Moderator hhmoore: biased, intimidating, and goading

[hhmoore]

The accusation has been leveled once again, and I promised a response today...but I don't want to further disrupt the BOI thread by dissecting the various issues, so I'm bringing it to the appropriate forum.
Here are just a few of the comments made by John Cuoco (jacuoco88):
#1

I think this infraction is just a result of Todd Gearheart using his influence and manipulative skills to get my post taken down. I think he also spends $ with this site to scam people.

#2

More alarming, however, is how the Moderator, Harold Moore, is biased and attempting to intimidate me from filing complaints against Gearheart by issuing me 2 separate infractions and now goading me into uploading documents.

#3

Mr. Moore, your bias is evident in the fact that your accepting and acting upon advice from the individual that's being complained about. He complained about my posts exposing his fraudulent business practices and you removed one of the posts and issued me two infractions for trivial posting errors. Then, you became directly involved in the dispute by goading me into posting physical evidence.

#4

but his posting was clearly lacking in good taste and common sense, yet, you did nothing about it and instead had a back and forth dialogue with him on whether I should be "deleted" from the site. Stay out of it next time. You're a moderater not an advocate.

Now - Quote #1 was in a PM response to the first infraction I gave him. Below is the excerpt from his classified ad which earned the infraction + the infraction notice (in blue)

I tried buying one from Todd Gearheart at tarantulaspiders.com and got sold a dream. I waited three months for his "exporter" in Peru, price increases, and excuse after excuse. I had to do a chargeback on my credit card to get a refund.

You have received an infraction at FaunaClassifieds.

Reason: BOI relevant post made outside of the BOI
-------
If you want to post about your experience with Todd Gearhart, feel free to use the BOI - that is, after all, why it is there. It is not acceptable to make posts like this in the classifieds.
Your ad will be removed...you may repost without the above mentioned commentary.
In response to his PM, I replied: You think wrong...
Mr Gearheart has no influence here; the problem is that your post was in violation of the rules. (Think about it for a second, if I was trying to protect or cover for him, would I have steered you toward the BOI...the place where posts aren't edited)
Of course, you still received an infraction because you stuck your posts in a thread about another seller.

Quote #2 refers to his second infraction which was for a post in a thread about Underground Reptiles - here is the relevant passage

If you want to know two retailers to steer clear from, they're Todd Gearheart of tarantula spiders.com and Kelly Swift of swiftsinverts.com. I sent Gearheart $280 for a Goliath Centipede (S. gigantea). He wanted $65 more at time of shipping. I waited 3 months listening to one excuse after another. Finally, I asked my credit card to do a charge back because he refused to refund me. A complete con-artist. STAY AWAY!!!!! Kelly Swift sent me a dead Tanzanian Black and Olive Baboon (E. olivacea) for $125. It was microscopic, malnourished, and dehydrated. He refused to refund me and instead said he would give me a $62.50 credit (50%) toward my next order. There won't be a next order. Please STAY AWAY. These people and their scams are destroying this hobby.

He made an identical post half an hour later, in the same thread. Here's the infraction message he received: You have received an infraction at FaunaClassifieds.

Reason: Disruptive off topic posting
-------
I would have let the first post go with the posted warning, even after I had PM'd you about your previous thread...but making the same post again a half hour later changed my mind
-------
The warning I posted was after the two posts, and stated John - This thread is about Underground Reptiles...your experiences with other sellers have no relevance in this thread. Admittedly, at that time, I didn't notice that those posts had been made prior to the first infraction I had given him...while that may have impacted my perspective a bit, it didn't make the post any less inappropriate. The only reason he had gotten away with it initially is that it was posted in the Insects and Arachnids BOI - it is a fairly low traffic area; and, unless I note something in the New Posts section that catches my eye, I rarely wander into that section.
He also references me goading him into posting "documents"...this occurred in the BOI thread about Todd Gearheart which ultimately became the venue for Jacuoco's complaint - another member asked for proof of his claims, and Jacuoco responded:

Hey ReptileGeek181, send me an email address to send it to.

