Is the Fall From Grace fatal to the Good Guy Certs?

[WebSlave]

You want to know why I voted that way? Of course you couldn't care less, but I'm providing an explanation anyway.

I am always willing to listen to well reasoned arguments and discussions. Pissing duels, invective, and illogically and solely emotionally based whining about the decisions I am making simply because you wish it were otherwise, no, I don't care much for those. I wish I could just walk into the Humvee dealer and they would give me one to drive home to keep. I understand why they don't, so I don't waste my nor their time arguing over them not doing what I want them to do.

Further, just because someone expresses their opinions or makes suggestions is no reason at all why the offerer of such things should consider it as mandatory that I accept the opinions and suggestions. I may very well choose to do otherwise, and I would hope that such people would recognize that this is my prerogative.

1. Because its a buy in program that tries to act like a BBB but ultimately does not. BBBs hold themselves to a strictly neutral mediation program. Now obviously no one is completely neutral, but at the very least there should be disinterested parties. You have your own business interests, you have your own friends (clique if you will) and so do your moderators, along with everyone else. The point is, your biases and your moderators' biases are the most important since you (all) can ruin someone's reputation level, hand out warning points, appear extremely biased, and can ban people whom you dislike simply by going over each and every post someone makes with a fine-toothed comb.

So tell me, what could be more neutral then allowing members themselves to vote on the polls? How would mine or the moderators "business interests" influence this voting? Disinterested parties? How would that work in this situation? It would ONLY be interested parties who would be likely to vote on the polls. Disinterested parties will not even look at the polls, much less vote on them, in most cases.

Sorry, but no, I disagree. WE cannot ruin someone's reputation here. Only they themselves can do so by their own actions and as reported by other members. Warning points are assessed as needed to try to keep people within acceptable guidelines in how we consider activities as being acceptable in a publicly accessible message board. ALL of the warning points are open for public inspection, review, and audit to anyone interested to view them for any particular user. That helps to keep out any bias. Even if there WERE a bias, how could such a thing possibly ruin someone's reputation? Sorry, but I just don't see that sort of power in my hands, nor in those of the moderators. All we do is to hand you the rope. You do with it as you wish.

As for the bias on warning points being assessed, yeah, yeah, same old story. Everyone who gets warning points or something similar believes they are being discriminated against because they can find someone else who has not gotten points. I would wallpaper my entire house and then some with the number of emails I get like this.

I don't read even a fraction of the posts made on this site, and really don't intend to. If someone reports a post, it will usually get investigated, and myself or the moderators will decide if that reported post deserves to be acted on. Some do, and some don't. Some posts get reported, and some don't. That's just the breaks.

And I'll let you in on a little secret here. I really don't give a damn about most of the little squabbles people will have on this site. I really could not care less about them. So as far as being biased is concerned, no, 'fraid not. I really don't care either way, so why would I even bother to form a bias?

If anyone wishes to keep from getting warning points, suspended and fined, or banned, all they need to do is to avoid violating the rules here. But with that being said, if I should decide to ban someone simply because for some reason I have taken a dislike towards them, so what? I may decide that this site will just be much more pleasant to be in, for myself and others, if someone in particular is not here. But even in this case, I think it will still take a LOT of provocation from someone before they would break that tripwire.

No one is perfect, we all make mistakes; and yes I realize this is a large board but there have been examples in the past of regulars in the circle of friends not getting points for something of the same quality as someone who did get points in the same thread. I've seen you defend Richie Luna's behavior when he was a mod as "ferreting out the truth" and in that instance, when extreme pressure needs to be applied to determine who is lying, I can see a valid excuse for otherwise warnable behavior. On the other hand, there is an undercurrent of playing favorites and infighting for one-up-manship in the rank and file here. I have and do post at several other (admittedly smaller) boards and the cutthroat atmosphere is completely missing. Of course there's gonna be drama anywhere, but it seems to permeate every aspect of this board at times.

Please see my above comment about how warning points are reported here. I wish I had a dime for everytime I have had to mention this.

As far as Ritchie Luna is concerned, yeah you got me. I defended the guy because he was using the methods I felt were necessary to do what he was trying to do. And I spelled that out to people who asked about it. There are other members as well who sometimes get a bit rough and tumble with how they treat someone suspected of being a bad guy in disguise. Yes, at times I and the moderators may allow that to continue as well. That's just the way it is, I guess. But even then, when people get carried away, they do run the risk of the penalties. Some people's threshold to what is over the line may be different then others, so there is always going to be a bit of gray area where this is concerned. Everyone is different here.

