Status check and poll on recent crack down

[shrap]

Liar..... you don't even have to call someone a liar to get your point across. Simply saying John Doe "has a history of lying" gets the same thing across without it being name calling.

You see, what Rich is trying to point out is that by calling people names such as liar, it is just opening things up for more name calling and flames. You have far less chance of flaming if you just state the fact that the person has been caught in lies before instead of calling them a liar.

Simple concept really and it makes sense, to me anyway.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Almost dead on Sammy !

Sammy says:
Liar..... you don't even have to call someone a liar to get you point across. Simply saying John Doe "has a history of lying" gets the same thing across without it being name calling.

You see, what Rich is trying to point out is that by calling people names such as liar, it is just opening things up for more name calling and flames. You have far less chance of flaming if you just state the fact that the person has been caught in lies before instead of calling them a liar.

Simple concept really and it makes sense, to me anyway.

However, only two folks out of about 50 want the use of the word "liar" to get a free pass. I would submit that saying someone has a "history of lying" is just as inflammatory to the recipient as calling them a "liar" in the present situation, and would penalize it just the same. You probably would agree with me that used as you state it, it still has high potential for inflammation. I think that you and I would agree that there is no fine line, one side of which all is OK, and beyond which all is an offense. Using the Laidlaw thread as an example, he was already highly perturbed before he was referred to as a "scumball", based on the accusations of others. While not due to the use of specific words that we could hang a quick tag on, people did make antagonistic statements that the condition of one animal must be reresentative of all his animals, and one even called the Humane Society or some such nonsense. Collectively, those words and actions were far more antagonistic, and unfounded IMO, than just calling him a "nimrod" if it had been done ("scumball" was the word, but Mr. Laidlaw was already well inflamed at that point). The solution is not to define everything ad-nauseum, and create a thousand degrees of violation. But, again IMO, it cries for more moderation.

 

[WebSlave]

Nearly all law enforcement works on the premise that the enforcers cannot be everywhere and see everything all of the time. Yes, people can and do violate laws all of the time and get away with it. Look above nearly any cash register line in any store and see the darkened globes above them. What are they for? Well they are "security" cameras. The implication there is that there is a possibility that one of the cashiers may be doing something illegal or against company policy. Does each cashier have a single person watching their register the entire time from that camera? Of course not. There is one person or a couple of people watching a bank of screens or else a single screen cycling through all of those cameras. It would be strictly chance if the camera would be on the one cashier's area when he or she decided to pocket that $50 bill. And the cashier knows this. There is certainly the chance it will not be caught, but there is certainly the possibility that he or she will, with painful consequences is caught. Or in some cases if the security personell or suspicious of one of the cashiers, they may spend more time then normal watching this person, which is a prudent thing to do in that kind of circumstance.

What I am doing here is no different. I'm sorry, but every word that everyone posts on this site is just not of interest to me. And I am not going to read everything, nor ask my moderators to do so. So yes, you may get away with violating the rules. But you may not. Just as when the crackdown here began, some people were expected to buck the system, and without doubt myself and the moderators watched them more closely then other people. Simple facts of life. It eases enforcement if you concentrate your efforts where it will be most effective.

I have gotten TONS of emails from people caught in a violation who will point to someone else who got away with the same thing. This is completely irrelevant. The ONLY question that is pertinent is: "Did your post violate the rule or did it not?" A simple YES or NO answer is necessary, which ends that conversation. It makes absolutely no difference at all to your situation what someone else may have done. YOU got caught. You got punished.

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?

No, it was not a Freudian slip at all, Jim. It was a reality check for you. But please see above for clarification, if needed. This "black and white" world you wish to live in must be somewhere I am not familiar with. Sorry if you find that atmosphere lacking here, but really, that is just the way it is.

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.

I have no record of anyone reporting those posts.

