Banning

[DaveyFig]

I would like to see everyone's thoughts about what qualifies someone for banning from Fauna. I want to hear from members, moderators, and admin alike, just to see what everyone thinks about how far people should be able to go before saying "You don't belong here, don't come back."
Is it possible to enforce such a ban?
Should anyone be banned forever, or should there be a time frame for the ban, like a year for example?
I would like to put more thought into this first post, but I am very tired, and just wanted to get the ball rolling.
Below are some thoughts from others posted on the Bill Leverton thread.
A link was put in the thread to this section, SO I took the hint.
Please, if you are taking the time to read this, take a couple minutes to reply. I really would like to hear from everyone on this.Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by Chamco
I think you do a great job. But since you asked: OK, but people have been banned, for whatever reason, and I see few that rise above this, IMO. But with that said, this is a unique case, and probably a unique thread. He applied to be a good guy, and the bigger they are, the harder they fall? No precedent to date is not a binding reason to avoid precedent, circumstances warranted (threshold debatable, of course). Without the adjectives, am I to understand that people who are admitted thieves within the business, can maintain membership and post ads in Fauna, and while someone (and maybe droves) can see the ad and wave flags everywhere warning would-be buyers away, but a sale (and rip-off) may still occur? With Fauna as the vehicle of the ad? And if that person is able to execute some sort of name change, that might be noticed by far less of us, then it is the hope that those few (and maybe very few) will notice and do the flag waving? If the person was banned, every new persona, once identified by just one person and brought to your attention, would be axed. The Gang of Four has much flexibility in deciding what to do, and would be well within all slander and restraint-of-trade concerns due to the participation of Bill in his own crucifixion. Perhaps others who you note as having been "outed" , yet still reside here, would qualify for similar treatment. I'm not espousing that you need to run the tightest ship, but fix a few leaks? Make a few examples? Maybe put integrity back on top, as it now rides below whatever other reasons (serious, no doubt) that have resulted in a banning. All just IMO, and because you asked. If no change yet, so be it, and I can live with the status quo. But this episode begs for official sanctions.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

Originally Posted by The BoidSmith
My position as far as Bill situation has been clear since the start. If we don’t want to give credence to those that say the BOI is a joke Bill has to be suspended. There are a lot of honest people in this site. It is not fair for them to be posting side by side with a person who stole, deceived, lied (initially and to some of the members) and tried to talk his way out of it. Yes, he attempted to manipulate some members (including myself). But he was completely unsuccessful. All those that received that e-mail were patiently waiting for 7/20, then for Lee to post when he received the snake and the money. Bill was told that even that was not going to be enough. That he would have to prove that there was an “identical twin” boa. My thoughts were that Lee was delaying his post because he was waiting the package with the snake in addition to the $200. Right after Bill posted saying that “justice was served”, I replied asking him to post the additional information.

Regards.

Originally Posted by DaveyFig
Neil gubitz was banned in 03 for calling members of the BOI mental midgets, and encouraging using the BOI for entertainment purposes only, and basically making a mockery of it.

Bill has made a mockery the BOI.
Bill has made a mockery of the GGC.
Bill has made a mockery of religion.
Bill has made a mockery of every member here, family , "friends", everyone reading, and the moderators of this site.

Neil may not have done the right thing as fast as people would have liked at times, and not everyone is going to be happy. At least he explained his reasons, or tried to, for mistakes he made, and made an effort to correct them. He never flat out stole.Ever instance I can think of, he tried to compensate in some way, shape or form.He did encourage someone to take the BOI with a grain of salt though....BANNED

Bill toyed with everyone. He tried to turn his friends against someone who was obviously justified in posting. He later admitted to theft, all the while still privately trying to convince those same friends of his innocence, and lead them to believe that he WAS doing the right thing.The methods he used are almost creepy. Jesus Juice type stuff. Kept the important names from questioning him, bought time by dosing them with info (BS as it turns out).
There is no doubt in my mind that he is, or was using different names on the BOI.
I don't know how to wrap this post up nice and neat , so uh..yeah...there is what I am thinking.