My "goading" came 2 posts later when I responded: IF you can back up your claim - why not do it here, in the open, alongside your accusation??

Quote#3 essentially claims that I was guided by Mr Gearheart & doing his bidding. In reality, yes, Mr Gearheart did report the posts...but he reports most posts that reflect negatively on him

The top 6 reports were all about Mr Jacuoco - only 2 resulted in infractions...because only two of the posts violated the rules of this site. If I was being guided by Mr Gearheart, I would have already banned Jacuoco, and/or removed the posts as he requested. Of course, the reported posts are only part of the story, a I have also received PMs from Mr Gearheart:

Harold,

Can you give me a call?

xxx.xxx.xxxx

Thanks.

Todd

Harold,

I implore you to stop this guy's crap. Nobody should be able to just ramble on and load up pages of crap on a site.

He did NOT get "ripped off". He got his refund and that's the jist of it. Me and other major, long-time in the trade dealer both refuse to do business with this nut. He is obviously trying to bait me into a back and forth with him to serve his agenda of a smear attack. He knows fauna allows anything and everything to be posted and not taken down. I ask you to call Kelly Swift and hear his take on this nut. He is NOT 49 yrs. old. Just hearing his voice on the phone will tell you he is in his 20s. He is a lying about so much stuff. Also, I'm sending you a private message. I'm trying my best to not get baited into Cuoco's drama and agenda and allow a moderator to keep things plain, simple and legit and most of all factual. All John can say is that he put in a paypal claim and refunded it. Is that ripping somebody off? In most people's eyes, not getting stock or not getting a refund or similar compensation is a rip off. He is back and forth now with over four dealers championing them and them trashes them to the point of two of them blacklisted this nut.

John Cuoco's calling out a moderator
Is John Cuoco's statement, "More alarming, however, is how the Moderator, Harold Moore, is biased and attempting to intimidate me from filing complaints against Gearheart by issuing me 2 separate infractions and now goading me into uploading documents." enough to get him a suspension for calling out or showing up a moderator?

(by the way, Mr Gearheart - please don't bother to report this post, I already know about it.)

Quote#4
I did not have a "back and forth dialogue" with Mr Gearheart - I pointed out errors in his post.
I will grant you, Mr Jacuoco, that I am not an advocate...I don't know Mr Gearheart, I have never done business with Mr Gearheart, and I certainly don't act on his behalf. In your fervor to get the word out, you violated the rules of this site - and the infractions you received were merited. In case you didn't know, a reported post sends an email message to every member of the moderation team; so, I just happened to be the first to view the ones that were a problem. Further, not every reported post is acted upon - the viewing moderator(s) must feel that the report is merited...hence the other 4 reports that did not result in infractions, deletions, or bans.

In one of our PMs, you complained about not being made aware of this site's stringent protocols - I responded Did you review the rules for posting? Or were you expecting a personal notification of the site's policies? If, as you indicated in one of your posts, you are 49 and college educated, you should be old enough, mature enough, and smart enough to take responsibility for your actions. You made mistakes, it happens...but don't point the finger of blame and cry about being mistreated when you are expected to abide by the same rules as every other member on this site.

 

[Fangthane]

I'm guessing that the second reported post in that list is the one I made? Mr. Cuoco clearly only sees what he wants to see and ignores anything that doesn't seem to support his skewed view of things. I wouldn't sweat this one, Harald. Pretty much anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension skills would be able to see that you, yourself, are the one that's been antagonized while faithfully carrying out your duties here.

 

[Lucille]

Harald you do not owe any explanations. If someone is giving you a hard time, you can pm them or bring it up in the moderator forum. Otherwise, realize that complaints from time to time are just part of the job.

Here, have a hug ((((Harald))))

 

[WebSlave]

This is an interesting situation in that BOTH Mr. Cuoco and Mr. Gearheart believe that one or more of the moderators are being biased AGAINST them in favor of the other party........

