Status check and poll on recent crack down

[Dennis Hultman]

Rich,
I feel for you man. I really do.

Undersatement of the year.

Jim,
In my opinion there are threads in Hell that should not be deleted. One of the main reasons I subscribed to Hell was to have access to those threads that have BOI information.

In my own views, I believe that I called someone both a liar and a thief in a thread in 2004. Like you, I had been the target of their actions. I don't believe that I have used it since, but will not swear to it.

LOL Jim, It has been exactly one month today.

 

[NiCoLe L RuSSeLL]

Its the Fauna "red-light" district. As a libertarian leaning person, I happen to have views of prostitution that say its OK if its what you want. I would hope that its just a little bit outside of town though ...... as I don't want to see it, smell it, hear it, etc. That's my answer.

Someone give this man a huge pat on the back. Very well said.

 

[nicolai]

WELL SAID JIM !!!!!!!!! I for one see this as a never ending thread with no one ever having the majority. All the "long timers" on this thread defending the "ruthless enforcement" thought they would have the overwhelming support of the members on this issue but as i see it the votes are pretty even if not slighlty favored to scaling it back a little. In my opinion that right there says something up doesnt it??? You all say let the members have a say, well they are and none of you want to even hear what they are saying or want to meet them in the middle somewhere.
Jim, I for one am on your side in saying that things truly need to be scaled back a bit if there is a liberal or free speechside to this site at all. You dont have to persecute everyone to get your point accross. And yes 10.00 is a lot of money to some people, it just might be the difference of having thier next meal, you never know just how bad the next person has it.
I dont know who mentioned it earlier in this thread about getting rid of Hell but in my opinion hell is the only place that you can actually say what you want (to a point, because it is somewhat moderated) to get your point accross and a heck of as lot of people joined hell just for that reason, I remember a lot of people saying "no one will pay to keep hell!!", well guess what......a lot of people, A LOT OF PEOPLE...have paid to join hell and more and more people keep joining, the freedom of speech, the chance at some good humor, the chance to chat openly with friend and the opportunity to settle disputes has a value to it and people realize it and are willing to pay for it. So the the "NAY SAYERS" of hell, I say, if you dont like it dont join it!!! Why complain about it if you dont even know whats going on in there???? Are people so self concious that they dont want a place like hell where someone might just be talking about them?

Jim, Don't back down!!!! You have support here !!!!! I agree with you !!!! Wendy, I noticed you

Point being, the rules are the rules, PERIOD!

Like em... who cares
Abide by them.... one really should
Sliding by the mods.. a gift that finds the members lacking in the ability to report abuse

All in all, what are you posting for? A less strict system as I can see it.

Pick your battles, those you know you cannot win, drop it, those you think you can win, think twice before speaking, those you know you can win, think 3 times before speaking.

All in all this entire topic is and always was a dead horse.

Wendy, you are really surprising me in your views on this thread.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Nicholas,
I thank you for your support, but must also confess that I was the one who presented the argument for jettisoning HELL. While I may have raised it to see how it fit in with the mindset of the management of the entire site, it was still I who attempted to drop-kick that one thru the goalposts of life

 

[shrap]

Undersatement of the year.

It's only February man!!


Just for the record I did vote for scaling things back a bit. While I am the first to clown around and make jest of anything I can, I see no reason in being rude and insulting to people JUST for the sake of being rude and insulting. I for one am glad to see that that element of this site has diminished greatly.

 

[Lucille]

. You dont have to persecute everyone to get your point accross.

Nicolai, you seem to be moving the center of responsibility by focussing on the enforcement of rules rather than being puzzled, as I am, as to why some people here cannot monitor their own language in the first place, which I am SURE that the VAST majority of them CAN do in their own lives: in church, in front of their employers, etc.

In fact it is those people who use abusive language who are the persecutors as evidenced by by their lack of self control, getting THEIR point across by being discourteous and nasty..