If you are aware of an effective means for me to be able to control all of the different personalities here to make them fit this nirvana quality perfection that some people feel should exist, then please let me know. The warning system is an attempt to rein in a lot of the crap that I feel is objectionable. Fines and suspensions are doled out as needed when the warnings are not sufficient incentive for behavior modification. Do you know of other methods I should be employing? Should I just BAN those people acting in this cutthroat manner you speak of? But wait? Wouldn't my doing that show me as being biased against such people? Wouldn't I be playing favorites towards those people who DON'T act like that? Isn't disliking such behavior and the people inclined to use it a form of bias?

Back to the original point of #1, is that the Fauna good guy certification program is not neutral and never will be and therefore is not on the level as a BBB to me. Its your board, Rich. You're obviously doing with it what you see fit, but don't pretend to be on the same level as an organization that strives for neutrality when you and your moderators clearly do not.

As far as the BOI Good Guy program is concerned, please explain to me how you perceive preferential or biased treatment from myself or the moderators here having an effect on it. How do we influence what people vote for?

I simply set up the certificate thread, and then it is up to everyone interested to make their own votes. If there is any way for me to be more neutral in that, please explain how. I have NEVER refused an applicant that met the criteria, and the only time anyone has been "removed" has been recently when that person got into the red with their votes. As far as I know, none of the mods have done anything in that entire section beyond what any other paid member here can do.

Just in case you missed the criteria, here it is:

1. Must be a Contributor level member or above
2. Must have a neutral or positive rating on the Traders Ratings score
3. Must display the BOI Good Guy graphic on their website
4. Must MAINTAIN a neutral or positive rating in the certification poll as well as the Trader Ratings score

Please, explain to me how I could make it more neutral then it already is.

If this lack of neutrality is so clear to you, then you should have no trouble at all explaining what you see that I cannot.

2. This is a new program, part of the recent sea change that took place, and as with most new systems it's got bugs that need working out. Work out the bugs. Then maybe it will gain some more credibility in the eyes of disbelievers.

That is fine with me. I didn't expect it to take over the world by storm. To be quite honest, I am surprised that as many people that are now signed up have done so in this short amount of time. It caught me flat footed, actually, because I only initially made up 25 of those graphics images. Then I had to make up 75 more and thought that would last me quite a while. I NOW have to make up more to set up the latest people who have recently applied for it. So I guess not everyone sees the deficiencies you speak of.

So tell me, what are the bugs I need to work out? I know there are some gray areas, for instance about how to handle it when someone actually does get their certification revoked, but tell me, what other bugs do you see? I gave this two years of thought, but obviously could not know everything the future would bring with it.

3. I voted that way because I am frustrated with "the system" in place here. The whole interlocking freaking system. I am frustrated with the moderation style, the politics and petty skirmishes, the stigma of being an active TRR member here, the pay to play aspect of practically all perks, including signature, etc etc etc. Its an emotional reason, which is why its last, but its valid nonetheless.

Some of your concerns are under my control, and I am doing the best I can to make this site the best I can. Some things just may not be able to be made any better with the raw materials at hand and available. As for the politics and skirmishes, how am I supposed to control people in general any more effectively then I am with the tools of this site? No matter what I would do in order to try to correct some other problem would mean someone else has something to be mad about. It is impossible to please everyone. Anyone who believes otherwise is just living in a fantasy land and needs a big gulp of cold reality in their lives.

As for the stigma of being an active TRR member, everyone is welcome here as long as they behave in a manner consistent with how this site is striving to be run. If someone does not like the decisions here, well they are welcome to go elsewhere to find someplace else more to their liking. Making a ruckus and scene on the way out the door is not real conducive to leaving a favorable impression on those people viewing such antics. So whose fault is that? From what I have seen, people will treat you generally how you deserve to be treated. There are some exceptions, of course, when mistaken impressions are made, but generally you make your own bed to sleep in here. I don't tend to hold grudges, so everyone is welcome to try to mend the breaks if they so desire. If they choose not to make the first move, then it likely won't happen.

As for the "pay to play" perks, this has been addressed before and I believe I went into abundant detail as to my reasons behind it. There is nothing that you need to pay for here in order to have that you will die without having. If you don't want to spend the money, then you don't need those options all that much, I guess. Is there some law I am unaware of that says I am required to GIVE everything away for free? Sure most people would love it that way, but I do believe I am within my rights to make that sort of a decision.

