Assessment of the "Snake Mites at the KC show" thread
snake mites at the KC, MO show - 09/22/04 - Scott Nellis
Page 1
(1) Pretty obvious that Mickey Hinkle is throwing down the gauntlet about the KC show. Nothing really derogatory, but certainly designed to get a rise out of anyone associated with that show, in my opinion
Page 2
(1) Some evidence supporting Mickey's claims from Jim Burns.
Page 3
(1) Some rebutting statements about the KC show from Jim Stelpflug and Kelli Hammack.
Page 4
(1) Pretty obvious that Mickey is getting worked up over this thread by now.
David Nieves and I do not see eye to eye, and we likely never will. I am fine with that, but with that comes my right to badmouth him whenever I like. I do hope that show folds.
Page 7
(1) Jim Stelpflug brings up the issue about Mickey Hinkle being involved in a brawl at a previous KC show. to which Mickey Hinkle responds with his side of the story.
(2) First posting by Anthony Caponetto:
What does any of this garbage have to do with mites? Simple answer. It doesn't. It's just a convenient time for you to run off at the mouth.
Maybe, just maybe, that's because you're upset that we don't let two bit jobbers into our show.
We (the board members of the KCHS) put in a lot of work on a voluntary basis, so that we can put on a quality CBB only show something you wouldn't know anything about.
I would have considered this post as being taunting and at the very least designed to instigate a fight. Probably no points would have been assessed, however.
(3) Mickey Hinkle then responded in a heated fashion:
Im a too bit jobber now?
GO [**censored**] YOURSELF.
......
You want to stick up for your show fine, but you want to insult me and my business with a statement like that, then sell animals to us "too bit jobbers".
SCREW YOU.
This would most certainly have gotten him warning points for profanity.
Page 9
(1) A post made by Jim Stelpflug, while not warranting warning points, would certainly be considered as goading Mickey Hinkle:
Mickey you are NO BOB CLARK
What makes you different? Well BOB got tables in KC and you did not.
See you in Omaha
But Mickey Hinkle did not take the bait and responded cooly.
(2) Jim Stelpflug misinterpreted this statement, thinking Mickey Hinkle was calling HIM a jerk:
A show can attack you, block you out, but you point it out, and your a jerk because of it.
Calling me a jerk? Boy that hurts.
(3) This statement from Jim Stelpflug COULD be interpretted as being threatening, but would not have gotten warning points from me:
Now you have gotten a really big man pissed off.
This statement does not seem to even imply a threat from Jim Stelpflug, and I would have taken it at face value:
I will see you in Omaha and will be more then willing to tak to you face to face.
Page 10
(1) Mickey Hinkle apparently has chosen to take the above statements as being actual physical threats:
Now I need to "fear you" a "big man".
Funny Im not allowed at the show because I was attacked at it. Then because Im a jobber? But now you want to insinuate that you will solve this in a physical manner? Thats funny.
(2) Mickey Hinkle goes even further to fully explain the "jerk" comment to try to defuse the conflict.
(3) Apparently David Beller HAS interpretted Jim Stelpflug's comments as a threat, however:
Jim@SW has been advertising lots of great breeder corns lately and my plan was to hit his table first. Since reading a thread where he makes veiled threats of bodily harm against another vendor I won't be stopping there at all.
(4) Some supporting evidence from Eddie Holtz for Mickey Hinkle's side of the argument.
Page 11
(1) David Beller qualifies his statement about Jim Stelpflug's implied threat. I can see his reasoning, but would not have assessed points, under the circumstances, giving the benefit of the doubt to Jim.
Page 13
(1) Jacob Krell comments about a lack of returned contacts from the KC show. I think the KC show DOES have a problem that needs to be addressed, in my opinion.
(2) This statement from Anthony Caponetto seems to be somewhat abrasive and belittling, under the circumstances:
Since a lot of you don't even seem to have the foggiest clue as to WHY our show is CBB only, let me explain.
