Recent issues in the Leo Forum brought to the BOI

[Dennis Hultman]

Does this mean that most people feel Steven was just collateral damage in this?

Actually, I thought I saw him reading the post at the bottom of the page. I thought either he paid the fine or you removed the restriction. I could need glasses.

I do actually believe it was just bad timing for Steven's post as it has already been stated.

 

[WebSlave]

Actually, I thought I saw him reading the post at the bottom of the page. I thought either he paid the fine or you removed the restriction. I could need glasses.

I do actually believe it was just bad timing for Steven's post as it has already been stated.

No, it has not been decided yet. I am still waiting to see what the majority of people who care one way or the other think about it.

As mentioned before, I made the suspension really a voluntary measure (like a light hand slap) for everyone who has a paid membership status. Lots of reasons, but the uppermost was because it was just easiest to do based on the way this system is designed. Basically the paid membership level has to be rescinded before a TRUE suspension can be put in place, and I just didn't feel like going through all that bother with what I thought would quickly blow over. Silly me.... But perhaps it was a mistake, because at least a couple of people were confused by the signals they got from it.

 

[Blazin]

Man that Tongue of Ours!!!!

That little member that we all possess. Its such a powerful thing. We can take it out and slice people apart. The man that can bridle his tongue can bridle his whole body! None of us are perfect. That little member when used in a uncontrolled manner is likened to someone that sets a forest on fire! Now fire can be a good thing when its used under control. On the other hand let loose fire is devastating. Very similiar to the use of the tongue. I think thats what sometimes goes on in here. Further I believe that for a single individual to have the responsibility of monitoring what hundreds if not thousands of people say is aMONUMENTAL task to say the least and is extremely hard for any of us to fully comprehend! One observation I have made to this entire thing is this. It reminds me of a Bouncers role inside a bar. Think of a typical bar or nightclub scene. People's inhibitions are reduced from alcohol so they do and say things they normally would'nt do. It very similiar to what goes on in forums sometimes. We are all somewhat anonymous. Now inevitably with some people this leads to loss of inhibitions with some and conflicts are inevitable. In order to resolve these conflicts certain actions must be taken. Going back to the bar or nightcluch analogy Bouncers and alot of times the police just don't have time to sort out who said or did what . Thats not their job. Not that I am comparing Rich to either! The people with the responsibilitiy to maintain the peace don't have the time to sort out the details. They take the individuals involved in the altercation and administer actions designed to stop the conflict. Thats it! They don't worry about who said what or who did this or that. And I'm not saying that Rich doesn't care! They just want the conflict to stop. I really think thats what Rich does in most of these cases in this forum. For any of us to expect Rich to be Judge, Jury and Executioner in any issue in this community would be extremely unreasonable. That being said I think Rich acted in the only way a sensible person would! Like he stated he wasn't involved in the whole issue of the Mack line snows or underlying factors related to it. Whenever you have a group of people you always have other influencing group dynamics. In other words there are smaller groups inside the main group that influence the whole. Given all the factors I think he took proactive steps to stop the negative behaviour on his forum. Its extremely hard to be fair and just without knowing all the facts involved in a case, and none of can EVER know each and every fact involved in an issue! Its a hard job! Being a leader requires tons of skills and certain understanding of group dynamics. I'm just very thankful this site is here and I hope it stays put!! I also know that under the circumstances involved in this issue Rich did the best job he could and I thank him for trying!

 

[Alias47]

I don't see Steve lying and since he has stated it was a joke about dan's in general I could see you reversing his suspension. It is largely due to his outstanding relationship and the feeling I've gotten from him in the few conversations we've had in chat that I am willing to go out on this limb though.

Had he crossed the line, I think he'd say so provided he thought he had.

I would have to agree with this sentiment...
I think Steve was be light hearted and continuing an ongoing joke...and wasn't being intentionally malicious...at least not enough to warrant suspension and a fine.

Of course this decision is entirely up to Rich...this is his house...and his rules.
If he feels that this comment was out of line...then that is his decision...

 

[nicolai]

To the point!!!!

