Status check and poll on recent crack down

[Chameleon Company]

Rick,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Surely many questions may be asked of why someone has a certain opinion, while at the same time they are under no obligation to answer except to say what the opinion is, and that they are content with it. I don't think that I identified the person as a "friend". their thoughts on it, although somewhat brief, were pretty clear, and not in the positive. Everyone will absolutely see it differently, but as in many things, not all objectively. For instance, Wendy took me to task just for participating as I do in the BOI and here. While it was OK for her and others, she expected more from me ! I am not endorsing that standard, but it exists. I did make it pretty clear that I was not a fan of HELL, and held it in lower regard earlier, calling it the "red light" district on Fauna. Others chose to then chide me about participating. So, I entertained their concerns. My comments may only hit home to just a few folks, who were in a position to be so targeted.

Dan,
I certainly can sympathize with anyone's view that "its not for me", and we concur that its not an all-bad thing.

Which then brings me to Dennis.
You are right as well, in that most of it is civil, and that it shares many of the same member's, etc., as the BOI regulars. But it also has its moments when it is uncivil, similar to the old BOI, and a poor reflection on at least its immediate participants. We both know that, valid or not, people will judge you by the "company you keep". If we were to take a broad poll of those who know of the BOI in the greater reptile community, and of HELL, and ask them if they think more or less of participants there, the average rating for HELL participants would be lower than that of the BOI (which would still be viewed poorly by some, and is part of Rich's motivation to clean it up), and very few would rate it as being a "good thing", with most opinions ranging in the "doesn't matter" to "poorer reflection" category. As Rick mentioned, the "judge not lest ye be judged" will matter to some, and not to many others. You and I judge folks in the BOI all the time. As you know of late, I have very specific reasons to think poorly of some of the posts there, and those who made them. In a way, I am also grateful that they had the opportunity to show what they did, and I used it to my benefit. I also think it likely that discussing it here may actually increase enrollment there !

Dennis, and Rick, and Dan, we may not always agree, but especially with Dennis and Dan (as you post often), you two are a big part of what is good about the BOI and the site. If you had the time and desire to post more Rick, I am sure that you would bring many good things ot the table as well. You all give it credibility. Right now, there's only about a handful of folks ... maybe a dozen.... that provide most of the substance in the BOI. Within that dozen, anything legitimate gets looked at pretty well, with nary a stone unturned. We are all hoping that the crackdown will bring more into the fold, and hopefully we will see that. I think we all know that when we disagree, it makes for some of the better reading around here. And with that, I salute you. FYI, like Rich, my recent ability to spend time here is about to reduce drastically. I'm sure that will be OK with a few.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

LOL OK, I can dig it. And very well put.
I couldn't speak like that if I tried. LOL I have not the vocabulary.

Rick

 

[Chameleon Company]

Well, neither does our President, but he sure finds a way to make the connection to enough folks to get elected ! Getting back to something Dennis said, the biggest blemish carried by HELL is the bashing of other members IMO. To those of us who know that we can't please everybody, we take some comfort in knowing that those we don't are showing the distinction. Some of us enjoy handing those that do take the cheaper shots the logs to throw on those fires !

 

[KelliH]

I'm a member of the HELL forum. If that fact lowers someone's opinion of me, well, that's their prerogative of course. I myself try not to base my opinion of another on what online forums they subscribe to, rather on their honestly, kindness and integrity.

Some posts in HELL are funny and entertaining, some are asinine, and some are just plain boring. Sort of the way it is in every forum here on Fauna!

As far as the rule enforcement topic goes, it's not hard to be civil and polite while still having a debate or discussion with another(s). I've been a member of this site for a few years, and have made quite a few posts, which I managed to do without earning a single warning point. I'm not special by any means, I just see no real point in name calling and etc. Well, except in HELL of course, hehee! ;-p

 

[reptilebreeder]

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.

Well, I've said my piece in a number of the older related threads, so other than voting in this one, I've stayed out of this thread, and any of the newer related ones, but thought maybe I could voice a little more on that statement. I agree with the credibility, and respectability issues, the effectiveness is the one I'm "worried" about. Being credible and respectable, will I think cause the effectiveness of the BOI to get better, in that it will help in those situations where a "mistake" has been made by an otherwise good guy, or a bad guy on the "brink", and they will rectify the mistake because they have decided to stay in the good graces of the BOI.