Page 14
(1) Mickey Hinkle apparently blames ME for what has transgressed so far within this thread:
Second I am now ending any advertising, posting, or participating on this forum.
Dr Jay Owens has shown great bias in this thread when assesing points, and I will not pay for advertising on a open forum where that is allowed.
Yes I expected points for telling Anthony to Go F himself, and that is fine.
However I do not appreciate it that a biased moderator can asses points against me, yet not others in this thread.
Rich I have enjoyed my welcome on your site, but after this I no longer feel welcome. I felt this was an open forum to discuss truthfull information. If it cannot be accepted that "too bit jobber" from a acting board member of a Herp Society is not at the least "unnesicary roughness" then Dr Jay is obviously biased here.
This has been addressed in the notes on page 7 of the thread. As indicated, although abrasive, I personally would not have assessed warning points, yet Mickey Hinkle holds Jay OWens, as moderator, at task for taking the same stance. "Two bit jobber" is not profanity, and even anything I would consider as being especially "rough" language.
This is also the first time that any indication of bias on the part of Jay Owens is brought into this thread. And at this point, I would simply have to disagree.
Page 15
(2) Jay Owens makes his first appearance within this thread with a statement concerning Mickey Hinkle's actions. Although the tone is obviously of a person who is exasperated with this whole situation, it is nothing that I would even remotely consider as being derogatory, inflammatory, or abusive. He is simply defining terms in the manner he interprets them as. I do NOT tell moderators HOW to couch their terms, and Jay Owens was certainly within acceptable guidelines (implied, but definitely not itemized) about how a moderator should act in a thread.
(3) Mickey Hinkle went off the deep end, in my opinion, with this post:
Crying and whinning? POST THE [**censored**]ING EMAILS YOU PIECE OF [**censored**]>
NOW THE FILTERS OFF< YOU DR JAY CAN GO [**censored**] YOURSELF. I WILL SEE YOU IN TINLEY.
ANTHONY C. IF I EVER SEE YOU I HAVE A PRESENT FOR YOU TOO YOU [**censored**]ING PIECE OF [**censored**]. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO THE [**censored**] YOU ARE
INSULTING WITH BASLESS FACTS>
RICH IM SORRY, BUT YOUR MODS A [**censored**]ING ASSHOLE>
POST THE [**censored**]ING EMAILS YOU PIECE OF [**censored**] DR JAY>
Not only SHOULD Mickey Hinkle have gotten multiple warning points, Mickey was suspended and fined for the above post. On other forums, I suspect he would have been PERMANENTLY banned for such behavior. As requested, Mickey Hinkle's banner ads were terminated on FaunaClassifieds.com and ALL of his money refunded, even for the time those banner ads had been running.
(2) Jay Owens then makes the following statement:
Gosh...I can't imagine why the KCHS doesn't want Mickey to do their shows...
The way Mickey tells the story he was the "victim" when he got into a brawl at the show a couple of years ago...I'm kind of doubting "his version" of the story.
Perhaps not in best taste, but certainly within limits of what ANY person is within their rights to state on the site.
(3) Anthony Caponetto makes the following statement:
Mickey,
Since you were obviously not intelligent to pick up on it, I'll lay it out for you.
I didn't call you a two bit jobber. I said that you were angry because we don't allow two bit jobbers into our show.
See the difference? I didn't call you a two bit jobber, but apparently it was the most comfortable shoe you've ever tried on because you took it and ran like Forest Gump on crack.
Oh yeah...I'll be in Tinley, so don't forget my present, sweetheart. ;-)
Although not warranting warning points, certainly abrasive in nature, and in my opinion goading Mickey Hinkle into a more argumentative state of mind.
Page 16
(1) Post from Jason Sweigart agreeing with some posters about the lack of response from KC show personnel trying to get tables.
(2) This post from Jason Sweigart also infers bias on the part of Jay Owens, all based on two (if memory serves me well) posts in the past 15 pages.