People should be more responsible than some of them are for monitoring their own choice of language here. Those who can and do use ordinary, common courtesy are not going to have to worry about anyone's 'point'.


This here is not a game, I am here to tell you that the nasty hurtful language that some people have chosen to use in the past is not a victimless crime, people are HURT by it and the board and community as a whole, as well as the reputation of Fauna, is damaged by that kind of behavior.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Ah Grasshopper !

Originally posted by Dennis:

Originally Posted by Chamco
In my own views, I believe that I called someone both a liar and a thief in a thread in 2004. Like you, I had been the target of their actions. I don't believe that I have used it since, but will not swear to it.

LOL Jim, It has been exactly one month today.

Some of you have way too much time on your hands. However, the word "it" was referring to the use of the word "liar" in the expanded conversation between Paul and I, or even if parsed as you have above, then "it" would be "a liar and a thief". However, I did refer to someone as a thief in the post that you reference, and quoted that a mod had called this person a "liar". Somewhat shockingly, as it was an antagonistic post, I received positive rep points from the mod for it, although I did not view that as a change in policy, just an abherration. I was surprised, to put it mildly, as it was an antagonistic post. I think it also of note that the entity was not participating in the thread, in which case my comments would have been more directly inflammatory. Next assignment Dennis, when was the last time I called someone a jerk?

 

[Chameleon Company]

Lucille, I am going to have to err towards Nicholai here

Originally posted by Lucille:
Nicolai, you seem to be moving the center of responsibility by focussing on the enforcement of rules rather than being puzzled, as I am, as to why some people here cannot monitor their own language in the first place, which I am SURE that the VAST majority of them CAN do in their own lives: in church, in front of their employers, etc.

In fact it is those people who use abusive language who are the persecutors as evidenced by by their lack of self control, getting THEIR point across by being discourteous and nasty..

People should be more responsible than some of them are for monitoring their own choice of language here. Those who can and do use ordinary, common courtesy are not going to have to worry about anyone's 'point'.

While I agree with all of your points about personal accountability, I Nicholai's defense, this thread bagan with a poll about the enforcement of the rules, and not about the broader social expectations. I highlighted a portion of your post, about conduct in "church, at work, etc". I would like to conjecture that if you were sitting in church next to someone who you claim had just scammed you out of $1K, or working with someone who stole your paycheck, that both the sermon would be disrupted, and the water cooler might become a projectile. These are otherwise decent folks reacting. To many of us, the issue is not, in the words of Rodney King "Why can't we all just get along", but rather how do we maintain a forum for dialogue when we cannot.

I also understand your views, as I am aware of some of the tangent flame wars for which there should have been no expectation of uncivil behavior, but there they were anyway. They were (and are) childish, inexcusable, and worthy of no approval.

 

[The BoidSmith]

Nicholas,

WELL SAID JIM !!!!!!!!! I for one see this as a never ending thread with no one ever having the majority.

And that’s fine; it’s comforting to verify that people can have different viewpoints and still be able to manifest them in a civil way.

All the "long timers" on this thread defending the "ruthless enforcement" thought they would have the overwhelming support of the members on this issue but as i see it the votes are pretty even if not slighlty favored to scaling it back a little.

As a “long timer” here I didn’t expect to see 100% agreement on the opinions expressed. In all honesty I would probably feel disappointed if we had.

In my opinion that right there says something up doesnt it??? You all say let the members have a say, well they are and none of you want to even hear what they are saying or want to meet them in the middle somewhere.

What does it say? That we can all get along while having differing opinions? Is that so bad? What’s been proposed by some is in reality a middle ground. Some feel that at this point in time people are not yet ready to act civilly in that middle ground. That’s maybe why some “long timers” feel that way. Maybe they have been around long enough to intuitively know what might happen in the event of a softening of the rues. Usually one of the characteristics of “long timers” and by extension “old timers” is the resilience to change. Oddly enough what we are seeing here is something completely different. There are “long timers” asking and supporting the change (stricter as opposed to the traditionally lax rules) whereas there are “newcomers” opposing that change, that’s a refreshing new attitude!

