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

[Seamus Haley]

Seamus,

Actually I spent the last hour and a half writing out a reply to this, and while proofreading, I came to the realization that I had said all those words before. MANY times. So I deleted it.

Obviously I am talking to an inattentive audience.....

Right back at'cha.

From time to time anyway.

 

[shrap]

I really hate having to agree with Jim about anything but as I was reading that last line- the words "And what was the common denominator in all those situations to which this applies-



I am absolutely not calling all of those bad blood situations "your fault" Rich, but looking at it from the outside, there are definitely *some* where your actions fostered that negative attitude. And plenty where you were just burned for no understandable reason- but to seem to color them all as "everyone else's fault, why do they keep doing this to poor blameless me?" is inaccurate. I understand that you've been kicked in the head repeatedly as a direct result of your ownership of this site and there are certainly *some* examples of people deciding to simply try to hurt your efforts. It's not correct to label every problem situation as ridgidly adhereing to that label though; some of the conflicts you have had with individuals were escalated and by them and some were not.

Oh and... since I have been waiting for it for two years now-



Told you so. Although again you're mischaracterizing the intent and attitude behind the objections which were raised against that plan. As you seem to mischaracterize the intent of most people who hold an opinion in opposition to your own. It seems nobody can ever disagree simply because they came to a different conclusion based on the avaliable information- they all have to be insidious plotters who gleefully revel in causing you misery and grief. No shades of gray at all for awhile now- there's people who agree with you and people who are somehow evil.

It wasn't a group of evil villains who were opposed to credibility or professionalism; it was (mostly) a group of concerned members who believed that a fee to post invalidated the underlying concept of a free exchange of information which had been touted as a BOI friendly ideal for so long before the change.

There's an old sort of twenty questions mystery riddle deal... An express train is rolling across the plains at midnight and there's a man walking through a sleepercar. He sees a hand hanging out of one of the curtained alcoves, pulls out a revolver and fires through the curtain, killing the occupant. He's detailed and handed over to the authorities at the next station. They hold him for half an hour and then he is released with no charges.

The game is to ask a bunch of questions such as "Were there distinguishing marks on the arm" or "Did the assailant know the victim" to try and figure out what had happened- with the answer being that the man who fired the shot had gotten into an argument with his wife thirty years earlier and attacked her with an axe, cutting off several of her fingers. She escaped, the police came, found the blood and fingers, charged him with murder and he was found guilty- sentances and served his time. When he got out, he reccognized her hand because of the missing fingers and shot her. He couldn't be tried for the same crime twice and had already served his sentance.

Rich, *sometimes* you take a person who disagrees with you and treat them as if they were an enemy, out to destroy you or damage your site just because they offered a different opinion. And you keep treating them that way until they break and actually act upon the attitude you've behaved as if they already held. You seem to be manufacturing disgruntled members out of people who were once staunch supporters. You've got a massive pile of great members to go through before you're left with nothing but the bad element and for awhile after each one of these conflicts that led to a good person leaving or being banned or just not making the positive contributions they used to, I figured it was a fluke or an unfortunate miscommunication... but you're rapidly driving people off and the only constant in each case is that they disagreed with something and explained their position to you. Disagreement with you is the apparant catalyst; I hope you can see why I think that's wrong.

Thank you, Seamus.

 

[Griz]

Seamus, excellent post. Rich has his own self-fullfilling prophecy over these matters.

Griz

 

[Dragondad]

I really hate having to agree with Jim about anything but as I was reading that last line- the words "And what was the common denominator in all those situations to which this applies-



I am absolutely not calling all of those bad blood situations "your fault" Rich, but looking at it from the outside, there are definitely *some* where your actions fostered that negative attitude. And plenty where you were just burned for no understandable reason- but to seem to color them all as "everyone else's fault, why do they keep doing this to poor blameless me?" is inaccurate. I understand that you've been kicked in the head repeatedly as a direct result of your ownership of this site and there are certainly *some* examples of people deciding to simply try to hurt your efforts. It's not correct to label every problem situation as rigidly adhering to that label though; some of the conflicts you have had with individuals were escalated and by them and some were not.