Page 17
(1) Anthony Caponetto makes this remark:
I said what I said to Mickey as myself, not as a representative of the herp society. I know what I said and how I said it because it was deliberately.
After watching him run his mouth for 7 pages, I thought it would be amusing to watch him hang himself. I just had no idea of how easy it would be.
......
You're just "pulling a Mickey" and starting crap because you can't get into our show.
Whether it is true or not is immaterial. But it is certainly an attempt at trying to anger Mickey Hinkle and garner an emotional outburst from him again, in my opinion. Nothing to warrant warning points, but it is in poor taste.
In that second statement, it is an obvious slur against Mickey Hinkle, but again, it slides under the bar as to something that would warrant warning points.
(2) Mickey Hinkle brings up the incident that took place at the Des Moines show where someone puts a derogatory sign on the front of his table. Although not relevant to this site, it does seem to indicate a herd mentality vendetta against Mickey Hinkle by some unknown persons.
(3) Another post by Jay Owens simply copying the post in question by Mickey Hinkle in support of his determination that the post carried a threat that needed to be taken seriously. Mention was made of the altercation at a previous KC show, but it appears there are two or more sides to that story, and only the participants really know the truth. Everything else is based solely on opinions and likely third hand hearsay.
Page 18
(1) Mickey Hinkle makes claims that the above mentioned post was not a threat, but only a play on words. I disagree. Based on the tone of the message, the inclusion of many profane comments, and the general perceived aggressive and antagonistic flavor of the post, any reasonable person would have interpretted such a post in exactly the same manner Jay Owens did. A threat, pretty much black and white.
(2) Mickey Hinkle quotes a bunch of emails between himself and Jay Owens. For the record, what ANY moderator does outside of his participation within FaunaClassifieds is NOT my concern. My only concern is what actually takes place ON the site and in public view there. Nothing else.
(3) In the above mentioned emails, Mickey Hinkle brings up the classic "speeding ticket" defense, in that many other people had done similar things yet not been assessed warning points. As has been mentioned MANY times before, no moderator, or myself, is obligated to read every post within a thread. The fact that someone else posted something derogatory and did not get points, yet you did the same and DID get points is immaterial to your situation. 300 people can be speeding down Route 95 and the state troooper pulls YOU over. Try to tell him that he shouldn't give you a speeding ticket because he didn't ticket those other 299 people. Let us know what he says to you. Same thing applies here.
For the record, I could not read through all of those emails. It was just tiresome to me, understanding that I got many similar emails myself from Mickey Hinkle asking that I get involved. When they became more insistent, I had to just stop responding to them. I am sure that Jay Owens was every bit as busy as I was that time of year, but even then he did spend a lot of time responding to Mickey Hinkle's emails. Probably moreso then I did.
(4) Jay Owens does bring up a point about the thread NOT being about issues between himself and Mickey Hinkle. It is doubtful as to whether I would have issued warning points about the opinionated use of "childish", since much stronger language is usually a trigger for such warning points.
Page 19
(1) A couple of comments from new posters on this thread accusing Jay Owens of acting outside of his role as a moderator. A reminder here, that none of the moderators were restricted from acting as their own persons and posting under their own free will about topics and issues they are interested or involved in. Being a moderator does not exclude you from being a PERSON with an opinion that can be expressed in public on FaunaClassifieds.
Page 20
(1) First appearance by Robin Struck. Part of the post was concerning bias on the part of Jay Owens. Sorry, but up to this point I see nothing of the sort except for Jay responding to comments directed at him in posts and emails that were made public within the thread. Responding as a member is not being
biased just because he is also a moderator. One does not preclude the other.
Page 22
(1) A posting by Jason Sweigart, while a bit antagonistic, wouldn't generate warning points:
Dude, deflat your ego, pull your head out of your butt and smell the coffee. I could care less about getting a table I was trying to make some valid points.
(2) The following post by Randy May is demeaning enough that I would possibly have assessed warning points to him for it, but not necessarily:
Who left the trailer park gate open?