I guess what this means is that unless you are FOR one or both of them you must be AGAINST both of them.

Just in case this has missed anyone's attention before, no, we don't take sides in issues between parties. At least not officially as moderators. We might have our own PERSONAL opinions, but we do not act as judges and try to influence such disputes by moderating the opposing party out of existence on this site. We also take a rather dim view of any person who will constantly utilize the "Report A Post" function in their own thread by or about them to try to convince us to ban the other party, perhaps thinking this is an automated process that acts upon the number of reported posts such a person gets. In such cases, there is a rather high likelihood that "Report A Post" junkie might actually be the one to get the boot out of here.

So, if you find yourself involved in a BOI conflict, don't think you can call on us as your mommy so you can hide behind our skirt and whine "Johnny is being MEAN to me!" and we are going to do something about it. Be a big boy and deal with it yourself, either publicly in that BOI thread, or privately with the other party. I don't know about the other moderators, but quite frankly I just do NOT want someone else trying to drag me into their problems and trying to make THEIR problem MY problem. Sorry, but I simply decline that involvement.

 

[hhmoore]

Ack - I went looking for something & lost my reply.

Dan, those reports are only from Todd Gearheart...posted to show that this isn't exactly new behavior from him.

Lucille, I know complaints are part of the job...sometimes, like this one, I find them pretty amusing. (I seem to recall a comment you made once about your full rap sheet, me hiding behind the billboard, and recognizing your car....that's what I was looking for, but I came back to this as soon as I realized I'd closed the wrong tab)

I'm not even a little concerned by his contentions; but I did promise a response, and I didn't want to further muddy that BOI thread when I posted it.

 

[Lucille]

I seem to recall a comment you made once about your full rap sheet, me hiding behind the billboard, and recognizing your car....

But officer!!!!

 

[Fangthane]

Dan, those reports are only from Todd Gearheart...posted to show that this isn't exactly new behavior from him.

Ugh. I saw this:

The top 6 reports were all about Mr Jacuoco

. But somehow it registered as this:

The top 6 reports were all from Mr Jacuoco

As Rich pointed out, the antics being pulled by both of these guys aren't exactly reflecting very well on themselves. It's noteworthy that neither one of them seems to want to publicly refute each other's claims in very much verifiable detail, and would rather make your their focus.

...there is a rather high likelihood that "Report A Post" junkie might actually be the one to get the boot out of here.

As far as the smooth running of the site is concerned, either one of these parties finding their way out the door might be considered a case of addition by subtraction.

 

[Shadera]

You and I don't always see eye to eye, Harald, but you've been nothing but fair to the users of this site. (Myself included.) You're not one to hand out infractions unless someone truly deserves them. He can't see where he pressed his luck?

 

[rcarichter]

Admit it Harald, you treated him badly because he kept spelling your name wrong!


Noelle

 

[hhmoore]

Admit it Harald, you treated him badly because he kept spelling your name wrong!


Noelle

That, in itself, is a form of antagonism, isn't it??

 

[HerpVenue]

1. Let the party know this post is here. Not because we owe him an explanation. But because we need him to get educated.

2. To the party in question. If your post gets reported and it is breaking the rules, then we will issue a warning.

3. Just because you see us issue a warning to you and not the other party, does not mean we are biased. You just do not see that perhaps we have issued a warning to the other party as well.

4. The admin/mod team do not get too see each and every single post. There is a TON of them. So we depend on you to do your part in reporting the posts.

5. If you think we should be reading each and every single post. Then perhaps it is time for your contributions to escalate and perhaps place the admin/ mod team on the payrol

 

[HerpVenue]

We = admin / mod team
Us = admin / mod team

my apologies. kinda took all that personal I guess.

Thank you admin/mod team for your hard work and dedication. It is hard work. Specially when you want to sometimes reach through the computer and slap someone.