Steve didnt deserve the suspension...it was not a personal attack but rather a little light hearted humor which is allowed in the forums.
Chris and Rich are just being men like the rest of us with the testosterone flowing and I can see how they both took innocent comments to be personal.
I think Chris was just speaking his mind ( Like you do WES) and Rich was making sure everyone knew who was in charge and that his rules need to be followed.
I like a lot of the other higher membership level people on here would like to think that we are more then just visitors or patrons or guests here but rather we are the "FAMILY" or "CORE" of fauna and should have a little more leeway and understanding then others which in all fairness Rich cannot allow if everything is going to be equal, fair and decisive. When it come down to it this is Rich's site, he makes the rules, he enforces them and we should try to adhere to them.
I would like to think that we all come here in a common interest, that being the wellness and future of reptiles in general and we can learn from each other and not fight amongst ourselves. There will always be enough bad guys out there without us trying to make each other look like one.

I say steve gets a "get out of jail free" card !!!! ( Its truly fair)

Sorry to ramble but I had to say something.

 

[shrap]

That little member that we all possess.

Chad.... dude..... you are getting entirely too personal.....

 

[Monte]

I like Steve Beckerman and consider him one of my herp friends. Yet I think his comment crossed the line. I knew exactly what he was saying - he has been highly critical of the 3 individuals he's referenced. That's fine - everybody has an opinion. But Rich drew the line in the sand - and he crossed it.

I suppose I did as well, by defending Dan Lubinsky, but that's the risk I took for someone I thought was being unfairly criticized.

That being said - I still like Steve and hope he can post here again. He's a good young man.

I also think the fact that we are even discussing this is a little embarrassing. Mack snows are definitely cool - but to have the leo forum become uncorked over this?

I think we all need to get some sunshine on our computer-tanned bodies . . . .

 

[LakesideBoas]

Oh My

Is it the ten bucks? Probably not. Is it the principal behind the ten bucks? Most likely.
Was it right or fair? Maybe not. But what is being asked is to have Rich reverse a decision he has made to keep the peace on his website… publicly.

If we are to ask him to do this we are setting a precedent. If Rich is to reverse himself now I feel it will undermine Rich’s integrity as well as that of this site. I do not want to see that happen.

Life isn’t always fair. Nobody said it would be. If it’s the ten bucks I'LL pay it, but I believe too much time and too many resources have been utilized kicking this smelly pony that could have best been used elsewhere.

No wonder Rich has a headache.

 

[Wilomn]

I see it as Rich wondering if he made a mistake, which is NOT precedent setting, he has asked such before.

If anything it shows that he knows he is not infallible and tries to watch himself if he misses something and enough people bring to his attention that he did miss whatever that something was.

If Steve's suspension is reversed I don't think it should be seen as "the way" things will be, get suspended and then NOT be suspended. THIS particular situation, and they must be handled individually, warrants extra attention. Few and far between are the suspensions that I, just me, think have been questionable.

I don't think there is a wrong decision to be made in regaurds to Steve as he did SORT OF cross the line and he was ALSO just trying to be funny, not take a shot at anyone in particular.

Or so think I.

 

[brucestephenson]

Rich/Webslave

I wish that we could change your mind on paying the fines on other members. I am pretty much a geek in my human relations bag, so I assumed that by paying the fines on persons whose posts were popular, and therefore entertaining, that I could give you an additional revenue stream and feel good about supporting the underdog.

I was surprised at the bad reaction I got from that!

I usually do not have the same opinion as the other Endowement Members, but I actually agree that they should be able to reinstate their friends at will and provide you with income, and the rest of us with entertainment.

I have come to the conclusion, that without the Serpentboys, Mitches, and Brian Fosters, that the members tend to turn on each other for kicks usually reserved for those that really deserve it!

 

[Alias47]

I have come to the conclusion, that without the Serpentboys, Mitches, and Brian Fosters, that the members tend to turn on each other for kicks usually reserved for those that really deserve it!

How true...
Ridiculous, but true...

Just all that pent up antagonism...
A pack of dogs with no prey source will turn on itself...

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

I don't remember who it was but someone paid a fine for someone and it was paid for a person that I think is very unliked and some members got upset about the principle of the fine being paid by the person suspended is that if they don't want to come back enough to pay it themselves then it should not be paid for them.

But in this case, because it is Alex that is involved, I agree with Chris and thats wrong of me to think its OK for a fine to be paid for someone that I like instead of it being paid for someone I do not like.

Does Alex even want to come back? Chris, How about you paypal him the $10 then he can send it to Rich, still probably ethically wrong but a way around it.

 

[shrap]

There is a principle behind the fines, Bruce. That you are responsible for your actions. That there are community standards that we expect people to go by. If you want to run around paying all the fines then people will just run around being jerks and breaking the rules at will because there are no consequences for there behavior. That would turn this place into a hell hole in no time and the only people that would remain are the you and the scumbags.