Secondly, and I am repeating myself again, I am not going to be placed in the position of determining if the term of "liar" is appropriate and truthfull or not. I do not choose sides in a discussion and this is exactly what I would be being asked to do. If I let it slide, then the implication is that I agree with the accusation of lying. If I disagree and assess warning points, then I would be considered as agreeing with that accusation. The warning points (and associated fine and suspension) is for the USE of the word "liar" in a derogatory sense and completely independent of the reasons for the use. I have no intention whatsoever of trying to determine if a derogatorily used term is truthfull or appropriate to the applied target.

Here's the definition of "derogatory":

Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
Tending to detract or diminish.
Expressive of low opinion;

Please note that there is NO indication whatsoever of any relevance to truthfullness or accuracy of the term. Yes, someone can be a liar, but to call them out as such, using the term in an obviously derogatory manner, IS derogatory and against the rules here. NO one calls someone a "liar" to be friendly, nice, or courteous. It is designed to produce a negative reaction. To provoke a response. If someone calls YOU a "liar", how does it make you feel and likely get you to react? THAT is what I am intending to stop from taking place on this site. So if you choose to use that term, or anything else similar that can possibly be determined to be derogatory AND that camera in the globe above you is active, then you will suffer the consequences of your decision for using that term. Again, repeating myself, choose you words with care. The purpose of the BOI (since most of the discussion is revolving around that forum) is to get issues resolved between buyers and sellers where things have gone very wrong. It is NOT to incite conflict, and it is NOT to get discussions heated up into flame wars. And it DEFINITELY is not to be used by someone to just blow off steam and get some crap off their chest by berating and abusing someone else in a public forum.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

The 1 - 10 points is laid out pretty loudly as I see it, you call someone a name and it has to be taken within the context of the post, thread and the eye of the reader, you may be pointed for:

1 point: Discourtesy towards another member

10 Points: Name calling and general derogatory statements

So calling someone a name can be taken 2 different ways, were you just being a smartmouth to someone calling them a ***** or were you really trying to degrade the person when you called them a ******.

Every statement can mean so many different things to so many different people, if someone calls me a witch, I may take it as a compliment lol While others may say, how dare them call her a witch for being honest.

That may not be how it is, but that is my perception of the difference in the points. The mods have to do the best they can to make a call on a post, how heated was the discussion, how far out of line was the post, how did the mod take it, as a general discourtesy or as a derogatory statement.

No rules are always fair or foolproof, if they were no innocent person would ever go to jail and no guilty person would be set free.

 

[shrap]

However, only two folks out of about 50 want the use of the word "liar" to get a free pass. I would submit that saying someone has a "history of lying" is just as inflammatory to the recipient as calling them a "liar" in the present situation, and would penalize it just the same. You probably would agree with me that used as you state it, it still has high potential for inflammation.

No I would not agree Jim or I would not have said what I did. Stating a fact and calling someone a name are two different things entirely in my book.

You lied in the past.... you sold diseased animals in the past. Either of those could be inflammatory to the recipient, but it is simply pointing out a fact. Not calling someone a name.

 

[WebSlave]

The solution is not to define everything ad-nauseum, and create a thousand degrees of violation. But, again IMO, it cries for more moderation.

Nope. Been over that bridge before. This site doesn't need more moderators at all. It needs less people inclined to violate the rules by just not using common decency and courtesy in their interactions with others in a public medium. THAT is the solution I have chosen to pursue. Anyone who cannot get the hang of the requirements here will be gone, sooner or later, voluntarily or not.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Well Sammy

When you say:

No I would not agree Jim or I would not have said what I did. Stating a fact and calling someone a name are two different things entirely in my book.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. The use of the term "liar", past or present in the BOI, has been as an opinion for reasons earlier stated, even if most would agree that so-an-so was a "liar", past or present. Just as calling Mr. Laidlaw a "scumbag". Most would likely have agreed, but it certainly does not make it fact. I will use myself as an example. I have been called a "liar" in a thread here in the past ... before the enforcement days. But it is there. If, in a current thread, someone wishes to discredit me by saring that I have been called a liar in the past, is Rich to research the factual possibility, go and find the old thread, read for 30 minutes, and then pronounce judgement? Then and now, it was opinion, and I guarantee you that any entity that would use such terminology to my face would find some inflammation. I expect that you would react likewise.