Hey Jason, try taking your own advice here. Your show appearance and business practices are by a lot people’s estimation, quite substandard. To see you address someone as accomplished like Anthony Caponetto like this is almost beyond any conception.
You’ve become an infuriating person to observe. So basically ignorant that it’s painful to read the volumes of self-serving nonsense you routinely post.
-Randy
(3) Several posts have now become a pissing duel between Robin Stuck and Randy May. Probably "off topic" warning points would be warranted.
Page 24
(1) Post by Anthony Caponetto:
If you want me to make something up, I'm sorry. Lying might be your style, but it's certainly not mine.
This was directed towards Jason Sweigart. While not anything that would generate warning points, it most certainly is a thinly veiled instigation.
The rest of that post:
You sir, have sold big female Ball Pythons with hemipenes and sperm plugs, not me. You have sold WC subocs (I know who CAUGHT them) as "CB '03", not me.
I don't know if that kind of reputation is why you can't get into our show because I'm not the one who makes those decisions, but being the observative kind of guy that I am, that would be my first guess.
while maybe not intentionally so, would most certainly drag the thread off into off topic avenues.
(2) A post by Anthony Caponetto:
Yep...you got me. I thought it was pretty damned funny how easy it was.
That was like having a giant fish jump into your boat when you haven't even put the worm on the hook yet.
Again, while not a violation that would cause a warning point, it is definitely less then sterling behavior from a member posting on this thread.
(3) Then in the same post, Anthony Caponetto posts this:
I won't take that as an Italian slur because honestly, I don't think you're sharp enough to figure out that I'm Italian by looking at my last name...that would be giving you too way much credit., so I'll leave that alone.
Which is a derogatory attack against Daniel Wedeking and depending on my mood may possibly have generated a warning point.
That same post gets further abusive towards another FaunaClassifieds member with:
By the way, what does this have to do with you? Probably nothing, which would make you just another BOI regular (I like to call guys like you "arguer extraordinaires") who likes to put his two cents in about everyone else's business. You really should learn to keep your mouth shut about matters that don't concern you because you just lost what little business I do with you.
Page 25
(1) I guess I need to comment on this post made by James M. Maloy, Jr:
P.s. I think it was inappropriate for DR Jay to privately email Mikey anything other than a single email to acknowledge his email and no more. It tends to make it appear that Dr Jay had an agenda of his own. This is my opinion, and the way it appears from the outside of this.
Sorry but I disagree. I get emails all of the time from members, and most certainly my moderators do as well. The only alternative to answering them, which very likely can result in even more emails, is to ignore them completely and not reply at all. Is that what you are suggesting? Just ignore emails from all members here?
Page 26
(1) A post by Randy May on this page, although not severe enough to warrant warning points, certainly does not make the grade of being a courteous reply to questions made by another poster.
(2) At this point, if I would be so inclined, I could probably post warning points to nearly everyone in this thread for posting off topic posts. But this is pretty much par for the course of any lengthy thread on this site, I believe.
(3) A post by Jason Descamps kind of hits the nail on the head, in my opinion.
Page 27
(1) This post by Anthony Caponetto:
The thing is, I see first hand the work that goes into putting on this BREEDER'S EXPO and I take great offense when second rate jobbers like Jason and Mickey publically belittle it.
shows that Anthony is pretty adept at keeping his posts just under the radar for getting warning points. It would have been a toss of the coin as to whether or not I would have considered it warranting warning points.
(2) A long post by Robin Struck that could easily be warranting warning points for being off topic. But so could most other people at this point in that thread.
Page 28
(1) A post by Jean Hubert:
Sounds to me like your doing alot of kissing a$$ !!! What an Ego !!!
while not a warning points violation, certainly is keeping up with the tone of what this thread has become.
(2) This post by Randy May:
Yeah, doing a professional website at no cost for a not-for-profit reptile conservation group – how egotistical. God, how bloody jaded and warped can people get...freak.
