Status check and poll on recent crack down

[Chameleon Company]

Rich et al,
I am one who appreciates your input here, and will get to a reply to those questions posed to me later in the day when I have more time. I did want to address a couple of concerns that I see drifting, and a bit mischaracterized.
No one has lobbied in this thread or others, to my knowledge, for special treatment because of their membership level or contributions. Perhaps it was not made clear enough, but my own contributions were mentioned because when assessing whether or not to give Rich $10, I had to weigh what I had already contributed to the site. If I was a new member who only had $10 into it, and was shot down on my fist post or two, it would be easy to take my ball and play elsewhere. Whether deliberate or not, Rich's crackdown holds the investments of all those fined hostage.
A second point for now that I believe was mis-stated by others after I made it was the status of the BOI "then and now". I pointed out that things were different when much money was given a year ago, and Rich claimed that they were not, that the rules were the same then and now. Well, the crackdown began in October, which is in the "now" side of the equation. It is what I feel is the arbitrary, inconsistent, and over-reaching nature of the "now" crackdown that was not occurring "then". It is not that the crackdown was not needed. The old "slap on the wrist" was not working. Paid membership helped, and it also gave people a stake in the site, something to be held "hostage". What many of us are saying is that the system can now be improved even more, as we are at times now "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".
I have not just complained, but suggested better definitions, and offered solutions. If the "Fined and Suspended" moniker were shifted more towards the "suspended", or at least made better use of it, the air would have been sucked out of the flame-wars everyone was sick of right from the beginning, and would still be doing so. Speaking only for myself, if anyone is going to reach into my pocket and lift $0.10, much less $10, then they better be on real solid footing, not shifting sands. I will address all questions later when the chameleons say it is OK !

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Come on now.....

Speaking only for myself, if anyone is going to reach into my pocket and lift $0.10, much less $10, then they better be on real solid footing, not shifting sands. I will address all questions later when the chameleons say it is OK !

Ive beed reading this off and on and this is one statement that I actually have a comment about.

If YOU are fined, YOU committed an offense that got YOU fined, therefore you are reaching YOUR hand into YOUR own pocket if you choose to pay the fine and remain an active member.

Don't make it sound like Rich is sticking his hands in YOUR pocket, he has rules, if YOU break them and get fined, YOU are the one that muct decide if you want to reach into YOUR pocket to come back.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Wish it were that simple Wendy. So, am I to read that you completely understand the logic of being able to call someone a liar, and its OK, and being able to call the same person a "nimrod", and that it is not just a possible 1 point warning, but $10 ? All that is clear and objectively applied? Some of us just don't see it as clearly as you. Sorry, but it was not a knowing or voluntary action on my part, or those of others, to make a $10 donation. If you have made such a knowing action, then good for you, and it was your choice. We did not.

 

[WebSlave]

Rich. I think any reasonable person would agree with your intent and practice as described above, applicable to anyone, regardless of how long they have been a member.
There seems to be a missing element though. Your focus and comments seem directed at strict enforcement to weed out those who fit the description quoted above. Some of the membership here (at least those who care enough to participate in these topics) has an obvious concern with minor, unintentional infractions, which by your reaction(the moderating team, the system, etc.), lump them in with those you describe above.
I know this is your site, and that it would be impossible to set in place a system which would please everyone, but IMO, this should give you pause. You can't reasonably expect well-intentioned members to feel ok with being bundled in with the garbage just because that's the way it is.
Likewise, you can't shoot down every argument for a better system by saying people are asking for special treatment. Undoubtedly, some do consider themselves worthy of special treatment, but I would wager, it is in reality, a small number.

Details please. I have taken a snapshot of the warning system showing the two tiered level of warning layers. Actually there are four, I guess. One is a zero pointer because it is an easy way to notify someone about something. The other is the fact that someone who gets 100 points gets PERMANENTLY banned from this site. But concerning the bulk of the identified warning situations, I arranged it in this manner because I felt there was a dividing line between minor infractions and ones I wanted to end quickly because of the severity of degradation they were causing in discussions within this site. For further details on those individual warnings, check in the FAQ section for what I have posted there about the warnings (http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/faq.php?faq=vb_board_usage#faq_tos). Your claim is that those minor warnings are lumping people together into the more serious ones. So please tell me which of those warnings are causing the problems you are pointing out.

