Rules Clarification Requested

[Chameleon Company]

Here's is post #78 from the Bobby Pruett Thread in the BOI, authored by me today. Here's a link to that part of the thread:

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95403&page=8&pp=10

My request is better addressed here in the Feedback Forum.

Dr Jay etc.

Alec's request about the warning points caught my attention, so here goes.

Here's the applicable BOI statute verbatim, cited in both dings:

Overly abusive towards another member - 2 points
Especially within the BOI, things will oftentimes get overheated in a discussion. Although it is permissible to let your true feelings show with your emotions in high gear, there has to be some limits if you happen to go ballistic and your posting reflects this unstable state of mind. Civility is NOT required, but but refraining from becoming a complete and totally flaming jackass is.

And here's the comments you guys gave as the reason for assessing warning points:

Dr. Owens:
Name calling is not allowed on the forum.

John Apple:
gotta be careful with the name calling there.

And here is the post by Alec that was dinged, #72 above:

Bobby Pruett ( Arboreals Etc...)
Well Bobby, I still haven't gotten my money back from you yet you lazy peace of garbage. Why don't you go and get a job instead of making your wife work for you. This way you don't have to rip off ofter people's money. Why don't you go back to Indianapolis maybe if I get lucky you will get buried in the snow you lazy peace of garbage

First off, there is no currently stated rule against name calling. Bobby Pruett has been shown to be many less-than-honorable things, such as a thief, liar, stalker, etc etc etc. Maybe some would call those "statements of fact", while the term "garbage" is more an analogy. Are you guys telling the members of the Board that use of the word "garbage" as a label is an offense now, and if so, can we get Rich to clarify the rules so that anyone who reads the rules will know ? Can we then get a clarification on the use of the other words which I referenced ? Can you then mesh this with Rich's post the other day that more leniency is to be expected in the BOI regarding "abusiveness" ? Can you also let me know what is the purpose and meaning of the word "overly" as in "overly abusive" ?

It may be as simple as some discussion or edict by Rich in the Mod-forum about a new standard of enforcement. That's fine. If so, I would hope that there was enough respect for participants and paid members here to be given the opportunity to know it. Thanks in advance .

Beside's the above discepencies which I saw between the cited infraction and the rules, there is another one that also jumps off the page:
Does Bobby Pruett meet the definition of "another member"?

Opinions and explanations are obviously solicited, although one ad-hoc mod seems to have already endorsed my interpretation of things. In advance, I do not expect all gray areas to be removed from this or other rules interpretations, judgement calls, etc. I don't think this is about "gray area". Its specifically about "name-calling", and name calling directed at a non-member, or at least certainly a non-participant. Note that Alec, the offender, claims to be owed money by Pruett, and is not someone stalking Pruett's shadow from thread to thread.

 

[mcgrath5860]

Refuse

Jim I guess I better refrain from using any kind of word that means refuse. But Jim you know the ole saying, "If it looks and smells like refuse, it is refuse.". This including and derogatory terms that "overly" refer to it

 

[Chameleon Company]

I won't kid you, but I thought using the word "garbage" showed considerable restraint. As I mentioned in the other thread, God help us should anyone resurrect a TSE thread. "He was at times a troubled lad ....... but God bless him !"

The silence is a bit deafening.

 

[Cheryl Marchek AKA JM]

The silence is a bit deafening.

As I understand it the issuing of warning points or not issuing of warning points is solely up to the discretion of the adjunct moderator (or super mod) who reads the post in question, and his/her interpretation of the particular infraction as pertains to the forum rules as stated.

In other words~
Whoever issued the point is the only one who can decide if the word "garbage" is in fact derogatory and to whom he/she considers it derogatory.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Agreed Cheryl, but "derogatory" is not the standard. Dr. Jay, whom I hold I very high regard here, said specifically that "name calling is not allowed". While I do not believe that to be a verbatim interpretation of the rules, I also do not see that is has been adopted as a general interpretation anywhere either, as in all my recollections where "name-calling" was cited, it was where the target of the antagonism was a participating component of the debate. As I noted, there are several "stretches" of every explanation of the rule to have it embrace calling Bobby Pruett garbage. If it had just been John Apple dinging Alec, no big deal. But having a Super-Mod do it, stating it as he did, seems to affirm it as more the standard. The "rule" rather than the "exception". Alec cried foul of course when the warning PM's came in. That's what got my attention.

 

[jsrocket]

Jim, I look at it this way.

