Ed Clark, an answer if you would

[Wilomn]

Ed. I'm still waiting for answers to my questions. I've been away from the computer for a few days so if this was covered somewhere else, please link me. Otherwise, were you trying to divert attention from Kevin or not?

ed, you keep forgetting (lol) to answer my question.

Let me phrase it another way.

Not too long ago a newbie member stated that she got a dragon from kevin dunn and that that dragon have AV and died. She then was dinged, by you, for something stupid and unrelated. At some point you stated that you had done business with kevin, but not the extent of that business.

So, are you NOW doing business with kevin? Were you doing business with kevin when you dinged the girl who got the dragon that died? Have you done business with kevin for a long time? Did you know he knew his dragons were EV positive? Were you trying to deflect negative attention from kevin by shutting up a newb? Were you abusing the mod status you bought?

You know me well enough to know that I'm not going to let this go. You should have just answered up the first time I asked. I suspect you were trying to deflect attention away from kevin which lead me down the road to wondering why you would do that which in turn lead me to the other questions I've asked in this post.

Now, it would seem to me, no one of consequence, that honest answers would be no problem for an upstanding guy like you, or like I thought you were. I would really hate to see you go the way matt did so, if you would be so kind, answer my questions honestly.

 

[Bill & Amy]

Ed. I'm still waiting for answers to my questions. I've been away from the computer for a few days so if this was covered somewhere else, please link me. Otherwise, were you trying to divert attention from Kevin or not?

Good luck getting an answer Wes.

 

[Griz]

Wes, he won't answer you just like he won't answer me. He CLEARLY stated that numerous people were talking about trading firearms yet he could not give me any names that were involved in that discussion. I think we call that YELLER if we were still meeting at high noon either that or liar.

Griz

 

[Jim O]

I'm not holding my breath on getting any kind of truthful answer here.

 

[Wilomn]

It seems to me, and I do genuinely like Ed so it's not personal, that someone who has mod powers, who has proven himself to be a liar by his own words and is now under serious suspiscion of using that mod status to protect a business associate, should NOT be a moderator.

Sorry Ed, I gotta say you should step down. From what you've shown, you're just not good enough.

 

[Stardust]

EH.
Give it up Wes, at this point is it really worth it?

 

[SPJ]

It seems to me, and I do genuinely like Ed so it's not personal, that someone who has mod powers, who has proven himself to be a liar by his own words and is now under serious suspiscion of using that mod status to protect a business associate, should NOT be a moderator.

Sorry Ed, I gotta say you should step down. From what you've shown, you're just not good enough.

Ed's a mod now?
When did this happen?

 

[Wilomn]

EH.
Give it up Wes, at this point is it really worth it?

It is.

If you LET one stay on, who's to say there aren't two or three of half a dozen more in there too?

You're a mod rozann, in the same way ed is. Are you better or worse or just the same as he is? If you're worse, please step down. If you're the same, please step down. If you're better, please do NOT allow one bad apple to spoil the barrel of monkeys, to mix some metaphores.

He's not capable of the job. His incapability reflects poorly on ALL of you who bought your status. Your inability to see this relfects poorly not only on you but the criteria used to create new mods.

 

[Laura Fopiano]

Ed's a mod now?
When did this happen?

When he upped his membership to benefactor.

Wes, I understand your frustration however, none of us have the power to change the people who want to pay for the responsibility of moderation. What looks good on paper does not always work when put into practice.

 

[Ed Clark]

Wes, you are fishing in waters where there are no fish to be caught. reel in your line and go on to more fertile waters.

I have never bought anything from Kevin Dunne at Sandfire Dragon Ranch.

 

[Wilomn]

When he upped his membership to benefactor.

Wes, I understand your frustration however, none of us have the power to change the people who want to pay for the responsibility of moderation. What looks good on paper does not always work when put into practice.

This is not the first instance in which this has come up even though it is the most blatant.

I think there should be a proceedure for this. When one shows that one cannot maintain the standards necessary to be a moderator there should be a process to either make the changes necessary to be able to hold those standards in the future or to have one removed.

Ed won't even answer the question. He won't even address the issue. He's running away from it hoping it won't follow. Who the HELL wants mods that act this way?

I don't. Do you Laura? Sunshine? Fauna members at large?

I have no need to like mods, but I do need to respect them for the people they say they are when they wear the moderator hat. If they can't hold that necessary level of respect, it brings into question ALL other mods of similar background.

Suppose an-al or sal tornambene bought mod memberships. You guys REALLY expect me to believe you'd just sit on your haunches and let them go? So, why is ed any different? He's not a bad guy like they are but he's NOT maintaining the standard that is NECESSARY for a mod to have in order for the general membership to respect him. IF he can't do that, why should he be a mod?

ANYONE, not just ed, who cannot keep a clean record and answer justified questions when asked, must be doubted. Those who are doubted should NOT be mods.

You HAVE to have standards and you HAVE to maintain them if you have any set of people above any other set of people. IF one set can impose punishment they must be above reproach. If they're not and they are allowed to continue, the system is flawed and needs to be fixed.