What I am worried about is the "bigger picture", that is the outright scammers, real thieves, and real bad guys. Now in a way, the BOI is not effective with these types anyway, because for the most part they don't care. Where I think the "old" BOI was effective, was we had quite a few "bulldogs" who were very tenacious with these type of people, so that even though they were basically saying "up yours" to the BOI, they were still feeling a lot of heat. These bulldogs always kept a look out all over the web, every time they (bad guys) popped up on another site with ads, or different forums with different alias', or whatever, they would be re-exposed, or would just get tired of being hounded. I think that is what we are going to lose with the "new" BOI. I'm already seeing more threads that have only 4 or 5 responses, something like; Here's how I got scammed......then a couple people saying..."Sorry you got scammed, thanks for letting us know about it" and the thread dissapears in 2 days. If the bulldogs where still here they would have searched these people down, and exposed everything about them. Then rather than just a "sorry it happened" post dissapearing, we would either have a resolution, or have "massively" exposed these people. In other instances lately, I've seen a couple threads where there was enough activity and pressure, to truly expose a scammer, but now it seems easier for them to head off to other sites and continue on with little pressure and exposure.

Now I realize that the new BOI in and of itself would not necessarily stop this "bulldogism", but it just seems like maybe the personality of those guys is what made them "bulldogs", and that personality clashes with the new BOI, and I'm not just talking about one that got banned, I can think of at least a half dozen off the top of my head who haven't been around. Maybe, personally I'm just putting too big a scope of what I see as what the BOI could be. It's probably not the "responsibility" of the BOI to help save other people at all the other sites.

 

[bcfos]

I'm a member of the HELL forum. If that fact lowers someone's opinion of me, well, that's their prerogative of course. I myself try not to base my opinion of another on what online forums they subscribe to, rather on their honestly, kindness and integrity.

Some posts in HELL are funny and entertaining, some are asinine, and some are just plain boring. Sort of the way it is in every forum here on Fauna!

As far as the rule enforcement topic goes, it's not hard to be civil and polite while still having a debate or discussion with another(s). I've been a member of this site for a few years, and have made quite a few posts, which I managed to do without earning a single warning point. I'm not special by any means, I just see no real point in name calling and etc. Well, except in HELL of course, hehee! ;-p

Kelli sweetheart.. I think very highly of you. And I think your business transaction history pretty much puts anyone who doubts your integrity to rest.

And honestly as long as things which go on in hell are kept there I don't see any issues that hold any merit which may effect the general board. If I am correct you have to buy a membership to even view it so if someone is so against it don't pony up and pay to view it. You know the old saying "Out of sight out of mind"? Well that applies to hell.

And you know the changes Rich made have made a big impact on the site due to the fact I haven't called one single person a name since my return.

Honestly it made it a bit more fun due to the fact you have to actually think before you post. Plus seeing people who you know do not like each other not calling each other names when you know if the rule wasn't there they would do just that has a bit of twisted humor in it also.

 

[WebSlave]

John,

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but the problem I had was that the "bulldogs" sometimes acted rabid. They went after everyone and anyone who happened to disagree with their opinion and then chased them all over this site to hound then in every way possible, over things completely unrelated to the original issue. Then when someone else would pipe up, they too would get the dogs unleashed on them. Potentially new poster everywhere on this site were fearful of the attention of the "bulldogs" and as such would lurk in safety rather then stick their toes in the water by posting and give the dogs their scent.

I saw countess examples of someone being ripped into by someone, and then this bulldog getting "attaboy" karma points from other bulldogs. Then one of the others would do the same thing, and the others would reciprocate. Over and over again, round and round it went. It was a game with them. But a damaging one that I needed to put to sleep or find this site in the doghouse.

I didn't care about anyone's bulldog "personality". What I cared about is their bulldog "presence". People were afraid to walk into his yard with them prowling about. No one was really safe from being turned on by them for the slightest of reasons. If being a bulldog means you cannot have the self control and wits about you to now who and when to bite, then I guess I have to accept the loss of bulldogs around here to make the gains I am striving for.