 

[hhmoore]

1. Let the party know this post is here. Not because we owe him an explanation. But because we need him to get educated.

Posted 4 minutes after submitting this thread, in the thread that prompted much of the content:

Mr Jacuoco, I am not going to further disrupt this thread by replying to your accusations here...I have started a thread in the appropriate forum. Feel free to reply as you see fit.
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...05#post1482405

He has since made 3 posts to that thread...whether he read it or not, I cannot say with certainty.

 

[xenesthis13]

some questions

Harold and other moderators. I understand this is the forum to ask questions about moderating and have some debate about that. I'm here to just understand how things are done and get a feeling for consistency of rules being applied. The reference thread is:
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168328

My questions:

Some questions for Fauna:

1) In post # 9 ReptileGeek181 as a very good question of Cuoco: "Hey Jacuoco88 can you show any proof of the serious allegations you've made?"
Why has fauna allowed somebody to make accusations without any evidence in a BOI thread?

2) In post # 23 Harold, a moderator with screen name hhmoore, asks Cuoco "IF you can back up your claim - why not do it here, in the open, alongside your accusation??"
Cuoco providing NOTHING. Why allow him to keep posting his junk or anybody else for that matter that makes accusations while providing no evidence what-so-ever?

3) In post #14, Cuoco shows antagonism towards moderator hhmoore when he says "More alarming, however, is how the Moderator, Harold Moore, is biased and attempting to intimidate me from filing complaints against Gearheart by issuing me 2 separate infractions and now goading me into uploading documents."
This breaks fauna rule calledAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points.
Moderators are here to moderate. That means they may ask you to calm down or tone it down. Turning your sights on them just makes a bad situation even worse.
Why was he not given that infraction? I've seen over the yrs. many times where anything like Cuoco said netted that infraction automatically.

4) In post #15, AbsoluteApril says "as to the comment requesting the proof be posted here in the thread instead of sent to one person's email.. why wouldn't you want to post proof for all to see?". That question was to Cuoco.
- Again Nothing. No evidence. Why is Cuoco allowed to continue taking up bandwidth and cluttering up your site with no evidence?

5) In post #16, Cuoco tries to embarrass moderator hhmoore when he says "Mr. Moore, your bias is evident in the fact that your accepting and acting upon advice from the individual that's being complained about....you did nothing about it....Stay out of it next time." 2nd time he broke the fauna rulecalledAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points.
Why wasn't he given that infraction?

6) In post #19, ApexPredatorBoid requests from Cuoco (this is now the for the 2nd request made on Cuoco) and says "Can you post emails, with complete headers, that show where he was notified that you were having issues obtaining his order and that he was given the options that you've stated? It also wouldn't hurt to provide some sort of documentation concerning the charge back and the fees incurred."
- Again Nothing. No evidence. Just Cuoco running off with this mouth.
Again, why is anybody allowed to post on a BOI thread with accusations and not supply evidence and their posts stand and they can just continue to post whatever lie and accusation they want without the burden of evidence being put on the accuser?
ApexPredatorBoid also says in post #19 "The burden of proof generally falls to the accusing party. Your claims are heretofore unsubstantiated."
Since they are, again, why is Cuoco or anybody allowed to just take up bandwidth on this site and run off with their mouth with no evidence of anything?

7) In post #20 Cuoco writes "...stop asking your VIP Members and "sales associates" to post messages coming to your defense."
Cuoco is referring to Fauna moderators. As noted, fauna moderators don't choose sides, but here is Cuoco going again, for the third time, at fauna's moderators. Where is theAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points rule being used here?

 

[xenesthis13]

I wanted to add that, again, I'm just asking questions here. I understand and appreciate moderators do not have an easy job and I commend you for your time, consideration and efforts. If referencing the thread above in which John Cuoco seems to violate several fauna rules, I'm seeking understanding about the questions that I asked. I understand he received some infractions, but the allowing anybody to jump on a site and make accusations with an agenda of a smear campaign without any supporting evidence and continue to take up bandwidth and use the forum for their smear campaign is something that I never see other sites do. They edit and delete posts and ban people that pull that crap therefore keeping their site clean without the Jerry Spring show. I know that some thing that brings traffic and provides entertainment, but based on my many conversations with hobbyists, they are turned off by it. Thank you for your time in answering these questions.