I can see where some people may think "name calling" needs to be multi-level as well, but sorry I disagree. It has been a serious problem on this site, and even calling someone a "nimrod" or "fool", while appearing to be very minor on the surface, is just the camel's nose under the tent for more vicious name calling to soon follow. When considering how to handle such a thing, I took the "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" approach to nip it off before it got to the point where I would have a half dozen people involved slinging gradually increasing derogatory names back and forth. And please don't even try to tell me this sort of thing would not happen. I've seen it countless times, and so have you if you have been here any length of time.

Heck, I don't know, I don't get out much to check around, but I would think that any quality publication in any form would not allow the stuff that I am trying to end here. Does the Wall Street Journal allow derogatory mud slinging in their publication? What about other "professional" level publications? Is this sort of thing normal these days?

People, here's what I am trying to do with this site, and especially the BOI: Make it into a quality, credible, and respectable site where YOUR posting means something because it is here. I am forcing you all to act like professionals and adults instead of a bunch of kids throwing verbal jabs on the school parking lot all torqued up on hormones and emotion. I am trying to turn the BOI around from heading towards irrelevance to a place where it can get things done and have people EFFECTIVELY get something done about their problems. That was the reason I set up the BOI. If it becomes irrelevant, then your posting in it will be irrelevant as well. I don't want that to happen, and I believe you don't either. I did NOT set this up to give a bunch of people a front row seat at some soap opera where they can click into the BOI with a bowl of popcorn at their side and enjoy the spectacle of people clubbing each other over the head with taunts, antagonism, name calling, and generally useless rhetoric. Those people, even if they were paying members here FOR that reason, can go elsewhere. I do not want people on this site who ONLY want to be here for that reason, and I do not want people here who only desire to interface with other people in that manner. Nor do I want people here who will try to instigate that sort of activity with subtle lower level name calling, trying to escalate the discussion into a more lively entertainment spectacle for their enjoyment.

At this point in time, there are 26,867 registered members here. I would cheerfully welcome cutting back that number by half if the remaining people are the ones who wish to allow the BOI to get the job done it was designed to do by helping in this direction with their own actions. To the people who are incensed that they no longer get their jollies from the BS I am trying to weed out of this site, and to those people who are upset because what they thought as a teeny weenie little name calling is OK, I am sorry, but my intentions are for this site to go one way, and if necessary, you have to go another. I am not compromising on this decision.

Pay attention to how you write. Pay attention that you are not violating the rules that will get you fined and suspended. Err on the side of caution if you are not sure. NO one has to use anything that would violate the rules within their posting to get their point across. If you CANNOT enter into a discussion without violating the rules, then quite frankly, your days are numbered here. Maybe you have been calling members of your own family "nimrod" since you were able to talk, and it is a harmless label to you, but that is not allowed here. The person it was directed towards may not feel the same, or other people not knowing the background will make the assumption that they can call someone some name they feel is OK from following your example. So eventually I will get slammed with the argument that I am being unfair because one person's name calling appeared OK, but yours was not. Sorry, but no. The line in the sand is NO name calling whatsoever if it even smells slightly derogatory.

I hope I am clear on this issue. The poll is about what I expected, but until those numbers get MUCH larger and reflect an overwhelming need to change, then the status quo is as you see it.

 

[WebSlave]

Wish it were that simple Wendy. So, am I to read that you completely understand the logic of being able to call someone a liar, and its OK, and being able to call the same person a "nimrod", and that it is not just a possible 1 point warning, but $10 ? All that is clear and objectively applied? Some of us just don't see it as clearly as you. Sorry, but it was not a knowing or voluntary action on my part, or those of others, to make a $10 donation. If you have made such a knowing action, then good for you, and it was your choice. We did not.

OK, Jim, it appears a test is in order. Pick a thread. Any thread. And YOU call someone a "liar" within it. If I see it or it gets reported, let us see what happens. OK?

