Shrillomn, a brief expose

[JetStar]

how do i give negative karma points? i would like to give out a few.

 

[Mike Greathouse]

Kim,
As a registered user, you can only give positive karma. You have to be a paid member to hand out negative karma.

 

[JetStar]

thank you. the more im here the less iw ant to become a paid member.

 

[Mike Greathouse]

Kim,
Then as demonstrated in this very thread, you may be taking things a little too seriously.
Fauna is a wonderful place for the exchange of information between like-minded reptile enthusiasts. You just have to make the distinction between the informational threads and the entertainment threads. In case there is any question - this is an entertainment thread.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

In case there is any question - this is an entertainment thread.

It is that, aint it.

 

[shrap]

I for one have found this entertainment thread to be very educational......

 

[The BoidSmith]

Kim,

You are fairly new here; don’t let a few posts that you disagree with deter you from contributing to this site. As you can probably already tell we need fresh idea and positive thinkers. If you feel that you don’t agree with a post simply state so in your reply. Spreading negative karma will only help perpetuate the problem.

Regards.

 

[Shrillomn]

In my opinion, you have the ability to be one of the leaders of this site. Those times when you use your knowledge to help others here, you are a very impressive individual. I have handed you karma points more then once for your efforts. However, you seem to go from brilliant posts to nonsense at the blink of an eye.

A leader?
Mike, you've got to be kidding, right?
I see many more of Wes' posts falling into the nonsense category, then could ever be entered into the brilliant side of things.

With every post, he finds himself alienating more good people. If, as he has stated, he is actually adding those who disagree with his childish antics to his ignore list, it will only be a matter of time until he stands alone here. I think the damage that he does to himself and to the credibility of this site, far outweighs the occasional bad guy that he may thwart.

Of course, now that he is Robin Hood, he shouldn't have any trouble making new friends on the Cartoon Network forums.

Let's face it, on the information superhighway, Wes is roadkill!

 

[Cat_72]

While I may not agree with everything Wes says and does here.....at least he has the cajones to do it under his own name, and not hide behind a coward's pseudonym.

 

[Lucille]

Let's face it, on the information superhighway, Wes is roadkill!

I think it's good to separate behaviors you don't agree with from the entire person. Wes has taken time to give good information to people. He helped me one time when I needed advice about snake mites.

No, it doesn't do, to vilify the entire person. If you're talking information, Wes has a lot of it, and a lot of reptile experience.

 

[Chameleon Company]

While I may not agree with everything Wes says and does here.....at least he has the cajones to do it under his own name, and not hide behind a coward's pseudonym.

True, and I would like to see Pez post under their real identity. But as noted earlier, Wes does not risk very much even using his own name, and quite frankly, it takes far less cajones to behave in aggressive (or childish) ways here, from behind a keyboard, than it does "old style". There are occasional posts in Fauna that show courage ..... but I don't recall seeing Wes' signature on any.

No, it doesn't do, to vilify the entire person. If you're talking information, Wes has a lot of it, and a lot of reptile experience.

True, it does not. But the "entire" Wes is not being vilified. Rather his often distincively malcontent posting, and the waste that it is here. He's the author, and to simplify, as currently constituted, is he part of the problem or part of the solution ? I think that all people are saying here is for Wes to consider ratcheting it down a bit, as he'd be a heck of a lot more effective, and maybe energies here could be redirected towards any number of other noble ends. Its still a worthy challenge to get in the subtle prodding within the elevated game. He's a good enough word-smith to do it.

 

[Suncoast Herpetological]

I think it's good to separate behaviors you don't agree with from the entire person. Wes has taken time to give good information to people. He helped me one time when I needed advice about snake mites.

No, it doesn't do, to vilify the entire person. If you're talking information, Wes has a lot of it, and a lot of reptile experience.

I agree with the statement in Bold Lucille. The problem is that in order to get to the useful 10% of what Wes posts you have to wade through the river of bile and nonsensical crap that he spews in the other 90%.

I, frankly, do not find the positive 10% worth the trouble

 

[The BoidSmith]

Guys, if you don't mind it's "cojones" and not "cajones". The latter means "drawers" or "boxes" in Spanish. Back at it!

 

[Wilomn]

I LOVE the ignore feature.

And thank you lucille, backhanded though it was.

For those who can't read, I am NOTHING like Robin Hood, he wanted responsibility for those around him, I can't get far enough away from some of you for my own comfort, and still play here, so on to ignore those individuals go.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

So if you ignore someone, can they still read your posts? I assume you cannot read theirs if on ignore. Never tried it myself. I always figure even the dummest person on the site might get lucky once or twice and actually offer something good to say. Wouldn't want to miss that. LOL

While I may not agree with everything Wes says and does here.....at least he has the cajones to do it under his own name, and not hide behind a coward's pseudonym.

Couldn't agree with that more. Sorta hard to take what he has to say seriously at all.

 

[Wilomn]

So if you ignore someone, can they still read your posts? I assume you cannot read theirs if on ignore. Never tried it myself. I always figure even the dummest person on the site might get lucky once or twice and actually offer something good to say. Wouldn't want to miss that. LOL



Couldn't agree with that more. Sorta hard to take what he has to say seriously at all.

They can still read your posts, be they the dumBest person on fauna or not, when you put them on ignore. That's why chumpco has his little tools quote his posts, to be sure that I, the most important person in his life, sees his pathetic attempts at humor. At least, I think it's humor. It's really hard to be generous enough to actually call it that most of the time though, being as how almost everything he posts is either self-serving backslapping or just pathetically idiotic.

 

[PaulSage]

I think it's good to separate behaviors you don't agree with from the entire person.

I agree.

 

[Seamus Haley]

I think it's good to separate behaviors you don't agree with from the entire person.

Sometimes that's going to be the reverse though. If the majority of someone's behavior is contemptible then I'd say it's pretty fair to slap the label on the individual and make positive exceptions for those rare times they manage not to cause irritation.

Seperating the behaviors you *do* agree with from the individual who, on the whole, you do not.

 

[DAND]

I agree with the statement in Bold Lucille. The problem is that in order to get to the useful 10% of what Wes posts you have to wade through the river of bile and nonsensical crap that he spews in the other 90%.

I, frankly, do not find the positive 10% worth the trouble

Though 10% is being more than generous.

The Wes of old had its purpose. The present version that like a perforated condom is a mere shadow of what it once used to be and has since outlived its usefulness and function.

 

[ms_terese]

Let me see if I have this right...

A troll shows up to expose what are, in his/her opinion, the current flaws of Fauna's moderation status and an unnamed group of its users who "heap abuse" on people here.

The troll is fed and even encouraged.

The owner of Fauna has declared ad nauseum that it's not worth his time and/or trouble to change the current moderation status.

There is heavy evaluation as to what percentage of Wes' posts are helpful, and reams of advice as to how he could become more helpful, along with a determination that "he needs help".

Do I have this right so far?

Here are my thoughts on this:

Accept that Rich will continue to do whatever he wants with this site, as is his right as the OWNER of it.

Someone please take careful notes of Wes' performance as a poster, so that when he receives his next performance appraisal as a Fauna member his deficiencies in satisfying those that don't like his input can be addressed. It may cost him his annual salary increase here, but at least he'll be admonished for not behaving as others would like him to.

Look up the definition of TROLL and then ask yourself if Shrillomn is a representative part of what you might have issues with on Fauna. I'm still amazed that some people are supporting the exact behavior from Shrillomn that Wes is being skewered for. Irony, anyone?

Finally, and most importantly, utilize and enjoy what parts of this site meet your needs and ignore those areas (and people) which don't.

And that's all I have to say about that.