*The above post is my opinion alone. If you agree with it, great. If you don't, great. I'll be out of town tomorrow so I'm not "running away" if I don't log on.*

I guess I will have to borrow your closing statement, if I may.

If you agree with it, great. If you don't, great. Hopefully that sort of attitude is acceptable when coming from me as it is from you?

 

[Lucille]

From what I have seen, people will treat you generally how you deserve to be treated.

From the Good Guy Certs, to reputations, to those both on this board and in our lives, I think this is a true statement.

There may be short term aberrations, but in general slimeballs and scammers are treated in a different manner than kind and helpful people.

We all have differences of opinion, after all we are all different people, but how you approach those differences, and how you approach people, makes the real difference in how others perceive you.

The squabbles and disagreements, tempests in a teacup, come and go; but changing, learning, strength of character and the determination to do the right thing despite imperfections in oneself and others is a lifelong goal.

If you are on the road to that lifelong goal, even if you fall once in a while, it is the journey that is important, we never reach perfection; but if we treat each other with kindness along the way, we will find that we will be treated likewise.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

Whit, I don't want to burst your bubble here, but do you know what is required to join your local BBB?

"To be a member of the Better Business Bureau, Inc., an applicant must, at a minimum:
Be in business in the Bureau’s service area for not less than six months for the purpose of Bureau membership, or not less than twelve months for the purpose of the Membership Identification Program (MIP), or such longer period of time as necessary to evaluate an applicant’s record, unless:
a. the principals previously operated a firm with a satisfactory record in this or another Bureau’s service area; or
b. the firm is a branch of an existing member or company that has met these standards; or
c. the company has signed a Pledge to Arbitrate agreement and/or an ADR Precommitment program agreement with the Bureau and is not engaged in a type of business that historically generates unresolved complaints or patterns of complaints.
MIP program participants must meet the criteria set forth in either (a) or (b) above to waive the twelve month in business requirement."

Yes, I'm aware of all those requirements. I double checked the BBB before posting just to make sure that I had my facts straight.

I put in my opinion when I feel like it, but I have no delusions of holding any sort of importance to the success of this site or any other...or the herp hobby as a whole. I think the events of the last few months have turned me into a mere observer, and that's probably not a bad thing.

I don't know how I came across as convinced that I am or am not a part of any website's success, or if you were speaking only of your experiences, in which case I apologize for interpreting you the wrong way. My frustration played a part in deciding my vote, and I was honest about it. That is all. There is nothing wrong with merely observing and I do that quite a bit myself and chime in when I feel so inclined.

Further, just because someone expresses their opinions or makes suggestions is no reason at all why the offerer of such things should consider it as mandatory that I accept the opinions and suggestions. I may very well choose to do otherwise, and I would hope that such people would recognize that this is my prerogative.

How did I not recognize this clearly? I did. I said "Its your board, Rich. You're obviously doing with it what you see fit."

So tell me, what could be more neutral then allowing members themselves to vote on the polls? How would mine or the moderators "business interests" influence this voting? Disinterested parties? How would that work in this situation? It would ONLY be interested parties who would be likely to vote on the polls. Disinterested parties will not even look at the polls, much less vote on them, in most cases.

What I was getting at here is that at first you allowed registered members to vote, and then when there was a question as to whether or not votes should be limited only to business transactions or whether everyone could vote on their perceptions, you changed it to paid participants. That is also one of the "bugs." Having one policy in place for months and then when something comes up that could potentially swing the voting in a negative way for a favored company (I'm speaking metaphorically, not literally, take that phrase with a grain of salt), the policy changes. Does that make it more clear how the policies you make can be interpreted as biased?

Sorry, but no, I disagree. WE cannot ruin someone's reputation here.

I was speaking to REPUTATION POINTS, not actual word of mouth reputation within the herp community at large. You have quite a large sway when it comes to that.

As for the bias on warning points being assessed, yeah, yeah, same old story. Everyone who gets warning points or something similar believes they are being discriminated against because they can find someone else who has not gotten points.

Have I gotten any so far? No. I'm not disinterested in everyone who's ever gotten warning points, but there are examples where I didn't know the person getting warned or the person(s) assessing points, but it came across as clear favoritism when a moderator announces that a thread is going under the microscope from this point forward and after that point, someone drops the F bomb doesn't get warned and someone who insults his/her antagonist does. Is that more clear and specific?