 

[Fangthane]

6) In post #19, ApexPredatorBoid requests from Cuoco (this is now the for the 2nd request made on Cuoco) and says "Can you post emails, with complete headers, that show where he was notified that you were having issues obtaining his order and that he was given the options that you've stated? It also wouldn't hurt to provide some sort of documentation concerning the charge back and the fees incurred.

That was actually directed at you.

5) In post #16, Cuoco tries to embarrass moderator hhmoore when he says "Mr. Moore, your bias is evident in the fact that your accepting and acting upon advice from the individual that's being complained about....you did nothing about it....Stay out of it next time." 2nd time he broke the fauna rulecalledAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points.
Why wasn't he given that infraction?

3) In post #14, Cuoco shows antagonism towards moderator hhmoore when he says "More alarming, however, is how the Moderator, Harold Moore, is biased and attempting to intimidate me from filing complaints against Gearheart by issuing me 2 separate infractions and now goading me into uploading documents."
This breaks fauna rule calledAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points.
Moderators are here to moderate. That means they may ask you to calm down or tone it down. Turning your sights on them just makes a bad situation even worse.
Why was he not given that infraction? I've seen over the yrs. many times where anything like Cuoco said netted that infraction automatically.

7) In post #20 Cuoco writes "...stop asking your VIP Members and "sales associates" to post messages coming to your defense."
Cuoco is referring to Fauna moderators. As noted, fauna moderators don't choose sides, but here is Cuoco going again, for the third time, at fauna's moderators. Where is theAntagonism Towards Moderators - 3 points rule being used here?

How do you know that an infraction wasn't issued? They're issued privately. Unless the offending party chooses to whine about it publicly, there would be no way for anyone else to know about it. Also, it's not for you to decide what an individual moderator may consider antagonistic. It's a subjective term.


Pretty much everything else you've said is based on a false assumption arising from a lack of understand of this website's policies and rules. This website does not take an official stance in playing judge and jury when it comes to determining the veracity of it's members BOI claims. The BOI is provided as a venue for people to present whatever cases they have and for those of us reading to decide for ourselves what's true and what isn't. People are expected to own their words here. If someone makes false claims, it's not grounds for being banned or having their posts removed. It's left up here in black and white for all to see and judge them by.

 

[hhmoore]

There's no need to go through that item by item.
You are correct - he posted no proof. Then again, you made several claims in that thread, as well....did you show proof? (As I recall, you didn't even answer direct questions.)
To sum it all up, here are a couple of passages from the rules for posting on the BOI:

Proof is optional, but recommended if you would like to remove any doubts about the truth of what you are posting. But this is purely up to you, just as the believability of what you post is purely up to the reader of your words.

I expect I will get a number of requests from people asking me to delete some message that someone else has posted about them that is rather unflattering. Bear in mind that I cannot, and WILL not be a judge in these matters. Your word will carry no more weight than the other person's word, whether I know you personally or not. All of these types of requests will be refused, no matter how irate and threatening the request may be. As such, please note that I reserve the right to publish such email in the appropriate threads in this forum, as evidence of MY own dealings with YOU. Anyone sending me these types of messages, or of any other type, specifically give up the right or expectation that this correspondence will remain private,

As far as what happens on other sites, this site was intended to differ in exactly the areas you mention. What is the value of asking an opinion, if only positive answers are allowed? I once responded to a caging inquiry on another site - I gave a very objective response; including both the pros and cons of my experience. My post was quickly removed, leaving only the glowing feedback of a person that was an admitted personal friend of the manufacturer. We don't remove the negative posts, because they can be just as valuable to the readers. In your particular situation, we don't know whether you are telling the cold, hard truth...or if he is. Maybe the truth can be found by viewing parts of both stories. If you've got proof of your claims, you should post it. If things are shown to be just as you've said, it will reflect poorly on the other party; and people will decide for themselves how they feel about both sides.
You could be 100% in the right; but coming in as you did - calling him names, not backing up your claims, and not responding to questions - counts as a negative on your side of the slate.