But honestly, why would even a bulldog be muzzled by the simple requests to keep the barking civil? Paraphrasing a popular phrase, they could quite simply "Bark softly, but carry a big bite." Posting damning facts and evidence certainly does not requite a heaping helping of antagonism and derogatory name calling, does it? So what's the beef? Just angry because I took away the doggie chew toys they used to have here in being able to take a bite out of other members at will?

Well, I made my choices, and they made theirs.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Brian,
I think I laughed for two minutes at your observations as noted in the last paragraph of your post ! Twisted... Yes ! But funny too !

 

[reptilebreeder]

John,

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but the problem I had was that the "bulldogs" sometimes acted rabid. They went after everyone and anyone who happened to disagree with their opinion and then chased them all over this site to hound then in every way possible, over things completely unrelated to the original issue. Then when someone else would pipe up, they too would get the dogs unleashed on them. Potentially new poster everywhere on this site were fearful of the attention of the "bulldogs" and as such would lurk in safety rather then stick their toes in the water by posting and give the dogs their scent.

I saw countess examples of someone being ripped into by someone, and then this bulldog getting "attaboy" karma points from other bulldogs. Then one of the others would do the same thing, and the others would reciprocate. Over and over again, round and round it went. It was a game with them. But a damaging one that I needed to put to sleep or find this site in the doghouse.

I didn't care about anyone's bulldog "personality". What I cared about is their bulldog "presence". People were afraid to walk into his yard with them prowling about. No one was really safe from being turned on by them for the slightest of reasons. If being a bulldog means you cannot have the self control and wits about you to now who and when to bite, then I guess I have to accept the loss of bulldogs around here to make the gains I am striving for.

But honestly, why would even a bulldog be muzzled by the simple requests to keep the barking civil? Paraphrasing a popular phrase, they could quite simply "Bark softly, but carry a big bite." Posting damning facts and evidence certainly does not requite a heaping helping of antagonism and derogatory name calling, does it? So what's the beef? Just angry because I took away the doggie chew toys they used to have here in being able to take a bite out of other members at will?

Well, I made my choices, and they made theirs.

I also understand what you are saying. I also agree with you that in principle the new rules should not have muzzled them, that's why I previously said that their "bulldogedness" and tenacity must have been due to traits or personality that ultimately clashed with the "restaints". I guess the big worry I have is that "we" need to find a middle between "regular members were to afraid to post" and "having a place so timid, that even bad guys will not be afraid to post or care if they are outed".
As for one of my other issues, I'm realizing that "we" can't be expected to save all the other herpers, at all the other sites, which was one of the reasons I liked the bulldogs "search and destroy" stuff. That was just a personal expectation, that I think was a bit much.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Well, I've said my piece in a number of the older related threads, so other than voting in this one, I've stayed out of this thread, and any of the newer related ones, but thought maybe I could voice a little more on that statement. I agree with the credibility, and respectability issues, the effectiveness is the one I'm "worried" about. Being credible and respectable, will I think cause the effectiveness of the BOI to get better, in that it will help in those situations where a "mistake" has been made by an otherwise good guy, or a bad guy on the "brink", and they will rectify the mistake because they have decided to stay in the good graces of the BOI.

What I am worried about is the "bigger picture", that is the outright scammers, real thieves, and real bad guys. Now in a way, the BOI is not effective with these types anyway, because for the most part they don't care. Where I think the "old" BOI was effective, was we had quite a few "bulldogs" who were very tenacious with these type of people, so that even though they were basically saying "up yours" to the BOI, they were still feeling a lot of heat. These bulldogs always kept a look out all over the web, every time they (bad guys) popped up on another site with ads, or different forums with different alias', or whatever, they would be re-exposed, or would just get tired of being hounded. I think that is what we are going to lose with the "new" BOI. I'm already seeing more threads that have only 4 or 5 responses, something like; Here's how I got scammed......then a couple people saying..."Sorry you got scammed, thanks for letting us know about it" and the thread dissapears in 2 days. If the bulldogs where still here they would have searched these people down, and exposed everything about them. Then rather than just a "sorry it happened" post dissapearing, we would either have a resolution, or have "massively" exposed these people. In other instances lately, I've seen a couple threads where there was enough activity and pressure, to truly expose a scammer, but now it seems easier for them to head off to other sites and continue on with little pressure and exposure.