This system needs some fixing. EITHER bring him up to standard or let him go.

Since HE himself will NOT do anything to bring himself up to the minimum standard, he should be let go.

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Stardust]

rozann

OMG Wes you are no longer capitolizing my name! Certain doom is about to come my way

 

[Wilomn]

OMG Wes you are no longer capitolizing my name! Certain doom is about to come my way

Merely an oversight, I ASSure you. Look where I called you Sunshine, I did it there.

Ed, have you ever had any business dealings with Kevin, his dad, or his business? Has he, or anyone he works with or is represented by, had any with you?

Were you deflecting attention from him, or attempting to when you dinged that newbie whose name I have forgotten?

 

[Ed Clark]

Wes, maybe you missed this. but also wanted to add that I have never sold anything to Kevin Dunne.

Wes, you are fishing in waters where there are no fish to be caught. reel in your line and go on to more fertile waters.

I have never bought anything from Kevin Dunne at Sandfire Dragon Ranch.

 

[Wilomn]

Wes, maybe you missed this. but also wanted to add that I have never sold anything to Kevin Dunne.

Cool Ed, but not really an answer to the entirety of the questions that I asked. I know that his father also works with him, that he has his hands in many pots.

So, have you ever covered up for or tried to divert attention from kevin? How about for any of his business associates?

Had you simply answered my quite simple question days ago, when I originally asked it, none of this hair splitting would be necessary. Why did you wait so long and why do you still not really answer all that I've asked of you?

 

[WebSlave]

This is not the first instance in which this has come up even though it is the most blatant.

I think there should be a proceedure for this. When one shows that one cannot maintain the standards necessary to be a moderator there should be a process to either make the changes necessary to be able to hold those standards in the future or to have one removed.

Ed won't even answer the question. He won't even address the issue. He's running away from it hoping it won't follow. Who the HELL wants mods that act this way?

I don't. Do you Laura? Sunshine? Fauna members at large?

I have no need to like mods, but I do need to respect them for the people they say they are when they wear the moderator hat. If they can't hold that necessary level of respect, it brings into question ALL other mods of similar background.

Suppose an-al or sal tornambene bought mod memberships. You guys REALLY expect me to believe you'd just sit on your haunches and let them go? So, why is ed any different? He's not a bad guy like they are but he's NOT maintaining the standard that is NECESSARY for a mod to have in order for the general membership to respect him. IF he can't do that, why should he be a mod?

ANYONE, not just ed, who cannot keep a clean record and answer justified questions when asked, must be doubted. Those who are doubted should NOT be mods.

You HAVE to have standards and you HAVE to maintain them if you have any set of people above any other set of people. IF one set can impose punishment they must be above reproach. If they're not and they are allowed to continue, the system is flawed and needs to be fixed.

This system needs some fixing. EITHER bring him up to standard or let him go.

Since HE himself will NOT do anything to bring himself up to the minimum standard, he should be let go.

Seems pretty simple to me.

There is a method of dealing with this, Wes. it is a warning point for "Warning System Abuse". Any mod who abuses the warning system (which for the paid memberships is the ONLY form of correction they can apply to another member) can in turn be dealt with by other mods on this site to handle the problem. Since I fully expected some members here to potentially abuse this capability (which thankfully has not happened), that was put into place for that reason. In reviewing Ed's own warning points, it appears to me that NOT EVEN ONE moderator here has concluded that anything Ed has done utilizing the warning system has been abusive. None. Zero. Zip.

Matter of fact, it would be very easy just to conclude that Ed Clark just happens to be Wes Pollock's target du jour.

And even if Ed has dealt with Kevin Dunne, so what? There are no restrictions in place to prevent mods here from using the warning points against anyone, for any reason based on their business or personal acquaintances. But if I am mistaken, please, by all means show me where this has been stated.

And haven't we already addressed this in another forum? You were maybe expecting a different answer in this one?

 

[Wilomn]

There is a method of dealing with this, Wes. it is a warning point for "Warning System Abuse". Any mod who abuses the warning system (which for the paid memberships is the ONLY form of correction they can apply to another member) can in turn be dealt with by other mods on this site to handle the problem. Since I fully expected some members here to potentially abuse this capability (which thankfully has not happened), that was put into place for that reason. In reviewing Ed's own warning points, it appears to me that NOT EVEN ONE moderator here has concluded that anything Ed has done utilizing the warning system has been abusive. None. Zero. Zip.

Matter of fact, it would be very easy just to conclude that Ed Clark just happens to be Wes Pollock's target du jour.

And even if Ed has dealt with Kevin Dunne, so what? There are no restrictions in place to prevent mods here from using the warning points against anyone, for any reason based on their business or personal acquaintances. But if I am mistaken, please, by all means show me where this has been stated.

And haven't we already addressed this in another forum? You were maybe expecting a different answer in this one?

