Banning

[ms_terese]

I agree that the bad guys should stay. It gives them ample opportunity to continue to display their character.

As for banning for other reasons, I think there needs to be a balance between a person's positives and negatives.

A) Let's take the classic Troll. Comes in, stirs up poop, makes vile, derogatory, or obscene statements, offers nothing. Positives = 10 (let's pretend he's an amusing Troll, and humor counts for something, right?) vs. Negatives = 100. Kick his butt off.

B) Let's take the intelligent Hothead. For purposes of this discussion, I'll name him "Wes". He's in the middle of everything from helping newbies to solving problems with experienced herpers to outing bad guys. He also is a bit vicious to those he feels deserves it; occasionally, those are people who probably DON'T deserve it, or at least not the dosage of poison he's administering. Positives = 500 (points for education, opinion, guidance, and detective skills...and also humor and entertainment, which is IMPORTANT, dammit!) vs. Negatives = 100. He stays. He may need to lose some rep points, or he may need to work off some of his warning points, but in order for it to be fair, there should be a balance between positive and negative.

 

[Matt Haines]

I believe banning is somewhat a double-edged sword. On one hand if you were to let a scammer stay one would interject that it only allows more people to become scammed. On the other side though at least the majority know who the person is, knows he/she is a scammer, and do not have to spend time figuring out every new little alias they come up with.

As for the trolls....you can't rid yourself of them. There will always be someone willing to make an ass of themselves in an effort to waste everyones time.

 

[WebSlave]

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.

True, yes I can, but I don't. I take a lot of abuse from some people, probably a lot more then most people would tolerate. As much as humanly possible, I try to govern my actions in such a way that most people would agree that the action was long past overdue.

Not to say that someone won't press all the wrong buttons, as we have seen in the past, but even then, I try to be tolerant.

Certainly I have had my run ins with more then my share of people I have come to dislike on this site. But still, I try to treat them fairly, regardless.

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.

The membership icons don't mean anything beyond what they say. There is no filter programmed in to weed out bad guys applying for them. If a genuine bad guy wants to pay $250 per year to get free web hosting and the other perks that come with it, yes, they are welcome to do so. But it is not a get out of jail free card. They are still subject to being fined and suspended, just like everyone else, and their access to the site, including all attendant privileges, will be suspended until the fine is paid.

 

[WebSlave]

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.

I have taken care of this problem.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich, thank you for the explanation ...

It is clear to all that every aspect of this issue has its plusses and minusses. But with regard to not revoking the opportunity to post ads in the classifieds, here you say:

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.

I am not an attorney, although I have owned several businesses, and interacted much with regard to your exact concern here. And in this current full-time business of mine, my business partner, whom I work side-by-side with 40-50 hours per week, is an attorney, and is familiar with this situation. Based on his input and my knowledge of the law here, I am going to disagree that you would be placing yourself in (if I may again paraphrase) "more legal jeopardy by banning the admitted scammer than by allowing all known scammers to stay". In the business world, my experience is that once someone is shown to have abused the trust of the employer or provider in order to take advantage of others, the employer or provider then has an obligation to revoke that priveledge or employment before it is repeated again, lest the provider now be legally implicit. Now, this is all just for the sake of argument, and I respect the decision to allow others to stay on ... its your site, with your goals.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich,
While I was typing the last note, you did address the concerns of others that Bill had removed his name from his tags, realizing not only that it was a violation, but if I am assuming correctly what was going on, that he was now trying to present the smallest possible radar blip for those who might someday check his reputation in this site. My belief is that you took actions to restore his name to its rightful position, so that he can bask in all the credit he deserves! If my reading is correct, I thank you for restoring it. As to the legal argument, believe me that I know you also are well versed in all the legalities, and its all a gray area, and I do not mean to pretend it is cut and dry. I do see that one aspect differently though.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

 

[The BoidSmith]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion and it should be respected. Nevertheless IMHO there are things that should not be tolerated. After what I have just read it’s obvious that I need a break and put things into perspective.

Regards

 

[Jim O]

The membership icons don't mean anything beyond what they say. There is no filter programmed in to weed out bad guys applying for them. If a genuine bad guy wants to pay $250 per year to get free web hosting and the other perks that come with it, yes, they are welcome to do so.

Is process is so automated that it no longer requires your intercession? I would think that you need to confirm payment. Rich, I would sincerely hope that you would decline to sell to certain people as is your right. If Mitch Tirana came and paid his fines would you honestly sell him a big gold coin? I would hope that $100 couldn't buy that for him. Similarly for SerpentBoy and other known bad actors. Has Bill not done enough to put himself in their category?

 

[Ophis]

Seeing that big gold coin on his ID bar does detract from its meaning. JMHO.

Yea.....well maybe that big gold coin would be offset by some red rep stamps.....I noticed however that his rep point tally just kept on going up throughout this fracas....Not exactly sure what that tells me other that his con was working on the gullable and/or the apologists.

 

[romad119]

Agree. I wonder what type of coin you would ahve to haveget to see who leaves who rep points....

 

[Ophis]

Agree. I wonder what type of coin you would ahve to haveget to see who leaves who rep points....

I think only the "Gang of Four" can see that. If the gang of four are attempting to wrest power in the Herp forum world......who would play Mao.......Jeff Barringer?

