form, simply means to treat your customers well and in a manner that will speak highly of the way you do business. This will be reflected in the poll set up in your thread here and by the votes people will place in your "Trader's Ratings". If at any time, one or both of those rating vehicles drops below zero (0) and you have a negative rating, your permission to display the provided certification banner will be withdrawn and you MUST remove it from your site immediately. You MUST agree to these terms in order to take part in this program. YOUR applying to be a part of this program by accepting a banner certificate is a defacto agreement on your part that you fully accept the stipulations indicated here.

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, btw. If you have NO history, that is not a liability and being an unknown will not be held against you. But if you already have a negative Traders Rating feedback score, please don't bother applying. Do whatever you need to do to get your score into the positive rating, then come on back when that has been accomplished.

Please note that NOWHERE do I state that I will be a judge in determining who will be accepted in this program. In all respects, the membership will make this determination, based initially on the Traders Ratings, and thereafter on BOTH the Traders Ratings and the certification poll that the MEMBERS participate in. The application for a GGC is under the premise that the applicant is agreeing to do FUTURE business as GOOD business. Certainly members can vote on participants based on past business, but that is strictly up to them. I have not, and have no intention in the future, of auditing individual votes to determine their validity or applicability.

This has consistently been my position concerning the determination of "Bad Guys" and "Good Guys" who frequent this site. Unless I have direct experience in order to provide my own feedback, these decisions are made by YOU, not ME. I didn't create this site to make your decisions for you. I am just giving you the opportunity to gather as much information as you can, through several means, in order for you to make your own informed decisions.

And in the case of the members who pay for the Benefactor and Endowment level memberships, and therefore gain the power to assess warning points. ANYONE can do that. Yes, that is absolutely true. But they have to earn the right to keep it by their actions. If someone does "buy" into this program, they DO have to toe the line or they will find themselves likely booted out with a suspension and $50 fine. Sorry, but no, I have not, am not, and WILL not be the judge many of you apparently want me to be. That is your job. Just as the BOI itself was originally designed to be. A Board (composed of it's members) Of Inquiry (whereby members can view ANY and ALL info and evidence provided, making their OWN decisions about the issues). I am just providing the tools and YOU have to use them.

So basically your argument on this topic is moot, based on your apparent misunderstanding of how things were designed to work here.

As for known scammers becoming a paid member and thereby utilizing the warning system in an inappropriate manner, all it would take is for someone to glance at their profile to view that person's own warning points to see what is going on. Or even do a search of the BOI itself. The tools are all there for people to use. If they choose to not avail themselves of this service, and jump to an incorrect conclusion based on assumptions or incomplete data, that really is their fault, not mine. And bad guy can get over on an uninformed person. And yes, a good guy can become a bad guy, and it will be a while before the facts catch up with him or her. There is nothing I can do about that. There is nothing that ANYONE can do about that.

"We have Good Guy certificates being earned but yet moderator status being bought. What's the difference? To the outside world, it would appear that the integrity of FaunaClassifieds has a price. "

Actually even to be a GGC applicant, a member must be at least a Contributor member. And only members who are paid members can vote on either of the two polling mechanisms used to determing if a GGC holder can KEEP that certificate. Yes, credibility and integrity does have a price. It takes a price tag in some instances to prove one or both in a public medium such as this where it is far too easy for people to be scammers. Past history has proven that this is a necessity, which I seriously doubt anyone can dispute. Bob you have inferred this yourself. Someone being viewed as either a warning system mod or a GGC holder is likely viewed as being credible and having integrity. So why would having them provide some manner of financial sacrifice in order to prove their commitment to these programs be considered as a bad thing? Anyone will do something for free with little or no concern for the consequences if they are not legitimate. But make a cost associated with it, and that changes things for them.

So yes, integrity does have a price attached to it. That's because without that safeguard, then no there would be NO integrity at all. Imagine how credible the voting results on those certificates would be if anyone could create multiple false accounts and vote on them for free? With the applications themselves, I simply require that my efforts to set up and maintain this system be done ONLY for those members who have demonstrated financial support for this site. (Yes, I know there are quite likely several participants whose paid membership have lapsed...)