 

[The BoidSmith]

[QUOTE = Chamco]Speaking only for myself, if anyone is going to reach into my pocket and lift $0.10, much less $10, then they better be on real solid footing, not shifting sands. [/QUOTE]

Jim,

You are probably referring to the $10 that people pay to be reinstated. People have the option of paying it or not, that’s their decision. It would be interesting to look at statistics of what has been the behavior of those that have been fined and suspended. Does the majority pay to be reinstated or do they just go away? If anyone feels the $10 is too much money for the service they are being offered they can always "refuse to renew their subscription", and look for another site that will provide them what this site has to offer. Some may get away with behaviors that in certain circumstances have resulted in warnings, fines, and suspensions for other individuals. This is where Einstein’s definition of insanity doesn’t work quite right. You can repeat the same thing over and over again and nothing happens. One day you find the listener in a different mood and all of a sudden there goes your warning or even suspension. Life is full of examples of things that at a certain point in our lives have a perceived value and a few years down the road we deem them worthless. What do we do? We move on to greener pastures. But that’s always according to our definition of green, as cows don’t seem to be able to tell colors apart. Some people feel they are been dumped in the group of troublemakers because they receive warning points or suspensions. Nothing further from the truth, at least from my perspective! In the heat of the moment we all say and do things that we regret, and we have to deal with the consequences. But the fact is that in general we are our worst enemies. It’s not so much what others think of us but what we think of ourselves.

Regards

 

[nicolai]

I would like to say that this is the most civilized i have seen a thread of this length in a very long time. Apparently what you have been doing is being accomplished but now maybe its time to step back and reevaluate the situation and go into stage two of your clean up. Stage one was apparently "sweep out the bad, lay the laws and enforce them hard. stage two should be a little more toned down, then stage three will be the eutopia fauna that we all hope for !!!!

P.S.On the warning list...what does "minor suggestion" mean???

 

[Chameleon Company]

There's still much more to respond to here in this thread,

And I am only able to carve out 10 minutes here and there right now to do so. So, with this 10 minutes. I want to elaborate on a point that Dan has made:

...You are probably referring to the $10 that people pay to be reinstated. People have the option of paying it or not, that’s their decision. It would be interesting to look at statistics of what has been the behavior of those that have been fined and suspended. Does the majority pay to be reinstated or do they just go away? If anyone feels the $10 is too much money for the service they are being offered they can always "refuse to renew their subscription", and look for another site that will provide them what this site has to offer.

All of the above I agree with, but feel that it leaves out two vital issues/concerns:

1) The $10 owed for reinstatement is not just a reinstatement decision. It is not just "stay and pay" or "walk". If nothing else, it is also a decision to leave the tag "Fined and Suspended" forever attached to your name, in every post that you ever made. So, if someone were to avail themselves of the resource value of the BOI to check on you, they get to encounter that. It could be no more than that you called someone a "nimrod" who had been also been called a thief or scammer or liar, etc.

2) This is not about whether or not the system should allow for fines, etc. Its just as the poll says "scale back a little". Maybe some voted because they wanted a few more antagonistic sparring to take place. That may be a problem with how it was worded. I voted for a scaling back of the punishment system which I feel would be just as effective, but with far less collateral damage. One day suspension, 2-day, 5-day, optional fines, etc, all before the bigger bombs get dropped. I also voted for less subjectivity.

This is not about whether or not any system will not have its detractors. Its about improving the system we got !!

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Wish it were that simple Wendy. So, am I to read that you completely understand the logic of being able to call someone a liar, and its OK, and being able to call the same person a "nimrod", and that it is not just a possible 1 point warning, but $10 ? All that is clear and objectively applied? Some of us just don't see it as clearly as you. Sorry, but it was not a knowing or voluntary action on my part, or those of others, to make a $10 donation. If you have made such a knowing action, then good for you, and it was your choice. We did not.

I do understand that if I call someone a name "liar, theif, scammer, etc etc" that I can be given from 1 - 10 points as deemed neccessary by the moderator who reads the post and makes an assessment as to the severity of my actions and the statement at the time.

It is a voluntary action to call someone a name and that may in fact get you suspended.

You can't call someone a name and say you unknowingly did it, get real. You knowingly call someone a name by your on voluntary actions and if you get fined it is not a $10 donation, it is a $10 FINE.

