Status check and poll on recent crack down

[dragonflyreptiles]

Thanks!

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

See thats what I get for trying to get up 3 new sites with little info arghhhhh, read a "need to be read post by Rich" and reply to too many things at one time.

Thanks, I corrected my typo

 

[Lucille]

I think:

There are those who learn and those who do not.

I have enjoyed lately having an atmosphere here where one can have actual conversations without fear that some pit bull would come into the living room (or Welcome Room) and begin tearing at living flesh just for the fun of it.

Now that your expectations have been made clear, it might be time to ease up and give everyone a chance to show they have learned that you will not tolerate the sorts of abuses of the past.

Perhaps you could simply make it clear that the discretion of the moderators is based on the expectations you have mapped out and leave it at that.

Sort of like the way good bartenders take care of the store: make sure everyone knows they can have a good time, but keep a loaded .38 under the counter......just in case..

 

[WebSlave]

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.

Actually no, there really isn't much reason at all for longtime members to just naturally accrue warning points. I hope that most of the rules are fairly logical and require no pointing out to most people as being just plain common sense for behavior on a publicly accessible message board like this. Those that aren't, such as utilization of the signature area and such, shouldn't take more then a single warning to anyone who is not aware of it before they get the picture.

From the feedback I have gotten, I believe that the majority of the members here really do not appreciate getting warning points, no matter how justified it may be, and the INTENT of using it merely to point out the error of their ways here. MANY people really take afront to having that black mark on their record being pretty much permanently and visibly public.

Personally, from the personalities I have had to deal with here over the years, a simple 3 day suspension just wouldn't have the bite needed to get the point across, in my opinion. There are many cases where I just felt that the $10 fine was a sufficient hurdle and puts the ball squarely in their court to make the effort to return here, if they want to. With a timed suspension, they get to come back regardless of their current attitude over the sanction levied against them. I think I really prefer the decision to come back here to be more of a pennance paid to do so, rather then a "why not, since I can" sort of affair.

Quite frankly, at least from the administrative level, applying timed suspensions (or bans) from this site has ALWAYS been available to me, but I just don't use it here.

<hr>

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?

Well keeping the warning points is just a programming problem that is not easily overcome. No matter what I set the Fine and Suspension level at, whether it is 10, 20, or 100, once a member reaches that level, ANY minor 1 point warning after that then triggers another fine and suspension. The ONLY way around this is by resetting the warning points to zero after the fine is paid, so the next minor toe stub doesn't cost a member another $10 fine.

The threshold of a particular number of temporary suspensions leading to a permanent ban is going to have to be a manual process, shouldered by myself. Which I think is the only way to do it. It is a major decision, in my opinion, to make on someone here, and I would not want that taken lightly or without my own input in that decision anyway.

<hr>

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.

Sorry, but I just don't see how my changing the system to be a bit more lenient can be considered as "unfair" to those people who have pointedly and in some cases knowingly violated the rules here.

Further, the warning system really was never intended to be used as a yardstick for people to use in their judgements of doing business with them, or interfacting with them in any manner other then in relation to posting here on this site. THAT system was intended to solely be used by management of this site as the criteria WE use in determining how a member is interfacing with other members here and their ability to adapt to the requirements we set for them continuing to participate in these forums. That is it. As mentioned earlier, the only reason I kept it public was because I was afraid of claims of unfair methods being used by myself or the moderators without having the ability for each and every member to check for themselves to see the facts of the matter. So why am I back pedaling on that now? Well I guess I'm not so concerned about that problem any longer. It seems to be a non-issue, at least to me, and not worth the headaches it gives me. And if the issue should arise, I will still have the information needed to investigate any claims made.

But up to the point that the fine and suspension would be triggered, each member would STILL have a visible record of what warning points they have accumulated before triggering the suspension. It would be sort of an indicator letting you know how close to the line you are before triggering that event.