 

[TomO]

Details please. 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.

The other thread (disilusioned past contributor) is an illustration of what I wrote of. The other input in this thread supports that concern also.

"Unecessary roughness" - 1 point
"....and general derogatory statements" - 10 points.
The difference between the 2 can be a little grey, and is certainly open to subjective interpretaion.

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.

Absolutely the right thing to do, no doubt about it. And I don't think anyone would argue that it is a gargantuan task. My concern is only around the grey areas which are, and possibly will continue to cause these protracted disagreements.

Rich, not all opinions which are contrary to yours are necessarily an attack on this board or your handling of it. Some of us are contributing to the discussion with what we believe are the best interests of this forum at heart. Why - because we believe it has value, and that if your turn-around is successful, will continue to grow in value.

Maybe this really is only a tempest in a teacup though; after all, only a handful of the 26,867 members are even participating in this discussion.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich, your quote

No, it was not a Freudian slip at all, Jim. It was a reality check for you. But please see above for clarification, if needed. This "black and white" world you wish to live in must be somewhere I am not familiar with. Sorry if you find that atmosphere lacking here, but really, that is just the way it is.

Do me a favor, and find where I have lobbied for "black and white". I would place the above characterization by you in about the same category as the following, had I made it:

Rich, you can't handle that members here feel you have over-reached. You put up a poll, which while the majority now takes issue with you, its not a "mandate" to you, so it is of little relevence. In your "ends justify the means" approach, we will stay the course, and there is no need to consider a better course.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Point being Rich, if I continued to spout the second quote, and you the first, I believe we would have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. There's dialogue here, all voluntary. If I have been disrespectful of you, then please indicate where. IMO, I have tried to not restate your words, make assumptions and then draw conclusions, or mischaracterize.

 

[shrap]

Jim,

If you ever want to discuss what I actually said instead of your usual batch of hypotheticals that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said then I will be more than happy to talk to you.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Getting them one at a time;

Webslave's post, quoting me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chamco
The solution is not to define everything ad-nauseum, and create a thousand degrees of violation. But, again IMO, it cries for more moderation.



Nope. Been over that bridge before. This site doesn't need more moderators at all. It needs less people inclined to violate the rules by just not using common decency and courtesy in their interactions with others in a public medium. THAT is the solution I have chosen to pursue. Anyone who cannot get the hang of the requirements here will be gone, sooner or later, voluntarily or not.

I was referring to my call for more "moderation" of the penalty system, ie some middle ground, not that there be more oversight.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Sammy:

Jim,

If you ever want to discuss what I actually said instead of your usual batch of hypotheticals that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said then I will be more than happy to talk to you.

Here's the quote I referred to:

Liar..... you don't even have to call someone a liar to get your point across. Simply saying John Doe "has a history of lying" gets the same thing across without it being name calling.

Sammy, it is one of the probelms with the printed page, I guess. My point was that calling someone a liar, and stating that they have a history of lying, are the same IMO. And I provided an personal example of being on the receiving end. Sorry that you don't like it, but its all about being on the receiving end in this discussion. Maybe not yours, but this thread has already indicated that one of the problems in enforcing subjective rules is that Rich's standard is not just how something was intended, but how it was taken. I agree with Rich's assessment that he needs to defer to how things can be taken.

 

[PaulSage]

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.

Jim, I think I explained myself pretty well. After all:

Like I said, that's just the logic I apply to my word choice.

Make of it what you will.