Jim, I for one am on your side in saying that things truly need to be scaled back a bit if there is a liberal or free speechside to this site at all.

Just remember that our rights end where the rights of another individual begin. One thing is to be liberal, a different one is to allow those same liberties to undermine the freedom of speech of other individuals. Some would love to be able to call people names without accepting the consequences. But that’s not the way it works in real life. In all the years I’ve been here for the first time I’ve noticed change in the way people interact with each other. And you know what maybe this new approach is helping them out with the approach they have to their life outside this site. It is quite obvious that some people behave exactly the same in here as compared to their day-to-day-life. They were asked to change, they couldn’t, and they followed the fate of the dinosaurs.

The current system is restricting that freedom of expression You dont have to persecute everyone to get your point accross.

We agree 100% on that one. You can choose to call someone a “liar” or you can tell him “that’s not how things happened”.

And yes 10.00 is a lot of money to some people, it just might be the difference of having thier next meal, you never know just how bad the next person has it.

Agreed again, make sure then that you don’t have to pay the $10. The example of the speeding ticket has been brought up repeatedly. You may get one, two, even three but as it gets steeper every time sooner or later you learn your lesson. Now in the case at hand if $10 is the difference between having your next meal or not I would suggest that individual to let go off the internet service, and spend the time typing in front of the computer searching for a job.

I dont know who mentioned it earlier in this thread about getting rid of Hell but in my opinion hell is the only place that you can actually say what you want (to a point, because it is somewhat moderated) to get your point accross and a heck of as lot of people joined hell just for that reason, I remember a lot of people saying "no one will pay to keep hell!!", well guess what......a lot of people, A LOT OF PEOPLE...have paid to join hell and more and more people keep joining, the freedom of speech, the chance at some good humor, the chance to chat openly with friend and the opportunity to settle disputes has a value to it and people realize it and are willing to pay for it. So the the "NAY SAYERS" of hell, I say, if you dont like it dont join it!!! Why complain about it if you dont even know whats going on in there???? Are people so self concious that they dont want a place like hell where someone might just be talking about them?

Initially I thought that the HELL concept was not a good idea, even when it was free. I was obviously wrong. There are people not only frequenting the forum but are even willing to pay! Hope those are not some of the ones that could use those $10 for their next meal!

Are you proposing then to turn the whole site into some kind of “purgatory” before jumping directly to Hell?

Regards.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Purgatory ! Now there's a word I hadn't heard lately ! In all honesty, Rich has explained why my wishes for an added tier or two in the penalty system for antagonistic posts is not practical. But if it were, along the lines of a "suspension", then I nominate that the current line which reads "Fined and Suspended" be adjusted to "Suspended - In Purgatory" while the offender does their Penance. Just a little Sunday morning humor from an Irish Catholic

 

[WebSlave]

WELL SAID JIM !!!!!!!!! I for one see this as a never ending thread with no one ever having the majority. All the "long timers" on this thread defending the "ruthless enforcement" thought they would have the overwhelming support of the members on this issue but as i see it the votes are pretty even if not slighlty favored to scaling it back a little. In my opinion that right there says something up doesnt it??? You all say let the members have a say, well they are and none of you want to even hear what they are saying or want to meet them in the middle somewhere.
Jim, I for one am on your side in saying that things truly need to be scaled back a bit if there is a liberal or free speechside to this site at all. You dont have to persecute everyone to get your point accross. And yes 10.00 is a lot of money to some people, it just might be the difference of having thier next meal, you never know just how bad the next person has it.

"All" the oldtimers? Sorry, I beg to differ. Some of those "oldtimers" are gone because they disagreed enough with the policy to not bother to try to change but instead force my hand to get me to roll it back. A test of resolve, I guess you would call it. One person got banned permanently because of his resentful resistance to this change.