 

[xenesthis13]

John Cuoco

Harold,

Thanks for responding. I've had a very busy business week, so I admit it's human nature to not like having to deal with somebody like John Cuoco who makes accusations and puts out lies without any supporting evidence or proof. Fauna is the only site that I currently know that tolerates that junk.

I was the one that posted evidence in the thread and point-by-point showed every one of his lies. My opinion is that websites should not allow people just to post whatever they want because we have an X generation that thinks just because something is said on the internet that it must be true. A higher standard of proof should be the expected. Otherwise, it's the wild, wild west and the ugliest of Jerry Springer Shows. It might be entertaining for some, but it's really a bad reflection on the site itself to have that junk tolerated at all.

 

[WebSlave]

Harold,

Thanks for responding. I've had a very busy business week, so I admit it's human nature to not like having to deal with somebody like John Cuoco who makes accusations and puts out lies without any supporting evidence or proof. Fauna is the only site that I currently know that tolerates that junk.

I was the one that posted evidence in the thread and point-by-point showed every one of his lies. My opinion is that websites should not allow people just to post whatever they want because we have an X generation that thinks just because something is said on the internet that it must be true. A higher standard of proof should be the expected. Otherwise, it's the wild, wild west and the ugliest of Jerry Springer Shows. It might be entertaining for some, but it's really a bad reflection on the site itself to have that junk tolerated at all.

This has already been addressed on this site MANY MANY times in the past. Rather than repeating myself, I'll just dig up some of those older replies and paste them here...

Actually, the reason I created the BOI in the first place was because someone passed me several bad checks and the ONLY thing I could do was to warn others about him so they would hopefully not have the same thing happen to them. And no, I would not allow that person to post here, but in THAT case I have first hand knowledge of the FACTS, which would not be the case in nearly all other instances. There is no judgment call on my part based on mere opinion based on someone else's evidence. I KNOW what happened.

Say, for instance, that you post a claim on the BOI about someone posting ads here scamming you. How do I KNOW, positively and absolutely that YOU are telling the truth? Yes, you can post "evidence", but how do I KNOW that the "evidence" is not forged? Anyone with enough talent and incentive can forge just about anything. Yes, you can have ten other people claim the same thing, all of which I will not personally know neither. So the "evidence" they post is still only subject to the opinions of the readers of what they are claiming. Sorry, but I am just not going to play judge here in matters of that nature. If your goal for posting on the BOI is to help others to not make your same mistake, good for you. Hopefully that will work. But if your goal is to try to get that person banned from this site as punishment for them, then I'm sorry, but this site is just not going to help you in that pursuit. Simply because we just can't work that way without being subject to substantial legal liability.

I would hope that if someone is engaging in business here and they have substantial evidence against them concerning their trustworthiness in the BOI that this would be helpful enough in preventing them from scamming others. But if it is not, well, whose fault is that? If you lead a horse to water and it still chooses to die from dehydration because it refuses to drink, do you grab that horse by the throat, wrestle it to the ground, at substantial risk of injury to yourself from the flailing hooves, and stick a hose down it's mouth and force it to drink? Or do you just shake your head, move on, and hope your next horse has a lot more sense?

Seriously now, do you have even a clue about what it would mean concerning legal liability for ANY site to guarantee, expressed or implied, that all transactions taking place are safe for everyone to engage in? If you believe that this is an effective way to run such a site, then my suggestion to you is to create your own site and give that philosophy a whirl in the real world. Make sure you budget for court appearances, though. When people get scammed, they will have your statements in hand as evidence of your liability when asking the judge to grant them relief from the damages that you guaranteed they would not suffer by using your site.