 

[PaulSage]

I would like to see everyone's thoughts about what qualifies someone for banning from Fauna. I want to hear from members, moderators, and admin alike, just to see what everyone thinks about how far people should be able to go before saying "You don't belong here, don't come back."

This probably isn't the response you're looking for, but if people could just behave themselves, act like adults and follow the rules of the forum in which they are participating, there wouldn't be a need to ban anyone... in my opinion.

BUT, apparently some members are either not willing or able to behave, act like adults or follow some simple rules. Thus the need for moderators who have to make judgement calls based upon established rules and alleged violations.

SO, for the folks who can't behave, act like adults and follow the rules, I guess they get what they have coming to them. I understand honest mistakes and occasional screw-ups, but repeat offenders are just signing their own discharge. What's sad is when a very knowledgable and helpful person is banned because of their behavior.

 

[Rockford]

The way I see it is that it would be like Heaven and Hell but hell is really what you, yourself has created. People are living in their own hell right here and now.......and I betcha they are burning as I type....hopefully.

It's a great idea but what good would it do to ban someone? I think the only good it would do is give the rest of us good guys satisfaction knowing that a scumbag can no longer "hang out" and play with the rest of the kids. I think it would be tough to actually ban someone logistically. It sounds great and all but I would imagine it requiring alot of policing.

It is definitely a nice thought and it would be great if these A-holes would just disappear but I just don't think it could be a realistic possibility.

I do however think that these morons should be stripped of all their rep. points and good guy certs. especially if you are an admitted thief, scammer.

 

[hhmoore]

semantics

Banned vs suspended.
You stated that Neil Gubitz was banned in 03...I wasn't here then, but I see Neil's posts from time to time. So was that "ban" lifted, allowing his return? Or was he "banned" for a specific period of time (& isn't that a suspension)? In any event, there are (as D Thomas pointed out) others that are known liars, cheats, and scammers that are still here. They may have been suspended at various times for their actions - I don't know. THE thing that sets Bill apart was his GGC label. IMHO, regardless of what may have happened in the past, this precedent should not go unanswered; and so, I say that YES, Bill Leverton should be suspended and stripped of his reputation (Barring, of course, the production of the various proofs requested - police reports, pictures, damage claim forms, letters from UPS regarding the animal, etc). I noticed that his rep power is currently at 0, but his rep points are still 2500+ (I don't understand that part, but that is another thread, and I have given up understanding such things).

 

[DAND]

I think if someone gets busted scamming the space where the membership medallion goes should be replaced with the first picture and their avatar replaced with the second picture. If they want to continue to participate here it will be obvious to all others the character of that individual.

 

[Chameleon Company]

As I mentioned in the Bill Leverton thread, and was noted in an earlier post here, I would like to see the site managers of Fauna Classifieds (referred to as "The Board") consider some standards of business ethics, which, once crossed, warrant consideration for the offending individual being permanently banned from the ability to profit in any way from use of the Fauna site. This person should specifically not be allowed to advertise, post in any forum, or influence the good-standings of others. Being a crime, incidents of theft would be at the top of the list of offenses warranting banning consideration. The board should also be open to occurrances of lying, misrepresentation, etc. I am not espousing more specific rules and standards, although a few could be adopted by the Board. I am recommending that the Board make it a practice to consider significant ethical breaches, with the actions of Bill L. serving as one example, as being worthy of permanent banning, or at least long-term suspension, from all Fauna vehicles.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

 

[Casey Hulse]

I can't see banning Bill unless all the people who have been proven to have scammed others are banned also. I do not know them all, but I do not think Jesse Underhill was ever banned, and he was as bad as they get I think. I believe the reason that Jesse became a "big name" here was because he was not banned, and some of the members were able to find him no matter what alias he tried using. I do not think it will be a good idea for "known" scammers to work only under the radar, and the BOI is a good radar.