And no, I'm not saying "can't we all get along?" What I'm saying is, maybe you should consider taking on more moderators with a reputation for honesty and neutrality (as much as possible anyway) so that the board gets policed with a more even hand. I'm not going to say you should ban users X, Y, and Z because they're trouble makers, I'm saying that maybe there needs to be a wider variety of moderators so that each bias is (hopefully) counteracted by someone else's. Perfection will never be achieved, but is it so horrible to strive for it?

 

[Lucille]

Whitney: Since this is a feedback forum, I would like to leave some feedback here about the moderators in general.

I find, that given the nature of many of the arguments here, the moderators are extremely light handed in meting out anything in the way of points. They do it, IMHO, in an even fashion when it needs to get done, with very little favoritism, as you see I have been assessed a warning point myself.

I have from time to time contacted them with questions, or for assistance, and they have always been professional, courteous, and ready to explain any questions I might have.

This is not meant to be an argument, only an observation:
I see you have some issues about matters having to do with moderation, have you tried sending a polite, well thought out private message or email to one or all of the mods and studied their response with an open mind?

I think you might find that particular issues would be handled fairly and impartially, and that you would be pleased with the result.
They put up with a lot of long hours and reading through posts and do it because they love Fauna, as they are not paid for their many hours here.

I myself, think they are owed a vote of thanks; Fauna is one of my favorite places, and the many hours that Webslave and the moderators put in here help to keep it a place we can all call home.

 

[WebSlave]

How did I not recognize this clearly? I did. I said "Its your board, Rich. You're obviously doing with it what you see fit."

Yes, I am. I do take into consideration input from members here, but bottom line is that this is my responsibility, so I have to take the authority that comes with it. Anything I do wrong is my own doing. And as such, I may have to change my mind as I see things that result from those decisions in order to accomodate the reality that results when different from my hopes or projections. I don't believe this is any different then any other business would do in a similar circumstance.

What I was getting at here is that at first you allowed registered members to vote, and then when there was a question as to whether or not votes should be limited only to business transactions or whether everyone could vote on their perceptions, you changed it to paid participants. That is also one of the "bugs." Having one policy in place for months and then when something comes up that could potentially swing the voting in a negative way for a favored company (I'm speaking metaphorically, not literally, take that phrase with a grain of salt), the policy changes. Does that make it more clear how the policies you make can be interpreted as biased?

Yes, that is correct. The Traders Ratings is a hack that I had my programmer install into this system. The "as is" status of this hack is that all registered members are allowed to vote in that ratings. When it came time for me to try to tighten up the credibility a bit, I felt it necessary to include the Traders Ratings in that change. The Certification Polls were designed from the start to only include paid memberships taking part in them, except for a very brief period where I began to doubt my direction. When I further reflected on the situation, after 1 week, I reverted the Certification Poll back to the way I originally designed it.

As a reminder, the paid memberships requirement is a method of trying to insure the credibility of the people voting in a system that can impact a person's or business's reputation on this site. Having this completely open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, who can register multiple times and vote any way they please for any REASON they want to, in my opinion just would not serve my intentions and hopes of unbiased voting on the polls and the ratings. It is just a very simple "majority rules" based voting system with the hopes that the majority of people voting will be coming to an honest and truthful as well as accurate consensus about the person or business.

I fail to see how this methodology would favor any particular person or company in any way except to make the votings a more realistic view of reality. I think this was addressed before and the claim by some people that paying members would tend to be more biased then non-paying members just doesn't appear to hold water, in my opinion. If someone can adequately convince me otherwise, then I will reevaluate this decision.

I was speaking to REPUTATION POINTS, not actual word of mouth reputation within the herp community at large. You have quite a large sway when it comes to that.

How so? If I believe that someone has posted and especially bad post or an especially good one, how would my voting (which I rarely do) affect anything at all about them that really means anything in the real world? All the reputation point system is good for, from it's design and hopefully it's use here, is to give people a relative rule of thumb about the quality of thoughts and ideas that a person my express in their posting here. Does it really mean anything significant? Depends on your own interpretation and opinion, I guess. Personally, I would use it to rate someone's ability to effectively correspond with other people in a message board environment. Some do it well, and others not so well. The Reptutation System very well could be an indication of how well a person "plays with others", I guess.

Have I gotten any so far? No. I'm not disinterested in everyone who's ever gotten warning points, but there are examples where I didn't know the person getting warned or the person(s) assessing points, but it came across as clear favoritism when a moderator announces that a thread is going under the microscope from this point forward and after that point, someone drops the F bomb doesn't get warned and someone who insults his/her antagonist does. Is that more clear and specific?