 

[Chameleon Company]

I think JB already had the role of Caligula, but was eyeing the role of 'Kim Il WTF' from North Korea.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

 

[Ophis]

I think JB already had the role of Caligula, but was eyeing the role of 'Kim Il WTF' from North Korea.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

I
think its Kim Ill Dudeman

 

[Lucille]

It is clear to all that every aspect of this issue has its plusses and minusses. But with regard to not revoking the opportunity to post ads in the classifieds, here you say:



I am not an attorney, although I have owned several businesses, and interacted much with regard to your exact concern here. And in this current full-time business of mine, my business partner, whom I work side-by-side with 40-50 hours per week, is an attorney, and is familiar with this situation. Based on his input and my knowledge of the law here, I am going to disagree that you would be placing yourself in (if I may again paraphrase) "more legal jeopardy by banning the admitted scammer than by allowing all known scammers to stay". In the business world, my experience is that once someone is shown to have abused the trust of the employer or provider in order to take advantage of others, the employer or provider then has an obligation to revoke that priveledge or employment before it is repeated again, lest the provider now be legally implicit. Now, this is all just for the sake of argument, and I respect the decision to allow others to stay on ... its your site, with your goals.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

Respectfully, I disagree, Jim. They are two different kinds of relationships, a board host and employer, with different rights and duties, and different levels of protection owed to those associated with their board or business.
In addition, evidence and proof for the two situations are not the same, so I believe them not to be comparable situations.
I do respect your business experience, but am merely voicing a different view here, this does not reflect at all on your opinions, which I respect, but rather my view of the law.

 

[shrap]

Good afternoon everybody....

In my opinion, bans should be strictly for violating forum rules. Even scumbags should be treated fairly..... otherwise we are just like them.

Besides, most of them are not too smart and eventually out themselves becuase they can not keep their mouth shut or their story straight. I like having them here just for that very reason.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Sammy, there is much merit in what you say ..

Besides, most of them are not too smart and eventually out themselves becuase they can not keep their mouth shut or their story straight. I like having them here just for that very reason.

Bill certainly made for a helluva good day hunting !!

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

 

[Jim O]

Bill certainly made for a helluva good day hunting !!

LOL. Actually it was more like shooting a stationary target.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Hey Lucille,
I know we traded PM's, and I expressed my view there, and also said that I was off to do work and wasn't going to post again about it here, but the keyboard got he best of me and pulled me inside again. As expressed in the PM, and now for all who read here to weigh, perhaps I didn't connect my dots well enough. Here's a quote from you:
[/QUOTE]They are two different kinds of relationships, a board host and employer, with different rights and duties, and different levels of protection owed to those associated with their board or business.

Agreed. Many of us who support banning Bill, or others of his ilk, feel that it is the right thing to do. Rich has no legal obligation to do it by any stretch (as you point out). But Rich invoked a legal liability as a reason that he couldn't even consider it (I think he called it crazy or stupid, but am too lazy to check), in that to ban Bill, he would then be certifying that others who post here were legitimate, and could be therefore liable. My intention in drawing the parallel was not only to show that he had all the leeway in the world to ban-for-cause, but also (and here's where I didn't finish) that he was incurring no such extent of liability for not banning others. Employers, depending upon the nature of their business, may incur significant civil obligations, if not possible criminal negligence, if they do not police their own employees (as I mentioned in the PM, worst case scenario of a child molester working in a daycare center, something happens, etc etc). Rich seemed to say that banning someone would set a precedent by which he could then be held liable if he didn't ban others. As a board host, and not an employer, he is very far removed from that standard, a standard which he invoked. As also mentioned, I think the nearest possible legal concern would be restraint-of-trade, but again would be so far removed from any claim Bill could make because he participated with such foolish clarity. Again, to Rich and Lucille, we feel that it would be the right thing to do to put some of the trash out. I also sympathize completely with any decision not too, as it is your prerogative, and entails considerations that I don't have to deal with.
I still like you Lucille. C'mon on down and disagree anytime! I needed to get my butt off the mower anyway, if just for a spell.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

 

[DaveyFig]

I remember not long ago a thread asking the members of this site how the integrity of the BOI could be increased.
I think that getting rid of scammers who are either admitted scammers, or proven scammers is a step in the right dierection.
The deception involved in Bill's case leads me to believe that if left unchecked, he will in the future lie to others in order to better his name. Should that be allowed?
We know he lies, we know he can't stop. Every inquiry was met with another lie , which was either shot down by common sense, or by contradicting statements made by Bill later.
We leave him here to see how far he will sink, but what if he doesn't? What if he continues on a path that outwardly looks like the high road, while lieing to people who might give him the benefit of the doubt?
He lied to the people who supported him most.He decieved people who would likely have been the harshest on him in public .He fed them what he thought he could to keep them from pounding him while the smoke cleared. Why would he tell the truth to a first time buyer?
He didn't ask that the thread be reopened, Lee did. Would Bill have ever shown the rest of the board what he showed the chosen 6? We will never know, but I doubt it. He had time to do it, and instead kept attempting to deceive.

On a side not, has the Kodiak Wood user name been updated to include a full name as well? When I looked earlier, there was no name attatched to that one.

 

[Lucille]

I still like you Lucille.

........................ I'm pleased that my legal acuity does not interfere with my appeal as a kindly and caring member of Fauna.