The warning system mod program being offered for Benefactor and Endowment level members is really no different. I REQUIRE a financial expression of someone's commitment to this site. I REQUIRE evidence that they are willing to go the extra mile for this site. Yes, $100 is a steep hurdle for some people who really would like to help out. But I had to draw the line somewhere, and that is where I chose to put it. No matter where the line would be placed, someone would claim it is a hardship on them. I heard that line MANY times when there was a mere $10 membership credibility requirement to post on the BOI. Although their intentions were good, and the offer to help was there with the information they could provide, $10 was just too steep of a price to pay. The price of credibility, in that instance, was just too steep for them, even at that low price.

And yeah this is likely where the argument comes up that the paid requirement is just completely unfair and I should hand pick those members to do the job, regardless of the financial token. Been there and done that with the forum mods, and look what happened with some of my choices. How many instances have we seen on this site of apparent good guys turning into black hats? Who of any of you could have forseen that turn of events for those that this happened to? How many apparent good guys are in reality not, and only showing you (and me) their public false face? I have proven to myself that I cannot always see through that mask. So I am choosing alternate methods in order to try to make determinations needed to be made.

Sorry, disagreements aside, THIS is my choice to make in how to run this program and it is the one I made. Someone is always going to think they have a better idea, no matter what the situation, but pending unambiguous proof that you have done this before and know exactly how to do THIS, then I'm sorry, but I don't have any convincing arguments of why I should select YOUR opinion over mine.

Seriously, I now EXPECT people to leave whenever I make a decision about anything here. It's become par for the course. Some will like it and some will not. If the changes are a show stopper to you, then I guess you need to go elsewhere. I can only provide what I think is best for the majority of people, and/or sometimes what is best for me, regardless of everyone else. I've tried many different things to try to find the best compromise, but it is becoming apparent that there IS no "best" and certainly some are not willing to accept any compromise whatsoever. Their choice is simply, "their way, or the highway", choosing to butt heads with me over the differing opinions. Very well then. Here's your exit if this road is not to your liking. If you are telling me to change things to your liking or you will leave, then you are the one making that decision.

 

[Stardust]

Just an observation here but I see people complaining and leaving but are they really leaving if they are still reading or even posting?

I know when I left here I went through great lengths to leave for good. I wrote Rich numerous e-mails to take me off e-mail list and put everything thing from fauna into spam and oh so many things, including not coming here at all, not even as a signed out visitor. So much so that recently when I needed my password changed I actually had to ask Rich to put in a different e-mail addy for me so I can receive the new password. I had orchestrated my own detachment of fauna to the point that it just would not go into my old e-mail addy without intense work if I even found all the places that I stopped all fauna from coming through to me. There were things I missed about this site and things I did not, I just came to the conclusion that, for me, I went overboard and decided this site was something I wanted to be a part of again. I would just pick and chose which parts and what I wanted to get involved in and what I didn't want to, it is all a personal choice. This is just a website, it is not my life, it is somewhere where I enjoy to go and spend some time on. For it being here I am choosing to contribute to say thank you for even having the site up in the first place, something Rich most certainly doesn't have to keep up.

Things change, people think about things, even during their absence from here so I would just say that before you publically say your going to leave then come back (and some do it many times over) to actually think if this is the course you really want to take or if it is something that you are saying in an emotional moment.

With regard to leaving. People come and go from sites all the time. More people come then go away for good. I personally can not blame Rich for not wanting to cater to each person who wants to leave or threatens to leave. Liked or not, one person or ten are not going to break this site. People may miss you but they can always go to where you are and visit with you there and still stay here as well.

 

[Griz]

Sincerely Rich, a dissertation of how things "work" on Fauna was not needed. Your thoughts are well known and as is obviously the case, there are many dissenting opinions, mine included on several, several Rich, not many, regarding some of your rules. Yup, YOUR rules. Why you think that needs to be stated each time is beyond me.

You SOLICIT the opinions of others just like you did here. You, in my very humble opinion, are a bit of a sadist. You have brought a lot of this upon yourself. But, I digress, as you and I have been down that road before.

I reckon Rich we agree to disagree. Integrity does not have a price for me. I cannot be bought and to be quite blunt, giving someone the "privilege" to be a moderator without them having shown the integrity for such privilege, is nothing short of ridiculous.

So Rich, is it working for you? Is your site luring in and keeping the most respected members of our hobby? Shouldn't that be at least a reasonable goal? I'm still here Rich and I don't plan on leaving anytime soon. But, that's obviously not been the case for many, that's right, MANY of the respected members that Fauna once had. I would rather have one Mike Greathouse in my corner then 100 Ed Clark's.