Oh and... since I have been waiting for it for two years now-



Told you so. Although again you're mischaracterizing the intent and attitude behind the objections which were raised against that plan. As you seem to mischaracterize the intent of most people who hold an opinion in opposition to your own. It seems nobody can ever disagree simply because they came to a different conclusion based on the available information- they all have to be insidious plotters who gleefully revel in causing you misery and grief. No shades of gray at all for awhile now- there's people who agree with you and people who are somehow evil.

It wasn't a group of evil villains who were opposed to credibility or professionalism; it was (mostly) a group of concerned members who believed that a fee to post invalidated the underlying concept of a free exchange of information which had been touted as a BOI friendly ideal for so long before the change.

There's an old sort of twenty questions mystery riddle deal... An express train is rolling across the plains at midnight and there's a man walking through a sleepercar. He sees a hand hanging out of one of the curtained alcoves, pulls out a revolver and fires through the curtain, killing the occupant. He's detailed and handed over to the authorities at the next station. They hold him for half an hour and then he is released with no charges.

The game is to ask a bunch of questions such as "Were there distinguishing marks on the arm" or "Did the assailant know the victim" to try and figure out what had happened- with the answer being that the man who fired the shot had gotten into an argument with his wife thirty years earlier and attacked her with an axe, cutting off several of her fingers. She escaped, the police came, found the blood and fingers, charged him with murder and he was found guilty- sentences and served his time. When he got out, he recognized her hand because of the missing fingers and shot her. He couldn't be tried for the same crime twice and had already served his sentence.

Rich, *sometimes* you take a person who disagrees with you and treat them as if they were an enemy, out to destroy you or damage your site just because they offered a different opinion. And you keep treating them that way until they break and actually act upon the attitude you've behaved as if they already held. You seem to be manufacturing disgruntled members out of people who were once staunch supporters. You've got a massive pile of great members to go through before you're left with nothing but the bad element and for awhile after each one of these conflicts that led to a good person leaving or being banned or just not making the positive contributions they used to, I figured it was a fluke or an unfortunate miscommunication... but you're rapidly driving people off and the only constant in each case is that they disagreed with something and explained their position to you. Disagreement with you is the apparent catalyst; I hope you can see why I think that's wrong.

Although I do appreciate what Seamus is saying there is a flaw in some of the logic. To define the actions of some of these departed members as "explained" and "disagreed" is a gross understatement of the actions of some departed members, and you seem to be forcing the bad guy image on Rich. The common factor here is Rich and yet saying so is using the following analysis.

A statistic student goes out on Monday and drinks Vodka and water, he gets drunk, on Tues he drinks Wiskey and Water and gets drunk, on Wed he drinks Gin and Water and gets drunk....(you get the idea) so the common factor in all of this is the water so therefore the water is what causes you to get drunk.

Rich is the common denominator of all of Fauna, any conflict between members that goes to site complaints, any complaints on moderation, any complaints on fees or membership all goes to Rich. This site is what it is, is direction is going in the direction Rich picks, he may ask for opinions, he may take some ideas. But in the end he makes the decision. Its his head and baby on the line.

Now my view of the common denominator is strong personalities, and strong opinions. The problem you get is when some of the opinions and personalities don't know when to shut it, don't understand the concept that this isn't a choice of right or wrong but the choice of one way vs another. Just because we disagree doesn't make my view right and Rich's wrong, (or vice versa). I have not been a fan of all of the choices, and I have chosen not to use Fauna at times, do to some of them. But in the end Fauna is what it is, and I am still here. Now I don't even come close to being equal to say a Mike Greathouse who has chosen to go. But at least Mike left and didn't try to "damage" the site, and the bottom line here is what Bobby did goes directly against what he railed on Kelli for about a year ago, and its easy to see he did it out of retaliation for a perceived wrong from Rich.

Rich makes his choices, we may not like them.

But you know what its our choice, no one forces our hand to the keys with a gun to our head. You may not like some of the choices, IE: the WS mods and who is now capable of giving warnings, yet the original system had it covered that if there was a bad mod, they could be delt with in the same manner as a unruly member. The most recent adjustment is only narrowed and shorted the field.