And yes its my choice to try my best to adhere to the policies that Rich has put into affect. I have many a time typed a post that would have had me fined, sat back and asked myself, is calling this person a ****** worth my $10. And in fact its not in my mind so I erase my post and retype it without the name calling.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Wendy

You say

It is a voluntary action to call someone a name and that may in fact get you suspended.

The key word is "may". A clear policy would make that word "will". You chse "may". Freudian slip?

You can't call someone a name and say you unknowingly did it, get real. You knowingly call someone a name by your on voluntary actions and if you get fined it is not a $10 donation, it is a $10 FINE.

What I can say is that it warranted far less than a $10 fine (you point out that the mods have options), and that the rules have not been clear, or that they need more definition. I can also say, as the majority has in the poll, that there is room for improvement in the system, not only those that I have voiced, but others as well. BTW Wendy, I am quite real.

 

[nicolai]

I am going to agree with you on this jim, there has to be middle ground somewhere. knowgly insulting people with the intent to do damage to them or thier reputation should be treated differently then jokingly calling them something. Its time to scale back a little.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich, I am going beyond my 10 minutes, and its your fault .... LOL

To the reader, let it be known that I believe that I reported rules abuse 3-4 times last week to Rich, and that 2-3 of them resulted in action. I added comments at the time that I wanted to see where the lines were drawn. But I also applaud Rich's challenge here:

OK, Jim, it appears a test is in order. Pick a thread. Any thread. And YOU call someone a "liar" within it. If I see it or it gets reported, let us see what happens. OK?

First off, I am leery of setting myself up in such a manner, and I do not use that word often at all. However, if an appropriate test case now exists in the BOI, and it is current and relevent, can it be looked at? Its the thread "Bad Dragon Dealer Colby Laidlaw". I am not lobbying for fines. The thread had an outcome that seemed appropriate. Here's the posts in that thread:

#25) Laidlaw is referred to as a ..... "scumball".......
#26) Laidlaw calls someone a "Liar" in the header
#30) "prison is too good" .... (for Laidlaw)

I have opinions on these three, but we'll wait and see how Rich views them. I thank Rich for the test.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

The reason you "MAY" get suspended is because Rich nor any other member here reads every single post on every single thread so you may call someone a name and the post never be seen by a mod or reported by another member. So yes, I use the word "MAY" get finded and suspended.

You MAY get by with name calling since the post MAY not be seen by a mod to take action.

 

[shrap]

Rich,

I feel for you man. I really do.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Wendy,
Thank you for the explanation. I would like to point out that any reader can report abuse with the click of a button, and would venture a guess that is how most is brought to the attention of the mod's. Going back to your premise Wendy. It may be completely clear to you when you cross a line here, and exactly what you should expect, although you do point out that it could be 1-10 points, which leads me to believe that you aren't certain either. But if you also read the thread "another disillusioned etc", in this same forum, you will see that many otherwise intelligent people do not see it as you do. We are not telling you how you should see it though, only how we see it. And yes, I believe we all feel real.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Sammy ......... he volunteered ! But I can sympathise as well !

 

[PaulSage]

Wish it were that simple Wendy. So, am I to read that you completely understand the logic of being able to call someone a liar, and its OK, and being able to call the same person a "nimrod", and that it is not just a possible 1 point warning, but $10 ? All that is clear and objectively applied? Some of us just don't see it as clearly as you. Sorry, but it was not a knowing or voluntary action on my part, or those of others, to make a $10 donation. If you have made such a knowing action, then good for you, and it was your choice. We did not.

Jim, here's how I determine what language will get me a warning point (of any degree) when I just can control myself and HAVE to start slinging names around on the BOI. I'm not saying that these are the criteria that the moderators rule by, I'm just saying that this is the criteria I use, and with over 1,000 posts, I haven't gotten warning points for name-calling.