Do you ever wonder if, on occasion, things discussed are extrapolated for use at a later date? What if this time there was no problem, or none that any mod was willing to be first to step up and address, but next time there was a problem and, lo and behold, here's a thread on what happened last time. Of course, had I merely not questioned what seemed to me to be very questionable motives, then there would be nothing, zip, nada, zilch, to go back and look at for advice.

I STILL have a problem with Ed lying about Griz. That went hand in hand with my suspiscion that he was covering for a business partner.

Seriously Rich, IF you want mods to be taken seriously then they really have to adhere to a higher standard than the average member. Otherwise what, other than a payment to you, is the difference between them and anyone else? There IS a flaw in your buy to mod program and this is the perfect example of it.

Do you, Rich, approve of the way Ed handled himself when he was flatout lying about Griz?

Mods HAVE to be better to have ANY respect at all.

I don't recall this having been "dealt" with in any other forum. Being "dealt" with is not simply not answering until the questioner gives up and goes away. Not as far as I am concerned. Is it "dealt" with when that happens as far as you're concerned, Rich?

Had it been "dealt" with, I wouldn't have brought it here.

 

[Ed Clark]

Wes, you asked me a simple question and I answered you.

Let me ask you? at what point does this become antagonism? or overly abusive towards another member?

You are critical about how webslave runs HIS site, and dont think the mods are up to YOUR standards?

I gave a warning to someone who I think deserved it, thats all.

 

[WebSlave]

Do you ever wonder if, on occasion, things discussed are extrapolated for use at a later date? What if this time there was no problem, or none that any mod was willing to be first to step up and address, but next time there was a problem and, lo and behold, here's a thread on what happened last time. Of course, had I merely not questioned what seemed to me to be very questionable motives, then there would be nothing, zip, nada, zilch, to go back and look at for advice.

"If" there was no problem? So now you find reason to find faults with moderators because of future potential problems?

I STILL have a problem with Ed lying about Griz. That went hand in hand with my suspiscion that he was covering for a business partner.

So is your problem with the warning points or this personal problem between Griz and Ed? In the former, I have already stated my position on this. On the latter, well I believe I have stated my position as well. It is also stated later in this post, in case you missed it earlier.

Seriously Rich, IF you want mods to be taken seriously then they really have to adhere to a higher standard than the average member. Otherwise what, other than a payment to you, is the difference between them and anyone else? There IS a flaw in your buy to mod program and this is the perfect example of it.

No, no one who can use warning points really has to be taken seriously, but their warning points will apply, nonetheless, whether you take them seriously or not. Up to and including your getting fined and suspended, if that happens to go that way. My choice of how to select help in enforcing the rules is not subject to your approval, neither beforehand, nor retroactively. If you wish to openly antagonize mods, then you are implicitly accepting the repercussions that can result. I trust you are aware of that. If you want every mod here "gunning" for you, then that certainly puts you on the short leash. But that is your decision to make. Just try real hard not to give them a legitimate reason to ding you with warning points, OK?

Do you, Rich, approve of the way Ed handled himself when he was flatout lying about Griz?

Not my problem, and certainly nothing I am interested in either way. That is a personal issue between Griz and Ed. As long as Ed isn't using the warning points system against Griz then it is completely between those two to deal with it. If I wanted to get in the middle of every personal issue on this site, I just might as well check in as a permanent resident in the local booby hatch. Thanks, but no thanks. You all just deal with your own personal problems.

Mods HAVE to be better to have ANY respect at all.

Better than what or whom? Everyone? And who makes that judgement call?

Quite honestly, I do believe that respect from absolutely everyone cannot be an attainable goal. So they may certainly cut their losses here and there, when deemed necessary. I certainly did not make this a requirement, foolish enough that it is.

I don't recall this having been "dealt" with in any other forum. Being "dealt" with is not simply not answering until the questioner gives up and goes away. Not as far as I am concerned. Is it "dealt" with when that happens as far as you're concerned, Rich?

That was in reference to my opinion of the restrictions you have pulled out of thin air in how mods can utilize their warning point capability. As long as it isn't blatantly abusive, then I really do not care who they have done business with and how that relates to who they give warning points to. The ONLY relevant criteria is "WAS THE WARNING POINT JUSTIFIED?" If not, then they are subject to sanctions from the other mods, if THEY choose to do so. Nothing more, nothing less.

Had it been "dealt" with, I wouldn't have brought it here.

Obviously your definition of "dealt" means meeting your "requirements" to answer your questions. Hate to have to be the one to tell you this, Wes, but no one here is required to answer you if they choose not to. There are no penalties at all associated with just ignoring you and your questions. No warning point that says Failure to answer Wes Pollock's questions that the mods may optionally enforce. Sorry about that, but that's just the facts of the matter.

 

[Wilomn]

Hate to have to be the one to tell you this, Wes, but no one here is required to answer you if they choose not to. There are no penalties at all associated with just ignoring you and your questions. No warning point that says Failure to answer Wes Pollock's questions that the mods may optionally enforce. Sorry about that, but that's just the facts of the matter.

Well then, here is something you can do next time you're in a generous mood that will only be to the good of all concerned.

MAKE it a rule that my questions must be answered.

LOL