If your goal was to build a site with integrity, whose information one could trust, then why welcome those who have shown such lack of integrity to help you accomplish your goals? It's rather counter productive.

Griz

 

[Griz]

One other thing Rich, just so that I know my thoughts are clear. If I did not care for this site, do you honestly think that I would waste my time pounding my head upon your wall? There's value here Rich. I, for one, firmly believe that. I can only hope that one day you will see that there is value in what some of us say. Even though we have never ran a large internet site does not mean that our opinions, our experience in the non-fauna world, is any less worthy of consideration.

Griz

 

[WebSlave]

Sincerely Rich, a dissertation of how things "work" on Fauna was not needed. Your thoughts are well known and as is obviously the case, there are many dissenting opinions, mine included on several, several Rich, not many, regarding some of your rules. Yup, YOUR rules. Why you think that needs to be stated each time is beyond me.

Well what is equally beyond me is why someone who constantly repeats the same statements over and over again finds it inconceivable that I give the same replies over and over again...

And point of the matter is, that in my last reply to a statement you made, you OBVIOUSLY did not understand how the Good Guy Certifications work, which was made plainly evident by YOUR statements. So I corrected your misunderstanding.

One other thing Rich, just so that I know my thoughts are clear. If I did not care for this site, do you honestly think that I would waste my time pounding my head upon your wall? There's value here Rich. I, for one, firmly believe that. I can only hope that one day you will see that there is value in what some of us say. Even though we have never ran a large internet site does not mean that our opinions, our experience in the non-fauna world, is any less worthy of consideration.

Griz

Actually, I believe that some people just enjoy metaphorically pounding MY head against the wall.

But see, there you go, trying to put words in my mouth and claim I said them.

I have never said I don't value what people say. I have said that I am not obligated to automatically assume that someone else's opinions have greater weight than mine. Especially when there will be an equal number of people saying the exact opposite and in like fashion feeling confident that THEIR opinion should carry the day.

Am I repeating myself again? Maybe it shouldn't come as a surprise that the same questions just get the same answers....

 

[Griz]

Did you ever see the Butterfinger commercial Rich? It had Bart Simpson in it. He was trying to keep Homer from taking his Butterfinger so he attached some electrical wires to it. Homer kept touching the Butterfinger and kept reacting with an ouch. Sometimes Rich, when people keep repeating the same things, especially when even the new people to the site are stating it, that it might be time to listen. At least a little.

Again Rich, how's it working for you? Less stress? Gaining more respected members?

Griz

PS I know exactly how the GGC works. I did not realize that I had to provide you of all people with a dissertation of it. I made the assumption that you could get the jest of said comment without me going into all of the details.

 

[WebSlave]

Did you ever see the Butterfinger commercial Rich? It had Bart Simpson in it. He was trying to keep Homer from taking his Butterfinger so he attached some electrical wires to it. Homer kept touching the Butterfinger and kept reacting with an ouch. Sometimes Rich, when people keep repeating the same things, especially when even the new people to the site are stating it, that it might be time to listen. At least a little.

Again Rich, how's it working for you? Less stress? Gaining more respected members?

Griz

PS I know exactly how the GGC works. I did not realize that I had to provide you of all people with a dissertation of it. I made the assumption that you could get the jest of said comment without me going into all of the details.

Sorry, but no, I don't watch commercial TV. It's a complete waste of time. Sorry your analogy was wasted....

Actually I am satisfied with the results so far. I don't have to spend my time patrolling posts looking for rule infractions, and neither do I get the usual complaint reply from the member being warned about why the warning is unfair or not justified. So yes, that workload has been greatly relieved from my shoulders. Even with the few members here trying hard to dissuade members from participating by painting them as doing this ONLY to be on a power trip, it is still going satisfactorily. Apparently some are able to clearly see through the motives of those kinds of statements. But thanks for asking.

And I think this site has it's fair share of respectable members. Or were you implying that no one here remaining or became a new member recently is respectable? Hard to tell from your dig at me...

Sorry Bob, but your original description of how the GGC works was just inaccurate. It was only via your false claim of how it worked, and not the reality, that supported your comparison with the warning systems mod. So you are now claiming you did that on purpose merely to support your claims? Cool....