Now I realize that the new BOI in and of itself would not necessarily stop this "bulldogism", but it just seems like maybe the personality of those guys is what made them "bulldogs", and that personality clashes with the new BOI, and I'm not just talking about one that got banned, I can think of at least a half dozen off the top of my head who haven't been around. Maybe, personally I'm just putting too big a scope of what I see as what the BOI could be. It's probably not the "responsibility" of the BOI to help save other people at all the other sites.

John in effort is still being made, just a little more polished on top. I know myself and others have put a lot of time into keeping track on some of the worst out there but we do have other responsibilities as well. Just today some of the members here have posted information about a “less than honest” person resurfacing on another forum. They are making an effort. Get back on the BOI and help out. You’re input would be helpful and needed!

 

[WebSlave]

John in effort is still being made, just a little more polished on top. I know myself and others have put a lot of time into keeping track on some of the worst out there but we do have other responsibilities as well. Just today some of the members here have posted information about a “less than honest” person resurfacing on another forum. They are making an effort. Get back on the BOI and help out. You’re input would be helpful and needed!

Ah! Interesting observation. There really is nothing preventing anyone from becoming a "bulldog" with a more selective bite.

You know, I have worked for some companies that had a policy of anyone reporting a problem was then tasked with coming up with a solution to fix it. Cut down complaints to management drastically.........

 

[bcfos]

Brian,
I think I laughed for two minutes at your observations as noted in the last paragraph of your post ! Twisted... Yes ! But funny too !

Well Jim we all have our moments. Just now we have to think about them before typing. And trust me I laugh at myself more than you could imagine now days.

 

[WebSlave]

Things seem to have reached a pretty even keel around here lately, so I am considering toning down the severity of the warning system somewhat. Just thinking out loud here, so bear with me.

One aspect I am considering changing is the eternal persistence of the public warning log. But HOW to do that is a bit problematical. What I want to do is to have a situation whereby once the warnings accumulate to the level that a member warrants a fine and suspension (which will require them a bit more effort to reach), that the warning points in the publicly viewable display will be cleared and reset back to zero. However a private log will still be maintained for the use of myself and the moderators to consider the track record of someone who appears to be a recurring problem. With more and more members here, trying to remember such things really isn't very easy to do.

But there are some issues with this approach. Is it fair for someone to get a couple of one pointers to have that on their public record pretty much permanently while someone who gets fined and suspended will then have their warning point log cleared? In effect making someone with a lesser number and less severe warnings look more as a problem then someone who habitually gets themselves suspended now and again. At least up to the point that the habitual offender reaches the limit where he/she gets banned permanently.

I suppose I could have my programmer put a CRON routine in place to automatically clear the public warning log every year, but doing something like that could quite probably have December 31 of every year turning this place into a site wide HELL forum, since everyone would know that the warning points that day wouldn't matter as long as they kept the level below the fine and suspension stage. They would be cleared out anyway, so their activities that day really won't matter much. But for myself and the moderators, perhaps it really would be a HELL day for us trying to keep on top of people taking advantage of this loophole in the system.

And what about the accumulated points up to this time? My gut feeling is to just wipe the slate clean, but not to the point that anyone fined and suspended would get their fine cleared out. We have members with from 1 to 96 warning points on here at this time, and everything in between. Just not sure how to handle this one.......

Heck, how do I even address the more moderate view of some things? Is there really any FAIR way to do it? Some one using profanity two times is OK, but the third time gets you fined and suspended? With 27,000 registered members, with each getting two counts of profanity for free, that means potentially 54,000 posts with profanity within them that would be considered acceptable according to the rules.

So, what I want to do is to tone down the handling of honest mistakes in judgement without giving a carte blanche loophope. I know I was harsh upon implementing the crackdown, but I hoped that the results would be worth the method for getting there. I think the point has gotten across to most people, so that part of it does seem to have been accomplished. And there is certainly the issue of a first time offender for things like profanity and threats should just KNOW that such things aren't allowed, or shouldn't be, in a publicly accessible forum such as this. So there will still be cases of a harsh penalty resulting from a first time offense, if myself or the moderators feel it is warranted by the circumstances surrounding the post. Not everyone will agree at all times, but I can't take away this selectivity in how the rules are enforced here by hobbling the moderators with unreasonable stipulations in how they act. I have no reason to doubt their judgement, so yes, there are some aspects of this that are needful of being discretionary.