Here, let's use the "liar" vs. "nimrod" example on the BOI. Once it is proven that someone is a liar (either through evidence or one's own admission) referring to someone as a liar is at least justifiable, and frequently relevant to the issue on the table. Being a "liar" is provable, and if someone is proven/admitted to being a "liar"--that's relevant to past, present and future events. However, what the heck does "nimrod" prove? Nothing. It's a derogatory term used against someone when they've used bad judgement. Is it relevant? Hardly. Everyone slips up on occasion and uses bad judgement.

If someone felt so compelled to post their opinion on someone's judgement, they could simply state that "wow, you've used really bad judgement here." That may not be real flattering, but it's hardly as derogatory as "you're a nimrod." Simply put, "nimrod" isn't necessary, and therefore it's a 10-dollar word.

Like I said, that's just the logic I apply to my word choice. Honestly though, if people really can't resist the urge to call names, my advice is that they pay their $10 up front by purchasing a HELL subscription, and then go call names there.

 

[Lucille]

I am going to agree with you on this jim, there has to be middle ground somewhere. knowgly insulting people with the intent to do damage to them or thier reputation should be treated differently then jokingly calling them something. Its time to scale back a little.

What is to prevent someone from defending any post they make by saying they were 'just joking'?

On the concept of scaling back, why is it so difficult to simply be courteous?
There are many people here who can evidence their displeasure without using nasty language, and many of the people who DO use such language HERE are, I am sure, able to restrain themselves in their own private lives: some people say things on the internet that they would not THINK of saying if someone were present in the room with them.

 

[PaulSage]

Going back to your premise Wendy. It may be completely clear to you when you cross a line here, and exactly what you should expect, although you do point out that it could be 1-10 points, which leads me to believe that you aren't certain either.

Exactly. You can't be certain, but you CAN decide just how much "testing" of the system you want to try to get away with. It's just like the speeding analogy. When you're speeding, you KNOW that you're testing the authorities to see how much you can get away with. What you actually get away with is dependant on a number of circumstances, but if you DON'T SPEED in the first place, you don't have to worry about whether or not you'll get slapped with a citation, or how much that citation is going to cost you.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Paul,

it is not, and never has been, about whether or not an infraction is warranted. Its not about speeding, and that analogy has already been shown to be supportive of the example of a more "tiered" system. Its been said so many times over in this thread and others. Its about having a better defined system, one that is less subjective, and one that is effective without excessive or unnecessary collateral damage, as indicated by the poll.

Here's a quote form you:

Here, let's use the "liar" vs. "nimrod" example on the BOI. Once it is proven that someone is a liar (either through evidence or one's own admission) referring to someone as a liar is at least justifiable, and frequently relevant to the issue on the table. Being a "liar" is provable, and if someone is proven/admitted to being a "liar"--that's relevant to past, present and future events. However, what the heck does "nimrod" prove? Nothing. It's a derogatory term used against someone when they've used bad judgement. Is it relevant? Hardly. Everyone slips up on occasion and uses bad judgement.

So being a "liar" is provable. Of course, all evidence in the BOI is presented under sworn testimony and threat of perjury. No Paul, it is almost always a matter of opinion. Ask an attorney. Ask Bill Clinton. Look at 95% of the times it has been used in the BOI. It was absolutely a matter of opinion. It may have been the concensus, but it was not "proven". Rich has clearly stated that he wants to tone down the antagonism, flame wars, etc. He has specifically targeted derogatory words and terms. "Liar" is very derogatory if you are on the receiving end, don't you think? As I pointed out in the example for Rich (see the post a few back) go and look at that example. Is it fact or fiction? Is it derogatory? Please LMK what you think, and why. As for balance and degree of antagonism, there are more than a few of us here who can easily let being called a nimrod or knucklehead flow right off us, but thief or liar? All can be antagonistic, but while I respect that being called a nimrod may set you off, more than a few of us would be far more bent out of shape over the other terms.

Lucille, you are exactly right that one person's joking use of "nimrod" or other term may not be read as such. Especially when on paper (or forum) vs. spoken over the phone. No one is lobbying for the free use of the term "nimrod". What we are saying is that, all things considered, its not a $10 fine and suspension either, certainly not if "liar" passes muster most of the time. I am anxious to see Rich's assessment of those fresh examples that I pointed out, made by people who probably have not read this thread prior to making their posts. It is an unstaged test case.