 

[romad119]

There should be cause for banning. Whether this is permanent or for a set time, I don't know. Maybe a 6 month first time and then permanently or the second time. Something that does give a way to redeem themselves before making it so they can never be back on Fauna.

As far as cause, things like intent, level of deception and the effort and amount of it should be weighed. Most are in agreement about one time mistakes, accidents, etc that hardly warrant a bad guy post or rating. But for calculating scammers and practicioners of deceipt - BAN them.

There are much betters things we can focus on then them.

 

[The BoidSmith]

The fact that we are even discussing this is quite disturbing. It doesn’t matter what happened in the past and “look at what happened with so and so”. There have been suspensions for those that have been verbally abusive, those disrespectful to the site, and those that have posted under faked identities. These are all “minor issues” compared to the one at hand. Hundreds here have children. Do you let them play with delinquents? No? I wonder why that is. Just remember the Chinese saying: “you get close to red ink you get stained red, you get close to black ink you get stained black”. Just think about it.

 

[kiote9]

Keep your friends close....but keep your enemies closer.

I don't see a reasonable point in banning. A person can reappear under a different name, change all their information, and pretend to be someone else. Happens all the time, though they do have a tendency to get caught as they don't change their online personality.

No one needs to be bothered by anyone they don't wish to hear from. If someone PMs you or emails you you can use the delete feature instead of reading. Don't read that persons posts. Gee, someone even has a link in their signature to ignore a person....so the option for that is there.

There are plenty of people who seem to come here just to be contrary and aggravate certain other people. Some of them are exposed bad guys and I've noticed that many people simply disregard their presence rather than demand they be banned.

I would rather allow a person to continue using the forum. That way you can see what they have to say and to whom they are saying it. If they have to assume an identity they may do some damage before they are discovered.

I keep my friends by my side, my enemies walk in front of me.

 

[Jim O]

Gee, someone even has a link in their signature to ignore a person....so the option for that is there.

Is that a fact?

 

[Chameleon Company]

So lets see, a known thief and liar, as exposed in this website, should be allowed to advertize animals for sale here, and profit legaly and otherwise, if he so chooses? And the community will be diligent enough to be sure that he never succeeds, and any kid with $50 and a dream, new to the site who has no comprehension of the BOI or its search engines, is fair game because he's young and stupid and needs to learn in the school of hard knocks? Its like the EBOLA MONKEY SCAMMERS, 90% of the literate are on to them, but they keep throwing out the bait, cause there's bites to be had. In the meantime, FAUNA can carry the reptutation that as an organization of members, we don't clean house even in the most egregious of circumstances !! If I were a competing business, I would love to use this site's continued extension of advertising and participation rights to admitted and unrepetent thieves as a marketing tool against it! "Look at Fauna, they go to all the trouble to 'out a thief and scammer', but then let him coninue to advertise there!" I realize that I am exagerating and taking some liberties at paraphrasing, but they are all legitimate extensions of allowing the status quo to remain as it is.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Speaking in general-

A few months back I brought up the point “Banning” known scammers in a thread about someone who posted false classifieds. I can’t remember who mentioned it but several points of view that should be considered. If there is no way to stop someone from reregistering under another name it is best to have them visible as possible to the rest of the members. With the rollback that has occurred in the rules for posting on the BOI it is going to be hard to enforce any banning. As mentioned it would be easy enough to fly under the radar for awhile. Fauna has only banned people for violation of site polices and I don’t think Rich is willing to put more time and effort to enforce banning known scammers.

My personal views would be to remove all the scammers off the site; it would be a valiant effort. I just know how you would accomplish it.

However, I do think that the rules that we already have in place should be enforced.

Speaking about Bill particularly,

I believe what he did was more deceitful and damaging than the average scammer. I have a few thoughts of what should happen to people like this but I don’t think I will share them.

If he cannot be banned or suspended for being a scammer, he should be suspended for site violations.

Bill has done as many have when they have been ousted and has removed his name from his signature line.