And a 50/50 split on a poll, or even one that is not overwhelmingly in favor of change, is NOT a call to make changes. Look at the poll in another thread in this forum where I asked about offering a 1 day pass for $1. http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=582. That, my friend, is an overwhelming poll results in favor of one choice over the other. And to be honest, this kind of takes the air out of anyone's balloon claiming that one major problem with the fine and suspension is the high cost of the fine.

The poll, as I presented it, had two extremes and one middle ground option. What you are suggesting is, even without an overwhelming majority claiming a change is needed in the status quo, is to compromise between the compromise choice and the one recommending no change in the present course. Sorry, but that seems kind of nonsensical to me and is simply arguing just for the sake of argument.

So since when does "a liberal or free speechside to this site at all" require that a certain amount of profanity, antagonism, and derogatory name calling be here in order to allow that? Liberals cannot speak in a public forum without it? And for TOTAL free speech, while sounding good in theory, probably means something that only a very few special people with odd social interaction quirks would be very happy about. But I believe they are in the minority, here or anywhere, and I am not inclined to accommodate those quirks site wide.

"Persecute" to get my point across? Do you even know what that word means? Well look it up. The goal of my crackdown on enforcing the rules is because some people were persecuting others here with impunity and I determined that it will end. The bullies on the playground were asked to stop their unacceptable behavior, or leave. Simple as that. I could have pinpointed exactly the ones I felt were the causing the most problems and simply ejected them instantly. But I chose to give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them the opportunity to change, if they could. Although I was pretty certain the results would have been the same, and I think they were, the image presented with wholesale bannings is not a pleasant one, and one I preferred to avoid. So instead of the head shot with the 12 gauge, I chose the thousand cut death with the straight razor.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Since my PM box was a little heavy this AM there are some things Id like to address here to get it all out for all to see.

Ok here goes
#1 I respect Jim (Chamco) a great deal, I guess its not public knowledge since there would be no way for anyone but him and I to know but I have known him as a friend for I guess a little over 2 years now. I respect his views and just because him and I are not on the same page on this issue does not mean there is any less respect for him or his thoughts. As of late I have seen a side of Jim that I didn't know was there, I just had not seen the side of him that gets into all of these debates until the last few months and Ive talked to him about it in private as well. It does not change my view of him, just made me see he is human just like the rest of us and I had him in a "better than the rest of us" group.

#2 Yes, I at one time and not to long ago would have been on a different side and would have rallied to be able to call someone a liar, theif, jackass, etc. But things have changed for me a great deal this past year.

My 6 year old is starting to read and he takes basic computer classes, I use opera browser so whatever I was looking at last is on my screen when he looks at the computer. Its hard for me to tell him that liar etc. are bad words if he sees it being typed by my hand and on the site I am on day in and day out. So I would now say something like "that cannot be true, or you've got to be joking no one believes you etc" instead of out and out saying liar.

So this name calling issue is more about me and my family at the present time, just a personal thing I guess.

I also feel like as I have explained to Rich that this is his "house", we may pay to be here but its still his and if he says, you can no longer do something I think his request should be respected. After all, how many of you would want to run this site and put up with all the crap he does. Heck, Ive thrown crap a few times myself, but Rich has expressed his views and wants it to stop.

Making fauna a nicer place to be doesn't to me seem to be a bad idea. There are ways of getting a point across without having to use name calling out and out. It may take a few more words and a few more seconds of typing but all in all I don't think its that big of a deal to cut out the name calling.

 

[nicolai]

"All" the oldtimers? Sorry, I beg to differ. Some of those "oldtimers" are gone because they disagreed enough with the policy to not bother to try to change but instead force my hand to get me to roll it back. A test of resolve, I guess you would call it. One person got banned permanently because of his resentful resistance to this change.

So the plan you had in mind worked then? The troublemakers got the point and everyone learned from it.