And no, I'm not convinced it is the best way to do this, or even if there is a best way.......

<hr>

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

Regards.

Not sure I would call it an "amnesty". I just figure that anyone still on the playing field when I make the switchover gets set back to square one. Honestly, I found myself hesitating to warn people when I knew they were going to be triggering a fine and suspension from something they did 2 years ago. So for some minor infraction, they would be getting fined and suspended. I'm just trying to do this fairly, and that is just way more difficult to do then it should be.

<hr>

I think:

There are those who learn and those who do not.

I have enjoyed lately having an atmosphere here where one can have actual conversations without fear that some pit bull would come into the living room (or Welcome Room) and begin tearing at living flesh just for the fun of it.

Now that your expectations have been made clear, it might be time to ease up and give everyone a chance to show they have learned that you will not tolerate the sorts of abuses of the past.

Perhaps you could simply make it clear that the discretion of the moderators is based on the expectations you have mapped out and leave it at that.

Sort of like the way good bartenders take care of the store: make sure everyone knows they can have a good time, but keep a loaded .38 under the counter......just in case..

And this really was the point of the crack down in the first place. This site was just becoming a really unpleasant place to participate in. I saw numerous instances and numerous people who just could not seem to play well with others. I really did not want to point them out specifically and boot them out of here, so I chose instead to just make the rules such that it would be unpleasant and uncomfortable for THEM to continue posting in the manner that they had been doing. In effect, giving them a choice to change or leave. I would have greatly preferred that they change and become constructive participants to this site, but I was not going to shed a tear if they felt that my asking that of them was more then they could bear up under and walked away from here.

Of course, the question remains unanswered about what happens if things begin to tilt on back to the way it was before the crackdown......... I will say this about that problem, however: I do hope they don't find themselves needing this site more then I need them here if that is their intent.

 

[Lucille]

Of course, the question remains unanswered about what happens if things begin to tilt on back to the way it was before the crackdown......... I will say this about that problem, however: I do hope they don't find themselves needing this site more then I need them here if that is their intent.

I think in many ways the crackdown changed the mindset here. Permanently, and for the better.
Ever heard of the frog in a pan of hot water, and the frog doesn't notice the water is getting hotter and hotter, and finally he is cooked? (This is just an example, frog lovers, not to be taken literally or heaven forbid as a recipe).

That's the way I saw it here. I can't believe some of the things that came out of people's mouths here, people who had mothers and were raised in civilized society, no less. They were completely out of control. But others, myself included, would actually read this drivel and just go on. Now, after the interlude of peace afforded by the crackdown, I would no longer take that verbal abuse: this frog has learned her lesson, that it is not appropriate or necessary as a member of this site to sit still for that kind of ugliness.

However you choose to handle the point history here is up to you, and you put a lot of thought into your choices and I respect them.
But I have to say that the people who spewed that drivel have earned a place in my memory: points may be wiped clean but actually the record of their lack of self control is still here, in their posts, on the site.

(Minor points are a completely different story, whether removed by amnesty, made private, or left as they are, I do not think that minor procedural transgressions like my own warning point for instance, will memorialize me as a serious transgressor in the minds of my peers).

I see some who have made efforts and their changes make them better people in my book; like the Biblical story of the prodigal son, those who err and learn different are stronger and better for it sometimes, and welcome. But others, who continue to love blood sport, are going to get short shrift if they run their drivel my way.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Just when I think that I understand the rules ...

I find out that I don't have a lick of sense in understanding adages, their proper use, and the English language !! I paid a $10 fine today. Your feedback is welcome, to include changing your poll vote one way or the other, but I would also value comments here. Let me say first, on a side note, that I do thank Rich for some restructuring he did of the penalty system today, which was an ongoing side-bar discussion between he and I while I committed this offense. This offense was not a part of that discussion. Here's the account of it:

My Post # 32, 10:54 AM Sunday, 19 Mar, in the thread about Jeane and Wendy etc, initiated by Alex Hues 18 Mar 06.