-Randy May
[/quote}
DEFINITELY should have gotten him warning points for the "freak" comment. This apparently was in response to a post by Jean Hubert, which while not flattering, was not abusive enough itself to positively warrant warning points.
(2) This post by Al Guetzkow:
HOLY [**censored**], after 3 hours of reading I realized I'M NOT EVEN ON K.S.
SHOULD have gotten warning points for profanity.
Page 29
(1) Al Guetzkow made a post that perhaps should have gotten warning points for being off topic. Some argument could be made that the thread is originally about mites at a show, so this could be strongly debated.
Page 30
(1) Mickey Hinkle makes a post that brings up a point that I neglected concerning a quote from a post made by Anthony Caponetto. These statements:
Here were my favorites...
1. He either is or was a drug dealer.
2. He's an ex-convict...meaning he went to prison. I figure this kinda goes along with #1.
3. He's a total hot head. I have no idea what would make them say that, though.
What else do you want? Should the society wait until someone comes in drunk, takes a $hit on the floor of the hotel lobby and beats the girl behind the desk with a tire iron before we tell them they can't do our show
depending on the context, could possibly get warning points for anonymous third party quotations. But some argument could be made whether or not this applies outside of the BOI, so this could be discretionary.
(2) At 1:30 am on 09/29/04, the thread got moved to the *HELL* forum, so at that point, all bets are off on warning points, personal involvement by moderators, or just about anything else.
So thankfully, I can stop reading this thread at this point.....
WARNING POINTS LOG
Mickey_TLK
(1) Dr Owens - 09/24/04 - Profanity
Im a too bit jobber now?
GO [**censored**] YOURSELF.
I'll take my points for that one. Your out of line. I DO PRODUCE ANIMALS. Do I produce every animal I sell, no, no where near. DOES THAT MAKE ME A TOO BIT JOBBER. NO
However I do happen to sell alot of your animals in a for you, but what do you know. Your insulting me, and a good friend of mine with your "too bit jobbers" statement. Justins good enough for your money on your leos, to run them all over the country, but hes a no good too bit jobber.
I sell QUALITY ANIMALS. I HAVE ZERO COMPLAINTS TO THAT MATTER. I dont sell mites.
You want to stick up for your show fine, but you want to insult me and my business with a statement like that, then sell animals to us "too bit jobbers".
SCREW YOU.
(2) Dr Owens - 09/24/04 - Discourtesy towards another member
this warning point is applied to the same post as #1
(3) Dr Owens - 09/25/04 - Profanity
Crying and whinning? POST THE [**censored**]ING EMAILS YOU PIECE OF [**censored**]>
NOW THE FILTERS OFF< YOU DR JAY CAN GO [**censored**] YOURSELF. I WILL SEE YOU IN TINLEY.
ANTHONY C. IF I EVER SEE YOU I HAVE A PRESENT FOR YOU TOO YOU [**censored**]ING PIECE OF [**censored**]. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO THE [**censored**] YOU ARE INSULTING WITH BASLESS FACTS>
RICH IM SORRY, BUT YOUR MODS A [**censored**]ING ASSHOLE>
POST THE [**censored**]ING EMAILS YOU PIECE OF [**censored**] DR JAY>
(4) Dr Owens - 09/25/04 - Antagonism Towards Moderators
Applied to same post as #3
(5) Dr Owens - 09/25/04 - Actual or implied threats to another member
Applied to same post as #3
(6) WebSlave - 09/25/04 - $10 fine suspension (first offense)
Applied to same post as #3
Well, from what I can see, Mickey hinkle is the only person who got assessed warning points in this thread. They are documented above.
SYSTEMATICS:
For the first pass through this thread, I read each and every post up to the point where the thread was moved to the HELL forum. I tried to be as impartial as possible, acting as if I did not know any of the members posting within this thread and how I might have treated such postings from a moderation standpoint.
For the Warning Point Log, I went through the thread a second time, and made note of the warning log for any member that showed a non-zero value and determined when those points were assessed and for which post they made.