When you're writing a post, usually you know when you're walking the line to get dinged. Sometimes you do (get dinged), sometimes not. I mean, look at my warnings. Were they warranted? Personally, I don't think so. Frankly, I've said worse things here, and never gotten slapped for it. John Apple gave me one, and I LIKE John Apple.

If someone thinks I have stepped over the line here or there, and dings me, I don't lose any sleep over it.

At the rate I'm going, I'll be dead before I get booted. Needless to say, at that point, I will not be renewing my club membership.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Jim R.
All that you said is true, although I am not going to give your warnings an evaluation ... LOL. If "name-calling" is to be the standard, with this as an example, then so be it. That is my request for clarification. If that is the case, I do think they need to amend the rule explanation a bit <cough>. I realize that it will go "undinged" many times because it was not seen by someone with a bullet chambered. But it occurs and goes unchecked many times more than that, and not for lack of ammo. I do not like singling out Dr. Jay, as my respect for him is genuine. But he called another entity here a "liar" last week, who was participating in the debate. I can understand that there is an added degree of antagonism to such name calling when it is at someone, and as such it would be higher on the radar. But this example of Pruett represents probably the most benign form of name-calling possible here. Its not in a gray area of the rules. Its just calling Bobby Pruett garbage.

 

[jsrocket]

Jim, I think it's a gray area, left to the discretion of the mods. If I called you Jimbo, nobody would think twice about it, most likely. If I called you &%^$%^&^, (which I wouldn't), that would be a foul. Everything else is somewhere in between.

If I was trying to administrate this joint, I certainly would not want to have to micro-manage to that degree.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Jim R.,
If this is about "discretion", then let them say it as such, although it would be a poor excuse. Your example does not fit this, as has been indicated, as calling me "&%^$%^&^" in a thread is not to call someone "garbage" who is not a party to the thread. Interpretations of what may be "overly abusive" is certainly subjective. I want to know if any name calling is now deemed as being "overly abusive". I can't even see this example as "abusive". As I said, it can't be more benign.

We all have to make choices about renewing membership here, doing it for bucks, etc. As someone who has put over $400 into Fauna coffers in the past three years, I am asking for a simple clarification.

 

[jsrocket]

Well, that is a valid question. I don't know the answer. Gotta hit the sack.

 

[WebSlave]

As I understand it the issuing of warning points or not issuing of warning points is solely up to the discretion of the adjunct moderator (or super mod) who reads the post in question, and his/her interpretation of the particular infraction as pertains to the forum rules as stated.

In other words~
Whoever issued the point is the only one who can decide if the word "garbage" is in fact derogatory and to whom he/she considers it derogatory.

I don't see any reason to try to elaborate on this excellent, and accurate, answer.

If I was trying to administrate this joint, I certainly would not want to have to micro-manage to that degree.

And by golly! Another excellent retort by another member!

 

[Suncoast Herpetological]

Jim

As is adroitly illustrated by Rich's post above, he has designed a system which has enabled him to take his complete leave from administration of Fauna. Aside from the occasional interjection of a comment here or there on a topic that piques his interest, he has essentially abandoned the site.

The remaining rules here are essentially the following:

1.) The TOS are 100% up to the interpretation of the Mods, both Super and Junior.

2.) Consistency is not to be expected in any way shape or form due to the fact that there is no consistency in that interpretation

3.) Anyone with a $100 and the inclination gets a badge on the Fauna Secret Police Force.

Do I like the new system? Not particularly. I find it mercenary and lazy in the extreme. Personally I think Mods should be chosen by a bit more noble set of standards than the contents of their wallet. However, given the level of infraction that you have to reach to get sanctioned, I can live with it.

Like it or not, it is the system du jour. The solution is to leave which unfortunately has been the choice of several of the more quality members. I have the feeling that this trend will continue. I still enjoy my time here at the moment.

I see a day when most of the threads will contain not much else than Wes bitching about Being called Wesley.

I am reminded of a quote from Roseanne a few years ago. John Goodman stated:

"We reserve the right to change these rules at any time for your benefit, our benefit or simply for our amusement"

 

[WebSlave]

As is adroitly illustrated by Rich's post above, he has designed a system which has enabled him to take his complete leave from administration of Fauna. Aside from the occasional interjection of a comment here or there on a topic that piques his interest, he has essentially abandoned the site.

I trust you know how to query the system to find latest posts of a member here. Try mine to see when and where I have posted and the content of those posts. Tell me if that looks like I have "abandoned" this site. What I have abandoned is riding herd on the crap (and producers thereof) here. I came up with something that may help take that load off of me, and STILL the whining drones on and on and on and on.......