That certainly may be the case. I have never indicated to the mods that they HAD to read every post, nor are they required to do so. I certainly don't and can't ask them to do something I am not prepared to do myself. Do I see posts that probably should be assessed warning points but don't? Absolutely! Sometimes it's just laziness, or sometimes it's just getting tired of the whine-o-grams from people invariably after they get the warning points. It does get old every now and again, you know, having to read the emails from people lashing out because they got those points. The mods certainly catch flak from it as well, so I can't blame them when they decide to just ignore something every now and again. Really, I doubt people would be very happy here if every little infraction got the warning points, without fail. So yeah, if you are going to label that as "bias", then have at it. We're all just human here and are trying to do the best we can.

And no, I'm not saying "can't we all get along?" What I'm saying is, maybe you should consider taking on more moderators with a reputation for honesty and neutrality (as much as possible anyway) so that the board gets policed with a more even hand. I'm not going to say you should ban users X, Y, and Z because they're trouble makers, I'm saying that maybe there needs to be a wider variety of moderators so that each bias is (hopefully) counteracted by someone else's. Perfection will never be achieved, but is it so horrible to strive for it?

Personally, and in my opinion, the more mods I would have, the more problems I would have. Each mod adds their own personalities and more then likely they would piss someone else off as well as myself and the present moderators. They would likely generate more warning points, which in turn would generate more whine-o-grams. Heck, I have been on sites myself where the mods were in an apparent competition to see who could delete the most messages or step on their toes over something. And I have seen sites that went through several flounderings BECAUSE of their mods. Thanks, but no thanks. When I see the need, I will consider adding mods, but I will not do so helter-skelter. And it is VERY doubtful I will add anyone who WANTS to be a moderator here, and volunteers uninvited. I will come to them and ASK them from how I see them handle themselves in their postings.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Rich, I hope that few days of a break you had was AWESOME enough to make up for the time consuming threads like this one.

Whitney, if I were you Id get that $10 paid membership, then you could vote and pay for 1/10 of webslaves time spent replying to you here.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

Ty wendy but I've explained before why I don't pay.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

WEll I must have missed that, what was the reason?

 

[Jim O]

Ty wendy but I've explained before why I don't pay.

Then stop complaining. It's your choice to pay and vote or to not pay and not vote. Plain and simple. But as you so aptly alluded to earlier, it's Rich's playground and he gets to make the rules.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Sorry, I found it, you don't want to be a part of a clique and its not a perfect BBB, OK I get it. If you don't want to be a part of a "buy in program" then DON"T, why bother to post at all.

1. Because its a buy in program that tries to act like a BBB but ultimately does not. BBBs hold themselves to a strictly neutral mediation program. Now obviously no one is completely neutral, but at the very least there should be disinterested parties. You have your own business interests, you have your own friends (clique if you will) and so do your moderators, along with everyone else.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

As a reminder, the paid memberships requirement is a method of trying to insure the credibility of the people voting in a system that can impact a person's or business's reputation on this site. Having this completely open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, who can register multiple times an d vote any way they please for any REASON they want to, in my opinion just would not serve my intentions and hopes of unbiased voting on the polls and the ratings. It is just a very simple "majority rules" based voting system with the hopes that the majority of people voting will be coming to an honest and truthful as well as accurate consensus about the person or business.

I can see why you're concerned about mutiple user names for one person, but when you said that anyone can vote on the GGC threads, you pretty much guaranteed that people would be voting for whatever reason they saw fit and not a "valid" one. Of course if someone complained I'm sure you'd investigate and assess points if you felt someone was voting just for the sake of voting, but the paying to vote doesn't mean that anyone will think any more logically about why they're voting.

I fail to see how this methodology would favor any particular person or company in any way except to make the votings a more realistic view of reality. I think this was addressed before and the claim by some people that paying members would tend to be more biased then non-paying members just doesn't appear to hold water, in my opinion. If someone can adequately convince me otherwise, then I will reevaluate this decision.

No, it makes it an accurate picture of how paying members view a company, not necessarily reality. And as for the claim that paying members are biased, I think anyone only needs to look at the recent ousting of a good guy to someone who made a "bad guy" mistake and how many "regular" members didn't question him as vigorously as they would an unknown to see how there people interpret a bias. Another example would be several "regulars" standing up for a company they knew only by reputation (as they could not recognize the owner from several clear pics of him doing something that is clearly not safe or ethical) and berating a kid for not apologizing, and then themselves not apologizing when the situation became crystal clear.