Heck, I would be interested to know if there are ANY sites, shows, newspapers, magazines, ANYTHING allowing sales by the public that offers any sort of guarantee such as you are asking here. I SERIOUSLY doubt that.

I'm sorry, but I didn't get that crystal ball and lie detector that you apparently sent me. You may want to check the tracking number..........



Yes, my own subjectively concerning profanity applies here. How could it be any other way? I own this site and therefore make the rules for it. But I believe my choices of which words satisfy the common definition of profanity are pretty much in line with normal acceptance in a publicly viewable medium. Not everyone will agree, of course, but that's just the way it is.

As for being able to determine who is lying in a BOI thread, sorry, but I don't read all of the threads there, and those that I do, I am still not going to make a public judgment call accusing someone of lying unless I have first person involvement in the event. Just like everyone else, I am limited to reading what others are writing and calling "facts". I don't "know" anything about the situation, and can only form my own "opinion" based on what I am reading. I am not willing to place myself in legal jeopardy by calling someone a "liar", and acting on that judgment by banning them from here, and possibly wind up on the wrong side of a libel suit if it turns out I was wrong, basing my call on incomplete and/or inaccurate statements made by someone else. People making decisions to buy or not to buy based on a BOI thread are an entirely different kettle of fish compared to me making a judgment such as you desire me to do concerning their membership on this site.

Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp? Is there anyone else in your household that you can use to explain this to you in terms you understand?

Yeah, I know it would be just peachy if myself and the mods could know intuitively who is lying and who is not. Be able to tell at a glance what is libel and what is unpleasant (to someone) truth. To be able to tell immediately what is off topic garbage and what is someone angling to prod the truth or provoke a slip of the tongue from someone. Yes, it would be nice to be able to know all those things and weed them out of threads to unclutter them. So if any of you out there have this gift, then please, get with me when you can to let me know how you do it.

As Dennis has indicated, I have been gradually tightening the lines between which posts are considered as acceptable fare in the BOI. Once in the past, I got tired of all the yammering about the need to tighten up the rules, so I did. I lowered the boom and got VERY strict. Like, "one wrong step and you get banned with a $10 fine to be reinstated" kind of strict. Yeah, too much, too quickly. You would be surprised at the number of threatened lawsuits I got then from people who felt that they had some sort of legal right to say what they wanted, HOW they wanted on the BOI. So at some point I just threw my hands up in disgust and virtually walked away from this site.

Actually, I believe it was the DDoS attack we had here that was the stimulus and incentive for me to grab the rudder again. That attempt to shut down this site got me pissed off enough that I just felt like HELL NO! So I began restructuring things gradually to try to make things here pretty much the way they used to be a while back. Which is, to make this site what I want it to be. Make the rules strict enough to keep as much of the bonafide garbage out (which included permanently banning some members, and pointed warnings to others that they were in the crosshairs) but not strict enough to muzzle possible lines of inquiry and cross examination that would probably be instructive for readers, if not perhaps convoluted while taking place.

Will this work? Beats me, but I've tried everything else I can think of, so by default, this is the way it's going to be. I don't plan on pleasing everyone, and quite frankly, I really don't care that I can't. People have been judging ME by this site, so like it or not, it's going to be what I want it to be. Certainly it will not fit some people, and although I am sorry about that, there are plenty of other places for those people to go to be happier then they are here. I wish them well, and sincerely hope they don't force me to get them to leave here, as perhaps sometime in the future they may have a change of attitude that may be more fitting with what I want here. At which time, coming on back and fitting in will still be an option to them.

But in any event, thanks for all the suggestions about how to change the BOI, but at this point in time, I am not really considering that as an option. At least not in the sense that it would require more time, money and effort out of me. With this upcoming retirement, that sort of thing certainly is not something I have in mind doing then. I mean, I know it was with good intentions and everything, but did someone seriously suggest that I or someone else go through all 194,999 posts in 11,546 threads on the BOI to try to edit out stuff that I (or they) thought was needing to be edited or deleted out? Besides the earlier mentioned legal liabilities of such actions, quite frankly that would be a monumental task. And as mentioned just above, I certainly have no intention of boiling away my retirement doing such a thing.