WebSlave, I would like to report over 600 posts in the BOI for violation of the full name rule. At one point per post that is 600 plus warning points should be enough for a suspension.

After all if the good people of Fauna are to follow these rules, it is right to keep the scammers name on their posts.

Would you get mad if I reported them all individually? Just joking, maybe.

 

[Sasheena]

Several people have been suspended on this site, very very few have been completely banned, and those have been relevant and pertinent from what I can tell. It could be that Rich might include as a consequence of "falling out of grace" with the GGC an automatic $25 suspension for the work and hassle that (as we have seen) result from this action on their part. I haven't had much to say lately as it appears that Bill HAS been given plenty enough rope and he's hanging himself with it. If he'd been "banned" or "suspended" upon admission of his guilt I think that myself, and some others like Wendy might have never been able to get to the truth of the matter and felt like Bill's true colors were revealed. There is nothing like the words of the scammer himself to show up exactly how bad he really is.

I don't know why but I just DON"T think that this is a BANNING offense, and even feel that it shouldn't be a suspension offense. However perhaps a changing of the rules of the GGC to incorporate an automatic suspension with higher than normal fines would be a realistic "punishment" for abuse of the GGC system.

 

[romad119]

Yes, as in anything, you can't have an absolute. You can't get ALL or prevent NONE, etc. But just because we don't catch all murderers, rapists, etc doesn't make it so we stop trying. Yes a banned person can reappear as can suspended people. But does that mean that we as a community will let them get away with it? Heck no.

Does the various wildlife agencies stop trying to eliminate alien species? Lampreys, gobies, mussels etc just because its not easy or they can do a 100% termination of these things?

Like soem of the above, if we don't go after certain types of people then thats all there will be. Do you want the futre balance to shift so that the following scenario is a possible future thread:

"So and so - good guy"

= "I can't believe we have a good guy here. This guy is a loser and doesn't fit into all of us bad guys that use fauna. Did you see that he actually sent the right animal and on time. Not even a hole in the box. Yeha he used a box and not a USPS prioruty envelope. It even arrived alive!"

Now we are far from that but waver on banning/suspending rightfully deserving individuals and you step closer to the formentioned future.

 

[romad119]

Something like this is definitely a moderator decision as I view it. But I'm sure a poll happy person could make a specific poll that would at least let them see members' views on the matter.

 

[Ophis]

If it were up to a vote, I would say let Bill remain. Let the once normal Hobbit, now transfigured and corrupted by his own greed, slink around the edges of Fauna....forever to be shunned, ostracized and despised by the participants.

I bet he named that boa "My Precious".

 

[WebSlave]

It appears that some people are under a misunderstanding about what the BOI is for and what my and the moderators designated responsibilities are here.

We have not been, are not now, and are not going to be judges in matters of how people or businesses conduct themselves in their own affairs. The BOI is a BOARD of Inquiry composed of all interested persons, such as yourselves, who will read whatever information is provided, and make their own decisions about what they are reading. We are NOT going to classify anyone as being innocent or guilty of any incident involving how they do business. Period.

What we DO here, in the capacity of caretakers, overseers, and moderators, is to try to put some structure and direction in how THIS place is run. EVERYTHING involving reputation points, warnings, as well as fines and suspensions are targeted solely at how someone acts on this site. What they do elsewhere is not our concern nor our responsibility. Someone can use profanity that would curl your hair all over the rest of the world, but ONLY when they use it here will they get dinged for it. That, I believe, is a reasonable approach to make on what our responsibilities and authority should be limited to.

As for the Good Guy Certification program, again, that is something that YOU all determine whether someone retains that certification or not. It is not a program whereby WE have designated someone as a good guy, or exclude someone because we feel they are a bad guy. Everyone applying is given the benefit of the doubt and it is SOLELY up to the members to determine whether they retain that certification or not by voting to that end. No, it is not perfect, and never will be. The only influence it can ever have is that someone can possibly LOSE their certification by not doing good business.