How so? If I believe that someone has posted and especially bad post or an especially good one, how would my voting (which I rarely do) affect anything at all about them that really means anything in the real world?

I thought I made myself clear before, but apparently I was wrong. I am speaking ONLY of reputation points on this board. Not the real world.

Do I see posts that probably should be assessed warning points but don't? Absolutely! Sometimes it's just laziness, or sometimes it's just getting tired of the whine-o-grams from people invariably after they get the warning points... Personally, and in my opinion, the more mods I would have, the more problems I would have. Each mod adds their own personalities and more then likely they would piss someone else off as well as myself and the present moderators... it is VERY doubtful I will add anyone who WANTS to be a moderator here, and volunteers uninvited. I will come to them and ASK them from how I see them handle themselves in their postings.

I never volunteered, I never offered up any one person for moderating duty. I've moderated chats and upstart boards, and of course its a "be asked to do it, don't ask for it" situation. Lets also keep in mind, like I said before, the more people there are to do the work, the easier it gets.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

Then stop complaining. It's your choice to pay and vote or to not pay and not vote. Plain and simple. But as you so aptly alluded to earlier, it's Rich's playground and he gets to make the rules.

Whoa, hold your horses. I am not whining here. I am trying to probe further into why it was changed from all registered members being able to vote to only paying members being able to vote. So please, be a more discerning reader next time.

Sorry, I found it, you don't want to be a part of a clique and its not a perfect BBB, OK I get it. If you don't want to be a part of a "buy in program" then DON"T, why bother to post at all.

That is not why I don't want to pay, that is why I don't think that the Good Guy Certification is important to me at this point in time. I have homework due online at midnight and I'm leaving town for a day tomorrow so I'm not posting any more tonight. Please feel free to search through my posts back in january-ish for the real reasons I am not going to pay $10 to have my identity verified. I bother to post because a good debate can often clarify positions at the very least, and I think that alone is a valid reason to question why things have been done they way they were.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

I can see why you're concerned about mutiple user names for one person, but when you said that anyone can vote on the GGC threads, you pretty much guaranteed that people would be voting for whatever reason they saw fit and not a "valid" one.

When did Rich say that ANYONE can vote on Good Guy Certs?

You may want to do better research:
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64541

Now he may have for a while allowed non paid members to vote but it was structured back in Feb with the beginning of paid members that ONLY paid members would be able to vote due to multiple user name possibilities.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

Wendy, real quick, what I meant by that was "anyone, regardless of whether they have or have not done business with the business they're voting on." Does that make it clearer?

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Please feel free to search through my posts back in january-ish for the real reasons I am not going to pay $10 to have my identity verified. I bother to post because a good debate can often clarify positions at the very least, and I think that alone is a valid reason to question why things have been done they way they were.

Sorry if it does't mean enough to you to tell me, it doesn't mean enough to me to care about.

Looks like you bother to post to see how much crap you can stir up!

And who made you King of finding out why things have been done the way they were?

 

[Jim O]

Wendy, when Rich made his changes to the site after his "affair" with Chris he very briefly opened it up to all registered members. He then shut it down and required a verified membership again when he realized the potential for abuse.

 

[Lucille]

Whitney, get a nice snack and get comfy in front of your computer, and do your assignment, email us if you need help, between all of us someone will be able to lend a hand, and we can chat more when you return here.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Wendy, real quick, what I meant by that was "anyone, regardless of whether they have or have not done business with the business they're voting on." Does that make it clearer?

Whitney, I think you need to make it clearer the first time, not add to is as you go along.

 

[Jim O]

Then stop complaining.

Whoa, hold your horses. I am not whining here. I am trying to probe further into why it was changed from all registered members being able to vote to only paying members being able to vote. So please, be a more discerning reader next time.

If you are going to ask me to be a discerning reader then be the same and note I never used the term "whining".

As for the reason, I believe that Rich already has answered that. I synopsized his reason as I recall it and as I understood it in my post above.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Wendy, when Rich made his changes to the site after his "affair" with Chris he very briefly opened it up to all registered members. He then shut it down and required a verified membership again when he realized the potential for abuse.

I knew it changed breifly but if Whitney wants to complain about rules he should be thankful for that "testing the waters" period of freedom and not complain when the rules are enforced.