Honestly, one option I was considering is just abandoning the warning system altogether. Although I believe it has done a lot of good, helping to clean things up here, it can really be a pain in the butt a lot of the times. It generates ill will from a lot of the people who get warned, no matter what the circumstances, since no one likes to be reprimanded in public. On my CornSnakes.com site, my methodology is completely different. Problem members are simply issued 3 day suspensions. If followups are required, the length of time is stretched out as appropriate. But that site is completely different from this one, and unruly members are thankfully a rarity. I never really felt the need to implement the warning system on that site.

Another option I just thought of is to just remove the warning system completely from public scrutiny. It would still be in effect, but no one but myself and the moderators could view the warning system at all. In a way, this may be the better of the choices, since the warning system is really a tool for us to use to keep track of members who appear to be acting in a capacity that does not have the interests of this site in everyone else's best interests. So is there really any need at all for public scrutiny of this management tool? The reason I preferred to have it public from the beginning was because I wanted a public log for all to see to use as an audit of how myself and the moderators react to and treat the members here when issues arise. No behind the scenes penalties or such. Everything out in the open. But perhaps that just is not necessary and is causing more problems then I had hoped it would solve.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of thinking out loud here. I don't expect anything I do with it to be a perfect solution, but since it does appear that the known "bullies" I had some concerns about have gotten the picture, perhaps it is time to tone it down a notch or three. Make the warning system more like it was originally with some latitude for a learning curve on the part of a new member, or one who just lost some control here and there and needs to be reminded of the courtesy and good taste we hope to get from them in their postings.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Hey Rich,
Just a couple of thoughts. I for one have no problem with accumulated warning points staying with me. On the one hand, they were earned, but have also been atoned for, as any of us that has them have done our Penance. Like rep points, you also expect there to be a higher amount for those who have posted more often. So having something that eliminates them sounds like a "solve one problem, create two more" proposition from my view, for the reasons you mention

I do truly like the system that you describe with Cornsnake. I would love to see something similar but maybe even a bit more flexible, where you guys can slap a 1-3-5 day suspension on someone. Maybe thats getting too involved with the programming, and I understand that, but I see it as less antagonistic than some of the alternatives. Speaking only for myself, if I slip up and get a "3 day" suspension that I think I don't quite deserve, like or not, I get 3 days to cool off before I say anything about it. Otherwise, I pay $10, and I'm right back mad as hell ! Anyhow, thanks for your "thinking out loud". It was refreshing.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

I don't envy you your job at all Rich. I'd get migrains if I had to think that hard.
I do agre with Jim about the warning points staying though.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

agreE

 

[TomO]

I'll add my agreement to the above posts - keep the warning points. The temporary suspension idea is also a good one IMO, and I think it would further the effort to keep this forum cleaned up without alienating unintentional offenders. You could always impose a threshold wherby a certain number of temporary suspensions leads to something more severe. I say all that without knowing what kind of programming would be needed to support all that. Is it even feasable in that regard?

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Rich I will admit that I have not read the entire post but what I did have time to read and process:

Getting rid of the warning systems as it is and going to the cornsnake type is unfair to previous suspended and paid to be back members.

I think the points should be public, it kinda gives you an idea of the person you are dealing with, as for me and mine, you can tell that when angry or when I feel backed into a corner I attack, re-act and sometimes call names, if that were mod info only, well, I don't know.

I also have no problem with my warning points, I earned them, not in a proud way but they do remind me that I have to watch my steps with how I act.

Ill read more later and see if I have more input, just not much time today.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

??????????????
You mean Rich? LOL

 

[The BoidSmith]

t about the accumulated points up to this time? My gut feeling is to just wipe the slate clean, but not to the point that anyone fined and suspended would get their fine cleared out.

What you are proposing is some sort of amnesty, and its fine with me.

Regards.