CONCLUSIONS:
(1) There were a LOT of posts that could have gotten the members posting them warning points for one reason or another. This is not at all unusual for a long winded thread on this site and certainly does not point to any bias by any moderator who may have taken part in this thread for one reason or another.
This site is not rubber bumpered with the intention of protecting thin skinned individuals from the realities of conflicts. People get upset, aggitated, and sometimes lose control of their emotions in conflicts of this nature. The warning system is intended to put the brakes on things when they start getting out of hand. It is not to slap down anyone who happens to get slightly colorful with their word choices yet remains within reasonable constraints with the manner in which they try to get their points across. Anyone who is treated in a slightly derogatory nature is quite likely going to see it as a much larger affront then an objective view may determine. In other words, that mountain to you, may really be just a molehill to everyone else.
(2) Jay Owens, acting as a moderator, evidently viewed a post made by Mickey Hinkle on 9/24 (page 7) which clearly and unambibuously had profanity in it that was blocked by the sites automatic filters. As shown in evidence on page 18 via quoted emails between Mickey Hinkle and Jay Owens, a lot of emails passed back and forth between the two before Jay Owens FINALLY posted his first message within the thread on 9/25 (page 15). It is obvious to me, that via the emails from Mickey Hinkle, that Jay Owens was invited to step into that thread and could not help but become involved in it, if for no other reason then he was being figuratively being beaten up by the emails from Mickey Hinkle. I am not saying that the exchange was one sided, but under the circumstances, no normal mortal human being could likely keep from getting involved in that thread under the same circumstances that Jay Owens was subjected to.
In my opinion, I believe that Mickey Hinkle's accusation of bias may have mostly stemmed from that exchange of emails rather than anything Jay Owens did in the forums in either his acting as a moderator, or posting replies as a member. What someone here does in personal emails, as long as they do not go through this system, are their own business and not subject to my review.
(3) The only warning points assessed in the entire thread ALL went to Mickey Hinkle for his actions. I think any objective viewing of the posts those points were assessed against would likely agree with their being valid, with the possible exception of #2. That one is possibly overkill, under the circumstances. I do believe that any one of the moderators, myself included, would probably have duplicated the actions that Jay OWens took in assessing warning points for the relevant posts noted here.
(4) As for posts that positively SHOULD have been assessed warning points and were not, I saw only two cases of that. (a) A post by Randy May on page 28 (item #2), and (b) a post by Al Guetzkow also on page 28 (item #2). I have corrected that oversight.
(5) Some of the members, particularly Anthony Caponetto and Randy May, appear to be very adept at flying under the radar with the language and tone they use in their posts. While some may classify one or both of them as "smart asses", there is nothing in the rules that would trigger warning points as a definite result of such mannerisms. Some cases will be a judgement call on the part of the person doing the moderation, and a LOT may depend on whatever frame of mind the moderator was in at the time. Myself, I am much more likely to grant warning points against someone if I am already in a foul mood to start off with. I assume this is the case with Jay Owens and any other moderator as well.
(6) Directly addressing the claim of bias against Jay Owens within this thread, personally I just don't see it. Yes, he has participated in this thread both as a moderator and as a participant, but his involvement was only after Mikey Hinkle personally dragged him into it via emails. In my opinion, much of Mickey Hinkle's claim of bias is simply because Jay Owens did not find the posts of other participants as abusive as Mickey's own posts were, and assessed warning points accordingly. Jay Owens' involvement in this thread is minimal, even for a moderator who exchanged a large number of emails with one of the participants in the thread.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
Personally, I do not see anything that I would even remotely consider as abusive behavior on the part of a moderator. Jay Owens acted well within the constraints as a moderator to assess warning points where justified, except in a couple of minor instances, which have been noted. His own personal involvement was MUCH tamer then most of the rest of the participants, and in those cases where he posted, he was restrained in his wording and acting well within boundaries of what would be expected of anyone posting in a thread of this nature.