As for posting classified ads, again, no, it is not our job to determine whether or not you should buy from someone. That is YOUR job using the tools provided here for you to be able to make a well informed decision. We are NOT going to decide who is or is not qualified to post ads here based on any criteria whatsoever. It is your job to research the sellers adequately and sufficiently to make your own decisions about what to do. For us to do otherwise would likely be an extraordinarily stupid thing for me to do, in that by implication, I would be placing myself in legal jeopardy by making the implied assurance that all sellers here ARE guaranteed to be qualified to do business with based on the fact that they ARE selling here. That just is not going to happen, because it CAN'T realistically happen.

I hope this is somewhat clear to everyone. WE are not going to be judges, and WE are not going to do your homework for you. You have to make your own choices about what to think about anyone whom you are considering doing business with.

 

[The BoidSmith]

What if the BOI was a company with a lot of good employees? What if there was one employee that stole from one of his peers. Yes the rest can ignore what happened and not speak to him in the corridors. But what will that do to the overall morale? What will other “companies” say about it? What kind of employees are you willing to attract to this firm? No, you will not be able to weed everyone out and you cannot prevent them from signing with a fake ID. But that doesn’t mean you have to drop your arms and say there’s nothing you can do about it. Although I respect what has been said (as it is just a different opinion) I feel there is no room for proven scammers in this site.

 

[Jim O]

It appears that some people are under a misunderstanding about what the BOI is for and what my and the moderators designated responsibilities are here.

We have not been, are not now, and are not going to be judges in matters of how people or businesses conduct themselves in their own affairs. The BOI is a BOARD of Inquiry composed of all interested persons, such as yourselves, who will read whatever information is provided, and make their own decisions about what they are reading. We are NOT going to classify anyone as being innocent or guilty of any incident involving how they do business. Period.

What we DO here, in the capacity of caretakers, overseers, and moderators, is to try to put some structure and direction in how THIS place is run. EVERYTHING involving reputation points, warnings, as well as fines and suspensions are targeted solely at how someone acts on this site. What they do elsewhere is not our concern nor our responsibility. Someone can use profanity that would curl your hair all over the rest of the world, but ONLY when they use it here will they get dinged for it. That, I believe, is a reasonable approach to make on what our responsibilities and authority should be limited to.

As for the Good Guy Certification program, again, that is something that YOU all determine whether someone retains that certification or not. It is not a program whereby WE have designated someone as a good guy, or exclude someone because we feel they are a bad guy. Everyone applying is given the benefit of the doubt and it is SOLELY up to the members to determine whether they retain that certification or not by voting to that end. No, it is not perfect, and never will be. The only influence it can ever have is that someone can possibly LOSE their certification by not doing good business.

As for posting classified ads, again, no, it is not our job to determine whether or not you should buy from someone. That is YOUR job using the tools provided here for you to be able to make a well informed decision. We are NOT going to decide who is or is not qualified to post ads here based on any criteria whatsoever. It is your job to research the sellers adequately and sufficiently to make your own decisions about what to do. For us to do otherwise would likely be an extraordinarily stupid thing for me to do, in that by implication, I would be placing myself in legal jeopardy by making the implied assurance that all sellers here ARE guaranteed to be qualified to do business with based on the fact that they ARE selling here. That just is not going to happen, because it CAN'T realistically happen.

I hope this is somewhat clear to everyone. WE are not going to be judges, and WE are not going to do your homework for you. You have to make your own choices about what to think about anyone whom you are considering doing business with.

All true and on the mark, Rich. On the other hand, you can decide who gets to swim in your pool. Being here is a privilege, not a right. You can refuse someone membership simply because you do not like them.

Having said that, I am not in favor of an outright ban or a fine. It might, however, be wise to give Scammer Billy a 30 day suspension or something of the like so he can reflect on his actions and his posts. Also, refunding the unused portion of his high level membership might also be considered, and allowing him to buy back in only as a "paid member" might indeed be a consideration. Seeing that big gold coin on his ID bar does detract from its meaning. JMHO.