"And a 50/50 split on a poll, or even one that is not overwhelmingly in favor of change, is NOT a call to make changes. Look at the poll in another thread in this forum where I asked about offering a 1 day pass for $1. http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=582. That, my friend, is an overwhelming poll results in favor of one choice over the other. And to be honest, this kind of takes the air out of anyone's balloon claiming that one major problem with the fine and suspension is the high cost of the fine.

I dont know how i missed that thread but i read through it and agree that example is a overwhelming majority in that instance.

""Persecute" to get my point across? Do you even know what that word means? Well look it up..

per·se·cute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrs-kyt)
tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes
1)To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2) To annoy persistently; bother


Well maybe my choices of words weren't the best in that case, Maybe "convicting and sentensing" or "condeming" or "judging" would have been a better choice of words but its all semantics since you know the point I was trying to get accross anyway.

Sorry, but that seems kind of nonsensical to me and is simply arguing just for the sake of argument...

Well I for one have seen this saying before...So before i get accused of trolling for arguing just for the sake of it, i will take my leave of this thread as I have already said what i felt was neccesary in my own views and what i felt was right. In the end Rich its your decision as always and the rest of us will follow your rules, I was only hoping to giove you my opinion on this and hopefully sway you into easing up a bit, but if you dont then you dont and i will just be very careful about what i say and how i say it and double check everything i write before i post it as i have been doing.

I will leave you with this quote:

In my opinion, attempting to keep a site focused on the area it was originally designed to accomodate is not censorship of those topics that fall outside of the focus. There HAS to be limits placed somewhere about what a site is for and what it is not for. Just as there has to be some line drawn about what is profanity and what is not. In most cases, this will all be extremely debatable as each person will have their own ideas on what should be the limits. ...

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19857&page=1&pp=40

In your own words.." Each person will have thier own ideas on what should be the limits"

 

[WebSlave]

In your own words.." Each person will have thier own ideas on what should be the limits"

Why certainly that is true. But someone else's opinion about what are violations of the rules does not neutralize nor override my own. As I have said many times now, err on the side of caution. I really don't care that profanity is second nature to someone. Nor do I care that they think it is OK to speak that way because they do and everyone else they know does. Maybe someone calls EVERYONE "nimrod" as a playful term of endearment, but here, it will not be wise to do that. If they don't get the picture after a few jolts of the stun gun, then hopefully they will be smart enough to realize that this site just is not compatible with their lifestyle and move on.

This policy is not intended to make anyone mad, to exclude anyone from the services this site can offer, or to keep someone from being here that may have something valuable to offer. It is designed to make this site effective, credible, and respectable. If this site is none of those, then it is useless as the tool I designed it to be. THAT is my motive. To make this site better then where it was apparently heading. So that when YOU get screwed in a deal, there is a real good chance the BOI will help YOU. That requires credibility in that everyone viewing the BOI needs to be aware that thousands of respectable members are involved and fully capable of influencing their future depending on how they deal with some issue brought to light. Posting such an issue in some mickey mouse kangaroo court that was on the verge of becoming irrelevant and purely a joke, would have been a waste of your efforts even typing in the letters of your message. Who cares if thousands of soap opera viewers think negatively about you? So what? I wouldn't be concerned about that either.

I am sorry that this motivation for becoming very strict about everyone's participation here is apparently not clear to some people.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

Though I am a firm believer in rules being enforced equally to all players, I voted for toning it down a bit. I guess what I meant by that is the consideration of any mitigating circumstances.
An example would be the word "liar". If you can prove the other is not being truthful, that fits the definition of liar completely, and therefor becomes factual, not slanderish or defaming in any way. Even a court of law will not honor such suites if you prove they're true. I know because it was tried on Me once, and it was dismissed because I proved with His own E-mails He was lying...... "So that would make you a liar" I believe the judge said.
Another example....Nimrod. I have no idea what that word really means, (if anything), but to Me it would be taken or used like "WAKE UP!" or "USE YOUR BRAIN" which in My oppinion is as unoffensive as they come, and not really deserving of such a stiff penance.