Although the system isn't perfect. For every idea that has been brought out there is a reason not to use it. So rather than go back to 4 people shouldering the burden and taking the whole system on, the greater level of moderation we all wanted is there. So deal with it,

WE can either in the case of the WS Mods:

1: Contribute to a level you want to support Fauna, issue warnings or don't.

2: Don't contribute and enjoy Fauna, post, disagree, discuss with friends, share photos and opinions.

3: Leave and hope the door doesn't hit you in the ass.

Just remember hind site is 20/20 and I told you so's tend to be old and petty.

 

[Cheryl Marchek AKA JM]

Rich~ I am not saying all this fighting is your fault. It's not. As was said~ takes two. But you have a particular talent at accelerating whomever you are disagreeing with until they loose perspective and come off sounding like a raving lunatic.

~ I don't think you realize this~ so I'm just gonna throw it out there for you to consider. You are particularly good at finding the meat of whatever is going to upset your opponent in a disagreement the most. I don't know how you do it, how you can find someones particular hot button with what seems like pretty close to perfect accuracy~ but it seems you can usually find it right away~ pick at it, imply it or jump on it (if your annoyed enough)....and leave your opponent standing there sputtering like a tea kettle on a rolling boil.

 

[WebSlave]

Rich~ I am not saying all this fighting is your fault. It's not. As was said~ takes two. But you have a particular talent at accelerating whomever you are disagreeing with until they loose perspective and come off sounding like a raving lunatic.

~ I don't think you realize this~ so I'm just gonna throw it out there for you to consider. You are particularly good at finding the meat of whatever is going to upset your opponent in a disagreement the most. I don't know how you do it, how you can find someones particular hot button with what seems like pretty close to perfect accuracy~ but it seems you can usually find it right away~ pick at it, imply it or jump on it (if your annoyed enough)....and leave your opponent standing there sputtering like a tea kettle on a rolling boil.

LOL! That's known as finding the flaw in their logic and exposing it. Apparently many people can't stand the thought that their entire argument is based on faulty logic. Yes, I guess I do have a knack for getting to the core of an argument. In many cases the assumption is made that I never even thought of what it is they are proposing. Truth be known, in nearly all cases, I THOROUGHLY pondered the changes I wanted to implement and the proposal THEY championed had most certainly been entertained, but rejected for one reason or another. So, of course, when they brought it up, I already knew the answer to why it would likely be a less successful path than the one I was trying.

So why do some ideas just fail? Maybe because there IS no viable solution to the problem.

So tell me, why is my telling someone their plan is unworkable, showing the flaws in their logic in the process worse than someone telling ME my plan is unworkable? Why is it wrong that I choose to implement something based on my opinion rather than what someone else poses as their opinion?

 

[WebSlave]

Although I do appreciate what Seamus is saying there is a flaw in some of the logic. To define the actions of some of these departed members as "explained" and "disagreed" is a gross understatement of the actions of some departed members, and you seem to be forcing the bad guy image on Rich. The common factor here is Rich and yet saying so is using the following analysis.

A statistic student goes out on Monday and drinks Vodka and water, he gets drunk, on Tues he drinks Wiskey and Water and gets drunk, on Wed he drinks Gin and Water and gets drunk....(you get the idea) so the common factor in all of this is the water so therefore the water is what causes you to get drunk.

Rich is the common denominator of all of Fauna, any conflict between members that goes to site complaints, any complaints on moderation, any complaints on fees or membership all goes to Rich. This site is what it is, is direction is going in the direction Rich picks, he may ask for opinions, he may take some ideas. But in the end he makes the decision. Its his head and baby on the line.

Now my view of the common denominator is strong personalities, and strong opinions. The problem you get is when some of the opinions and personalities don't know when to shut it, don't understand the concept that this isn't a choice of right or wrong but the choice of one way vs another. Just because we disagree doesn't make my view right and Rich's wrong, (or vice versa). I have not been a fan of all of the choices, and I have chosen not to use Fauna at times, do to some of them. But in the end Fauna is what it is, and I am still here. Now I don't even come close to being equal to say a Mike Greathouse who has chosen to go. But at least Mike left and didn't try to "damage" the site, and the bottom line here is what Bobby did goes directly against what he railed on Kelli for about a year ago, and its easy to see he did it out of retaliation for a perceived wrong from Rich.