And the next two are tied together...

Yeah, I know I should be more acutely focused on making this site a very profitable enterprise for myself personally and use it as best I can to pad my bank account, but I just got this email and it really rankled me quite a bit:

Fauna,

I am interested in advertising on your site but I'm concerned about the fact
that you are unable to remove regative posts from your site. Myself, and my
business partners have no problems commiting to yearly advertising but we
all agree to wait until you are able to be in a possition to delete negative
comments that are posted that may jeoparize our credibility.

We are interested in the largest space offered. Please notify us once your
rules change at Fauna.

Thank you.

Sheesh, do these people REALLY think they can buy "protection" on this site with their advertising dollars? Are they really asking me to keep people from posting negative things about them in return for their spending some of their advertising budget for services here?

Sorry, bub, but it don't work that way here. If you are a "spade" then that is exactly what you will be called here. It's up to you to make the grade, not REQUIRE that such information be suppressed if it is not to your liking. Take a look around before you jump to confusions. In nearly ALL cases, the truth really does come out on the BOI. So if you have no fear of the truth, then you don't need "protection" from the BOI.

Damn, that irks me. And I have to confess that the email I sent in reply was probably not one from someone who is interested in getting money from them SHOULD have sent........

Yeah, I guess I'm just not destined to get rich off of this site......

Sure, why not......

I'm really interested in how you would propose I delete "negative posts". So if someone were to post something negative against someone, who exactly is it that I should trust as being the one telling the truth in such a matter? Or should I just assume that only good things must be said about all business entities and they are incapable of doing wrong? And, of course, anyone saying negative things about someone is obviously lying and should be deleted. Gee, I really wish the world was like that.......

Sorry, but no one can buy "protection" from scrutiny on the BOI with their advertising dollars on my website. And I am truly offended that you would think such a thing could happen there. Please take you advertising money elsewhere that meets your rather narrow minded criteria.

And my reply to that email about my "new" site.....

LOL!!

"New" site? Where have you been? The BOI has been up and running since April 13, 2001. FaunaClassifieds has been operational since April 17, 2002. With over 28,000 registered members and 40,000 hits per day, gee, just think how well it would be doing if it wasn't just a "new site" that hasn't caught on yet. Maybe you need to get out more so you wouldn't be so surprised so often. Maybe many things are just new to you, eh?

But thanks for the laugh............... I really love to have clueless people argue with me. Not much of a challenge, but it is certainly entertaining.

Well darn, I guess I'm going by the first post in the version #1 of the BOI, but I think there were earlier ones that got dropped somewhere in a conversion. But in any event, it looks like the BOI is having it's 5th birthday this month.

This only goes back to 2006, and I only used the keyword of "lying" in my search algorithm. There have been LOTS of discussions of this nature here throughout the years.

Sorry is some of the quotes really aren't relative. It's late and I'm too tired to proofread...

 

[WebSlave]

Todd, obviously what I am my moderators have posted here in replies to your questions just did not sink in, based on this reported post of yours.

xenesthis13 has reported a post.

Reason:

Question: Now, that the evidence has been shown and you can clearly seen the many lies Cuoco has told, is he going to be allowed to continue to post his smear attacks on fauna every day? I really have better things to do and I'm sure you as moderators do as well. It's a big site and I applaud your efforts and time in doing your moderation jobs.

Post: Todd Gearheart - Tarantulaspiders.com
Forum: Board of Inquiry®
Assigned Moderators: Clay Davenport, AbsoluteApril, Dennis Hultman, hhmoore, TheFragginDragon

Posted by: jacuoco88
Original Content:

So perhaps you need some incentive to put on your thinking cap and figure out what it is we are saying to you.

One more reported post of this nature and you will be sent to the dugout for 30 days so you won't have the distraction of participating on this site to keep you from figuring out what we are talking about concerning OUR involvement in issues between members.