I see a day when most of the threads will contain not much else than Wes bitching about Being called Wesley.

Yeah, half of the posts might just be that way, John. The other half will be from members complaining about this site and predicting it's demise "shortly"............

 

[John Apple]

It's a public forum..plain and simple. Referring to somebody in a derogatory manner is un acceptable in my book, yeah even ol Bobby Pruett who likes to . some people might not find offensive who I ding, but that is not gonna stop me from doing my Accepted job here.
A difference is what we WILL make

 

[Chameleon Company]

John,
The standard as defined by Rich never was "derogatory", although I agree, as do all, that it was derogatory. Nor is that the issue. Its the disparity between your and Dr. Jay's comments and the rule as outlined by Rich. Seeing as neither you nor Rich have made even the most feeble of attempts to connect the dots there, and rather have chosen to hide behind the "interpretation" excuse, is just plain weak. That you John, with your one daily bullet, chose that as a target, does not reflect well on you or the system. Nor does this excuse .....

It's a public forum..plain and simple. Referring to somebody in a derogatory manner is un acceptable in my book, yeah even ol Bobby Pruett

...... jibe with Rich's oft expressed view that the BOI is to get a bit more leeway. Try reading the rule and explanation again


So then Rich:

I came up with something that may help take that load off of me, and STILL the whining drones on and on and on and on.......

Is the logic trail here that a plan to have you work less can't possibly be flawed in any of its other consequences ? God forbid it might need a few major tweaks ? Would it be so hard to add a paragraph to your rules to embrace this new standard of civility that is to be adhered to ? Which would also look pretty silly next to what is currently written there eh? Of course all would respect the example that "calling Bobby Pruett garbage is a non-no".

Great new smiley BTW!

 

[John Apple]

WELL i try to be impartial in my dings, that is to include bad and good guys.
If I see it as wrong then it's wrong no matter who the target.
I will use my one ding per person in an impartial manner.
If The slave was wrong I am sure if possible I would ding him and being the man he is would accept it , I am sure without fussing. The only problem here is that no one else on the site would accept it...plain and simple.....yup

 

[Chameleon Company]

John,
First it was "derogatory", and now it is "wrong". They are not the standards. I am hoping Dr. Jay will find the time to explain, as it was his action which raised more of an eyebrow. I am sure you are impartial, but can you not see that you are empowered to enforce the rules as written by Rich, which more importantly, is also as read by folks who post here ? What is bordering on the absurd at this point is that neither you nor Rich preceive any obligation to bring the written rule in line with what folks are finding out after the fact. Do neither of you even respect your fellow members (that would be customers Rich), many of them paying members, enough to see that obligation ?? Instead of gaining respect, as it should, not closing this disparity between your actions and the expectations Rich established is causing a loss of respect. Congratulations.

 

[John Apple]

John,
First it was "derogatory", and now it is "wrong". They are not the standards. I am hoping Dr. Jay will find the time to explain, as it was his action which raised more of an eyebrow. I am sure you are impartial, but can you not see that you are empowered to enforce the rules as written by Rich, which more importantly, is also as read by folks who post here ? What is bordering on the absurd at this point is that neither you nor Rich preceive any obligation to bring the written rule in line with what folks are finding out after the fact. Do neither of you even respect your fellow members (that would be customers Rich), many of them paying members, enough to see that obligation ?? Instead of gaining respect, as it should, not closing this disparity between your actions and the expectations Rich established is causing a loss of respect. Congratulations.

Apples and oranges man...derogatory and wrong...see.
As far as respect I do respect the members and people here that is why I am impartial in the dinging. At least we agree to disagree.

 

[Jim O]

John,

I don't think your impartiality is being questioned, or your integrity. I would say that, in general, from what I have seen, you are taking your responsibility seriously. I agree with Jim F that the referenced post was only questionably worthy of a warning but that's your call, as Rich has made clear. I also have no problem with that (so far). Where I also agree with Jim F though is that, with one "bullet" per day, your use of it on that particular post may not have been its most "effective" use.

 

[Cat_72]

John,

I don't think your impartiality is being questioned, or your integrity. I would say that, in general, from what I have seen, you are taking your responsibility seriously. I agree with Jim F that the referenced post was only questionably worthy of a warning but that's your call, as Rich has made clear. I also have no problem with that (so far). Where I also agree with Jim F though is that, with one "bullet" per day, your use of it on that particular post may not have been its most "effective" use.

I was trying to say that, Jim.....but couldn't get it to come out right so I just didn't post it. Thank you for voicing what my brain was trying to convey to me (and John) but my fingers kept messing up.