Rich makes his choices, we may not like them.

But you know what its our choice, no one forces our hand to the keys with a gun to our head. You may not like some of the choices, IE: the WS mods and who is now capable of giving warnings, yet the original system had it covered that if there was a bad mod, they could be delt with in the same manner as a unruly member. The most recent adjustment is only narrowed and shorted the field.

Although the system isn't perfect. For every idea that has been brought out there is a reason not to use it. So rather than go back to 4 people shouldering the burden and taking the whole system on, the greater level of moderation we all wanted is there. So deal with it,

WE can either in the case of the WS Mods:

1: Contribute to a level you want to support Fauna, issue warnings or don't.

2: Don't contribute and enjoy Fauna, post, disagree, discuss with friends, share photos and opinions.

3: Leave and hope the door doesn't hit you in the ass.

Just remember hind site is 20/20 and I told you so's tend to be old and petty.

Thank you Micheal. Obviously some people can see the obvious....

Yes, I am a common denominator simply because it could not be any other way. I, solely, make the decisions here and implement them. It is because of that, the resistance for those changes can't help but have me in the middle of it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that one, I hope. How could it be otherwise? And in all those instances, I think anyone reading the threads associated with each and every conflict revolving around said changes I have tried to make, will see pretty plainly evidence akin to someone poking at a dog with a stick, because it's not doing what they want it to do, until the dog finally gets fed up enough to turn around and bite a chunk out of their butt. And they then go crying off into the sunset about that "bad" dog.

 

[Cheryl Marchek AKA JM]

So tell me, why is my telling someone their plan is unworkable, showing the flaws in their logic in the process worse than someone telling ME my plan is unworkable? Why is it wrong that I choose to implement something based on my opinion rather than what someone else poses as their opinion?

Well, It's not really. I think you missed what I was saying~ it's not the act of telling someone their plan is unworkable or pointing out logic flaws that causes people to sometimes react badly to you. It's a knack you have for saying something~ that while it may be perfectly logical and to most people no big deal~ just so happens to hit your opponents hot button. (with me it was when you implied I thought I was entitled to special treatment........that was my "hot button" at that point and you nailed it right away! I was already accelerated and that turned me right into a raving lunatic!) Some people go out of their way looking for peoples hot buttons...(we all know people who do that)...you just seem to hit them without any evidence you were looking for it....almost every time! And because there was no evidence you were looking for it......it hits harder and causes more sputtering.

Thats all~ it's not that your starting these fights necessarily~ it's just that your so good at it you accelerate others sometimes when maybe a little deceleration would suit your purposes better.

Hope you take that in the manner it is intended~ as a helpfull observation.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

Another assumption, and this time an incorrect one. You should think hard before you tell me what I would or would not do.

well i did think about what i said, and i said, for a reason "probably not" because i do not KNOW how you think, or what you would do. But only, yes... assumed... MAYBE not.
I did not say you DEFINITELY would not. Just for the record.

 

[WebSlave]

I think I need to expand on one detail in Michael's post that may not be obvious to a lot of people.

Now I don't even come close to being equal to say a Mike Greathouse who has chosen to go.

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse
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.

So why did Mike actually leave? If I am reading him correctly, he left because there were some members here that he did not want to be associated with. When someone approaches me with that implied ultimatum, how do YOU all think I should address it? Should I have said "Sure, Mike, tell me which members you want gone from here, and I'll do it." Is THAT the way it should have gone? Would it be best for me to weigh the value of each member making this request and acting accordingly? How would YOU feel if you got a notice saying, "Sorry, but a member that I consider more valuable than you has requested that you be banned from this site. Have a nice day."

Do you all really want me to entertain the option of giving EVERYONE the power to ban someone else merely based on their own opinion of who should be here and who should not? I can do that, you know, but if you think the WS mod program is interesting, this one will be a REAL HOOT.