As far as your comment stating that it's all a matter of opinion, I agree to a degree. However, claims such as "so and so is a liar" or "a scammer" or saying "so and so stole ..." is a CLAIM that CAN have legal repercussions since accusations of criminal behavior CAN be libelous if untrue. Derogatory name-calling that doesn't imply criminal behavior and are difficult or impossible to prove, is of little interest to the courts. And yes, I do relate BOI posts to court testimony. I spent all last semester studying the laws of mass communication, and some of the cases related to internet message boards were quite enlightening. What it breaks down to is that you ARE responsible for what you post online. Calling someone a "nimrod" might get me a $10 Fauna fine, but I don't have to worry about being sued over it.

But again,

Like I said, that's just the logic I apply to my word choice.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Jim,

I just have to ask you this, we have discussed this in private a while back but I just have to ask you once again:

Why are you even involved in all of this, I always thought of you as a person that did not get into the drama of all of these threads, sites, posts, etc. I have as I told you found that you are no different than the rest of us but I thought you were for some reason.

I mean Jim, your chams have been on magazine covers, you have the best (IMO) panther chameleons on the market. You have been featured in Reptiles Mag to show off your set etc.

Why is it that you are so concerned about the warning system here? Why on earth would someone like you, and I guess its the view I have of you, even be worried about warnings, fines, suspentions, what words get you what and so on....

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich, in post #45, you challenge:

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?

In post #52, I reply:

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.

Rather than stage an event, this one has it all, to include participants evidently not aware of this thread.

To which you respond in Post #63:
[/QUOTE]I have no record of anyone reporting those posts.

Understood, and that's why I chose it as the test that you asked for. I'll bet half the posters don't even know about the "report abuse" button.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

Well if they don't know about the report post button then maybe they need to read some of the features of the site. You can't jump into a site and know all of its uses if you never look around for explanations of the features or ask questions.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

You saw it and you know where the button is, did you report it or are you complaining that it was overlooked?

And if some don't know about the report post button then maybe they need to read some of the features of the site. You can't jump into a site and know all of its uses if you never look around for explanations of the features or ask questions.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Wendy,

There are many compliments here in your post, and I thank you:

Jim,

I just have to ask you this, we have discussed this in private a while back but I just have to ask you once again:

Why are you even involved in all of this, I always thought of you as a person that did not get into the drama of all of these threads, sites, posts, etc. I have as I told you found that you are no different than the rest of us but I thought you were for some reason.

I mean Jim, your chams have been on magazine covers, you have the best (IMO) panther chameleons on the market. You have been featured in Reptiles Mag to show off your set etc.

Why is it that you are so concerned about the warning system here? Why on earth would someone like you, and I guess its the view I have of you, even be worried about warnings, fines, suspentions, what words get you what and so on....

Rich has openly lamented that the "big boys" don't come here. Evidently, you seem to be not only describing me as one, but then questioning why I am here. Excuse me for paraphrasing, but are you suggesting that I should be "above this"? Wendy, you have over 3000 posts. You have been a customer of mine. Its important enough for you to post 3000 times. I have something like 600+. I also voluntarily put about $350 into the site in the last 12 months. Do I need this? No. But the BOI is also the last best place on the internet to be a resource to keep newbies from being ripped off. It is an asset to the future of the hobby. And in my view, the current enforcement activities, while accomplishing a much needed goal, have over-reached to where they have run off and discouraged more than was necessary. My views have been consistently mischaracterized as wanting a return, or lobbying for a situation that would give up hard-earned ground. I do not want Rich to yield one bit on the good results he has obtained. I want him to consider ways to keep those gains, and yet reduce the collateral and inintended results.
You have seen me take some very unpopular positions of late, and many of those close to me have pointed out the risk of opposing Rich here. But I also respect Rich enough to believe that he can handle it, and hopefully realize that while he may not agree with me, that I am not out to undermine his goals. I think we agree on goals, but differ on the best way to get there. He allows dissent, and I always have some cooking if I want to serve it up. I want the BOI to be better. So do all who voted as I did in the poll. Wendy, trust that I question the time that I spend here often. As for the other "big boys" Wendy, why do you think they either are not here, or should not be here?

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

double post left some stuff off and hit send twice, sorry