A lot of us see this as a community. I am disappointed that you do not see or care about any of that and that you see fauna as nothing more than your very own personal entertainment.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

I like Steve Beckerman and consider him one of my herp friends. Yet I think his comment crossed the line. I knew exactly what he was saying - he has been highly critical of the 3 individuals he's referenced. That's fine - everybody has an opinion. But Rich drew the line in the sand - and he crossed it.

I went back an re-read the first page again and I do agree with Monte, the warnings had already been given and Steve did cross the line even if it was meant as a joke, he posted it in reply to a message from bringerofdoom who went OT about Dan and he was suspended as well. Seems only fit that if bringerofdoom was suspended for his statement that Steve should be for replying to it. And I noticed that bringerofdoom did apologize a few post down for his statements. So if you undo Steves for it being a joke or whatever it would seem that then some might want bringerofdooms undone since he apologized for going OT.

as always just my 02 cents

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Bruce, there is a difference between an Underdog and a lying, stealing, stinky little rat like Serperntboy I don’t know if I would have lumped everyone in that same category.

There are some people the majority does not agree with which can be rightly called the underdogs and then there are the scamming thieves that nobody needs to bring back.

 

[Milwaukee Reptiles]

Not that it matters, but when I read it I beleived it to be a joke as well. I didn't think at all that you were trying to insult someone with that name. Again, it has no effect on the past but I thought I'd back you up on that one.

Do I think webslave should have fined you? Not my place. As far as I'm concerned it's his site to what he wants, and it's not my position to tell him otherwise.

 

[Gregg M]

Well if you look at Steves past post, you would realize hes is not one to cause any trouble at all..... His posts are informative and some are comical.... I do not feel he was going against the grain..... He was making light of a heavy situation and should not be punished or fined for it..... Thats MY opinion.....

 

[Jim O]

"Dan is a bad name to have in the leopard gecko business"

Is a JOKE in reference to Dan Poe, Dan Lubinsky, and Dan Quinn. If you look later in the thread Dan Quinn laughed about it.


Now as for my violating the suspension... I only posted because I noticed that the title under my user name had changed from "suspended, fine due" to "benefactor member" and I had assumed that my suspension was removed for some reason or another.

Y'all knew that eventaully I'd throw in my $0.02.

The second fine ($20) is an easy one. Unless you doubt that Steve is telling the truth above then it should be rescinded. I was following that *other* thread at the request of one of the parties and when this thread was first started I went back to it and Steve's status was listed as "Suspended, fine due". When it was changed back, his assumption that the original suspension had been lifted was perfectly valid and an honest mistake.

As for the first suspension, well this is Rich's playground and Rich makes the rules. It isn't a democracy. That said, he does seem to be soliciting opinions, evidently with the idea of taking them to heart. It was a joke, I think everyone knows that. And it could have been handled with warning points only. I believe in punishment suiting the "crime". In this case the offense was minor compared to how some of the others had gone off. Their suspensions were earned (sorry Alex, and I would pay your fine also if allowed but I suspect there is more than $10 at stake here for you).

This is a successful site because there are some rules in place. Rich generally allows a lot of crap to be spewed before pulling the trigger. When he does pull it though, then he deserves a certain level of respect that has not been accorded by everyone. Believe it or not, it's much more fun to one of the inmates in this asylum than it would be to be the man in the white coat.

 

[WebSlave]

After a lot of deliberation on this issue concerning Steven Beckerman, I have decided that the fine and suspension will stand and be official. My reasons for this are that I did draw the line in the sand, and regardless of whether Steven ignored, forgot, didn't notice, or thought that his joke was not a violation, it WAS a violation after all. I set down the warning and have to stand by it. Otherwise everyone can say "I was only joking!", or "I didn't know about it". When I post a warning like that I really have no other choice but to assume that everyone had read it. I cannot go to each and every person involved, even remotely, and verify upon posting such warnings that they have been read and understood.

Input here ran about 50/50 on this particular issue, whereas I would have considered a much stronger response showing that I was in error as a reliable indication that I was incorrect in my assessment. Without that overwhelming evidence, I can only conclude that I was not in error in this instance.

 

[Gregg M]

Personally, I think it was a bad call and I see it as being more than 50/50 in favor of Steve...... But hey, if you fell you are doing the right thing, then I guess that is all that matters, right????