So if that is what you all really want, sure, let me know. Let's see what happens when I start taking other people's advice without my considering the fallout. Bear in mind, however, that not everyone making suggestions will actually have the best interests of this site in mind. So be careful about what you wish for.

If you all will just stop and think about this, I already AM giving you the power, collectively, to "take out the trash". That is what the WS mod program is all about. So in effect, if you all want certain people gone from here, do it yourself and don't ask ME to do your dirty work for you.

 

[Griz]

Thank you Micheal. Obviously some people can see the obvious....

Yes, I am a common denominator simply because it could not be any other way. I, solely, make the decisions here and implement them. It is because of that, the resistance for those changes can't help but have me in the middle of it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that one, I hope. How could it be otherwise? And in all those instances, I think anyone reading the threads associated with each and every conflict revolving around said changes I have tried to make, will see pretty plainly evidence akin to someone poking at a dog with a stick, because it's not doing what they want it to do, until the dog finally gets fed up enough to turn around and bite a chunk out of their butt. And they then go crying off into the sunset about that "bad" dog.

Then Rich, stop asking for people's input. Stop asking for their advice or creating an arena whereby you receive it. Stop creating threads whereby you are simply asking to create drama. All of these issues are why I refer to you as a sadist. You enjoy being the Great All Knowing Oz and I truly believe you like being the dog getting poked with a stick.

Do you know what's sad Rich? Other than the threads that get out of hand and get people all worked up....what else have YOU brought to the table lately? You may be the most active member in the corn forums or a variety thereof but when I think of Rich Z, these threads are the only thing I think of. If you're tired of getting poked then just do what you please and stop eliciting input.

Griz

 

[WebSlave]

Well, It's not really. I think you missed what I was saying~ it's not the act of telling someone their plan is unworkable or pointing out logic flaws that causes people to sometimes react badly to you. It's a knack you have for saying something~ that while it may be perfectly logical and to most people no big deal~ just so happens to hit your opponents hot button. (with me it was when you implied I thought I was entitled to special treatment........that was my "hot button" at that point and you nailed it right away! I was already accelerated and that turned me right into a raving lunatic!) Some people go out of their way looking for peoples hot buttons...(we all know people who do that)...you just seem to hit them without any evidence you were looking for it....almost every time! And because there was no evidence you were looking for it......it hits harder and causes more sputtering.

Thats all~ it's not that your starting these fights necessarily~ it's just that your so good at it you accelerate others sometimes when maybe a little deceleration would suit your purposes better.

Hope you take that in the manner it is intended~ as a helpfull observation.

No, it's not intentional Cheryl. But I believe I have always had this knack of getting directly to the heart of the matter by stripping away all the fluff in what someone says, and breaking it down to basic elements. Probably comes from my years being a computer troubleshooter where I had to deal with people trying to describe to me what was wrong, and I had to pick out only what was really relevant and focus on that.

Sorry...........

 

[Griz]

So why did Mike actually leave? If I am reading him correctly, he left because there were some members here that he did not want to be associated with.

Those of us that know Mike just took GREAT exception to your understanding.

Griz

 

[WebSlave]

Then Rich, stop asking for people's input. Stop asking for their advice or creating an arena whereby you receive it. Stop creating threads whereby you are simply asking to create drama. All of these issues are why I refer to you as a sadist. You enjoy being the Great All Knowing Oz and I truly believe you like being the dog getting poked with a stick.

Do you know what's sad Rich? Other than the threads that get out of hand and get people all worked up....what else have YOU brought to the table lately? You may be the most active member in the corn forums or a variety thereof but when I think of Rich Z, these threads are the only thing I think of. If you're tired of getting poked then just do what you please and stop eliciting input.

Griz

In a nutshell:

"Rich, close down the feedback forum. Don't ask for opinions before hand, don't ask for feeback afterwards."

That about cover it, Bob? So tell me, how many people would break out the stick and begin poking me over THIS decision?

 

[Griz]

In a nutshell:

"Rich, close down the feedback forum. Don't ask for opinions before hand, don't ask for feeback afterwards."