On the other hand some words hold nothing but antagonistic and hurtful value and maybe should warrant such stiff penalties. I guess I am saying that with out any middle ground, then everything is black and white, and all shades of grey are removed. This is not what our society is based upon, Nor do I think this community should go that route.

And what do you have against Hell Jim? It's a really a warm and cuddly place. I don't see how it could offend anybody seeing as they have to be a member of the forum to even know what goes on in there.
You should join. Let your hair down, loosen your belt, do whatever you do when you RELAX.

Rick

 

[WebSlave]

Though I am a firm believer in rules being enforced equally to all players, I voted for toning it down a bit. I guess what I meant by that is the consideration of any mitigating circumstances.
An example would be the word "liar". If you can prove the other is not being truthful, that fits the definition of liar completely, and therefor becomes factual, not slanderish or defaming in any way. Even a court of law will not honor such suites if you prove they're true. I know because it was tried on Me once, and it was dismissed because I proved with His own E-mails He was lying...... "So that would make you a liar" I believe the judge said.
Another example....Nimrod. I have no idea what that word really means, (if anything), but to Me it would be taken or used like "WAKE UP!" or "USE YOUR BRAIN" which in My oppinion is as unoffensive as they come, and not really deserving of such a stiff penance.


Rick

You know, when I was toying with the idea of really cracking down on the rules, I had to consider this exact problem. I would have liked nothing better then to be able to come up with a black and white definition, but is not as easy as it may seem to some. My first thought was to simply define derogatory name calling as something that is abusive and can't possibly be true. But that definition has some serious flaws, all of the revolving that some pretty nasty slurs CAN possibly be true, yet difficult to prove. So, for instance, if someone called someone else a "rotten bastard", well that would put me in the position of having to decide if perhaps the person using that term knows something about the target that I don't know. Because certainly someone COULD be a "bastard". Being a "rotten" one might be questionable, but even that could be subject to debate.

So I really have no choice but to define it loosely as meaning ANY name that is used to provoke anger or an emotional outburst from the recipient. And even then, it will still be a gray area, because myself and the mods will have to make some judgement calls on the many nuances of the English language. So yes, I know people would like to have strict guidelines, like do not exceed 35 miles per hour, but that just is not possible in a case like this.

So in the above light, do you think calling someone a "Nimrod" is going to be considered a provocation or not? How would most people react to being called a name like that? Personally if someone called me that, I do think I would be irritated by it. So in such cases, I have to put myself in the target's shoes and think of it that way.

So that is my opinion in this matter.

 

[The BoidSmith]

Lucille,

You sparked my curiosity as well Lucille, and here is what I found:

According to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, we may have none other than Bugs Bunny to thank for the more modern slang use of "nimrod" to mean "idiot" or "jerk." In one particular 1940s cartoon, Bugs sarcastically referred to the hapless hunter Elmer Fudd as "Poor little Nimrod." Although "nimrod" had already been used mockingly for a number of years, Bugs' popularity probably gave this "idiot" sense a huge boost, and it is now used in contexts that have nothing to do with hunting.

Regards

 

[WebSlave]

Speaking of the HELL forum, an interesting little tidbit here is that 34 members have currently paid to access that forum.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

I guess since "nimrod" actually has a definition, even if derived from Lord Bugs himself, I can see where it would be derogatory. But it's a new word to Me. LOL
And I can see your point on the matter as well Rich, It can't be easy making all the decisions you feel you have to make. It is a job I would not want.

34 Hell members.........WOOHOO. Come on Jim, #35 has your name on it.

 

[hers]

This poll is pointless. Half of us don't want a change and slightly more than half think a change is in order. When I saw this poll, I was thrilled. I had already been thinking that the rules needed to be scaled back slightly. But, after reading the majority of this thread, I see that the outcome doesn't really mean anything. Silly me, I thought that the object of a poll was to have a democracy, where the majority vote was the outcome.