That about cover it, Bob? So tell me, how many people would break out the stick and begin poking me over THIS decision?

Yes, Rich, that's pretty much right on the money. I have yet to see you acquiesce to anything anyone else has stated. I have yet to see you place any real value in the input of others so why bother? Hell, I reckon I should ask myself that question. Bob, why do you bother? I don't know. I just don't know.

Griz

 

[WebSlave]

Those of us that know Mike just took GREAT exception to your understanding.

Griz

That's the last prod with the stick I will allow you Bob. I can take your previous advice selectively by just removing those people individually who are poking me. Apparently that is the only reason you are here lately. 14 of your last 16 posts have been in this thread alone merely to poke at me.

One more and you are done here. This is the growl before the bite.

And thanks for your suggestion about how to do this.

 

[Cheryl Marchek AKA JM]

If those mod powers I don't use allowed me to lock this thread for a cool down period I would~
But I can't

So how about~
DING! DING! DING!~ everyone back to your corners for a cool down

Please

 

[Griz]

I hope Rich that one day you will see my input for what it was meant to be. Helpful. While I may lack tact now and then, my advice was never intended to upset you or get you riled up. If I did not care about Fauna I would have left long ago.

Griz

 

[Stardust]

Dang.

The feedback forum is just that, a feedback forum. The problem doesn't lay if a question or suggestion is asked or given it occurs when it is not fully incorporated.

I will use myself as an example since I don't want to seem like I am putting words in anyones mouth.
If I ask a question concerning an idea it is a legit question. I am not saying I will use the advice solicited but want to take different views into consideration-big difference. Since when is asking for input wrong? I guess since the input was not taken fully it then becomes wrong? Just because one asks for feedback doesn't mean one will take the advice fully, but at least it will be thought about and there was care or respect enough to ask in the first place.

If I remember correctly it wasn't Rich's idea to pay to go on the BOI but he did see it at the time a good idea and did it. Obviously that idea did not pan out, lesson learned. Trial and error and all that fun stuff.

As far as people not liking people on here or as mini mods, it is still a process in the trial arena and being covered, like everything else, a learn as you go thing.
How many people here check every person in every store before you buy your food or clothing or whatever it is that you are buying? Do you walk in a store and find out if there is someone that you may not like there and if there is you just don't go to that store? It is ridiculous to think that so why is it different for a website? Truth is we all go to places that have less then what our own standards are. The system is set up so that the people "working" are punishable by "firing" just as a customer is punishable by stealing.
I know I am not getting this out correctly, my mind is going off into several directions and sometimes I have a hard time putting thought into writing, I am not a writer but I hope you get the drift of what I am saying here. :ack: this is just not a good writing day for me.

 

[Stardust]

I think I need to expand on one detail in Michael's post that may not be obvious to a lot of people.





So why did Mike actually leave? If I am reading him correctly, he left because there were some members here that he did not want to be associated with. When someone approaches me with that implied ultimatum, how do YOU all think I should address it? Should I have said "Sure, Mike, tell me which members you want gone from here, and I'll do it." Is THAT the way it should have gone? Would it be best for me to weigh the value of each member making this request and acting accordingly? How would YOU feel if you got a notice saying, "Sorry, but a member that I consider more valuable than you has requested that you be banned from this site. Have a nice day."

Do you all really want me to entertain the option of giving EVERYONE the power to ban someone else merely based on their own opinion of who should be here and who should not? I can do that, you know, but if you think the WS mod program is interesting, this one will be a REAL HOOT.

So if that is what you all really want, sure, let me know. Let's see what happens when I start taking other people's advice without my considering the fallout. Bear in mind, however, that not everyone making suggestions will actually have the best interests of this site in mind. So be careful about what you wish for.

If you all will just stop and think about this, I already AM giving you the power, collectively, to "take out the trash". That is what the WS mod program is all about. So in effect, if you all want certain people gone from here, do it yourself and don't ask ME to do your dirty work for you.

Rich, with all due respect, if you do this why not just close down the site completely?
That is what it would amount to as everyone here has someone they don't particularly care for, so in essence everyone would be getting rid of everyone, only at a slower pace then just shutting down the site.