Alex, if you had kept your issue with them focused ...
.....Here's the trouble Alex. You didn't keep it simple-stupid. You made your post here vague, the thread a wandering of accusations and innuendo, and getting just to the facts so that people could judge for themselves was like a bad trip to the dentist.

E-mail notice, 2:50 PM, with comment from Rich at bottom:

Chamco,
You have been issued a warning by WebSlave on the account of Name calling and general derogatory statements!
With this warning you exceeded tolarable warning level of 10 and as a result of this, you have been automatically fined and suspended by our warning system.
You have to pay a $10 fee to get your forum access back. Also please make sure you read, understand and obey the site rules.
Here is the moderator comment added to this warning (if any) :
-------------------------
"You didn't keep it simple-stupid". Calling someone "stupid" is a violation of the rules, which you certainly should know by now.

I pay the fine.

3:02 PM E-Mail from Fauna, confirming $10 payment :

We have received your fine payment and your access has been granted. Please read our site rules and make sure you follow them carefully so that you won't be fined again.

PM from Rich, 3:12 PM, regarding another topic Rich and I had been discussing, but which contained this reference to the suspension

Oh, btw, I had TWO separate complaints filed about that one post that did get you fined and suspended with a 10 pointer. The first one I let slide because it was a judgement call that could have gone either way. But the one that did snag you, there was no such doubt.

My PM to Rich, once reinstated (fine paid) 3:12 PM

Rich, I understand the rationale for the fine.
But I called no one "stupid". The adage of "Keep it simple stupid" (KISS) Sometimes also said as "Keeping it simple and stupid, or "keep it simple and straightforward", the "and" is not included. Its as older than you and me, and it is not calling anyone "stupid". Its writen in the adage form. How its read is beyond me, but its not a new phrase. Here's a link:

http://www.digital-web.com/articles..._simple_stupid/
Here's a paste of some of what it says:
The Dalai Lama once said that simplicity is the key to happiness in the modern world. This philosophy can be adapted into the realm of web design and digital interface design.
The expressions "Keep it simple, stupid", "Kill your darlings" and "Less is more" all pinpoint the fact that simplicity is important.
Simplicity lasts. Simplicity is necessary in order to properly convey any idea.

Here's another one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_Principle
The KISS principle is a popular maxim often invoked when discussing a design process as a reminder to avoid the unnecessary complexity that can arise during the design process. The traditional expansion of this acronym is "Keep it Simple, Stupid".

Enjoy the $10 I guess!

Jim

PM reply from Rich, 3:19 PM

Re: Rich, I understand the rationale for the fine.

I am fully aware of that phrase, Jim, but regardless, in context, someone complained that you were using it to call Alex "stupid". I could not find reason to disagree. I have to take things ate face value and am not going to cross examine someone to see if there were different motives involved. I really meant it when I warned people to be careful and circumspect in how they post.

So in this case, would being kicked off of the site for 3 days or a week have been better or worse then the fine levied?

My reply PM to Rich, 3:37 PM:

Re: Rich, I understand the rationale for the fine.

Rich,
Here's the paste:
Quote:

Here's the trouble Alex. You didn't keep it simple-stupid. You made your post here vague, the thread a wandering of accusations and innuendo, and getting just to the facts so that people could judge for themselves was like a bad trip to the dentist.

It clearly has a "-" in it. Its not a comma. Some of the less literate out there may not know of it, you and many do. Its not about you coming to me to ask me "what I meant". You know the phrase, and I properly hypenated it in my use just to be extra careful, as many will write it with a comma. That's being careful. You or I could have responded to the complainers with a short explanation or link. I could have just said "KISS", but then how many more would not have had a clue? This one begs for a little more thought. I am answering the other PM by itself. Thanks. Jim

Rich's 3:12 PM does say that there were two complaints on it, one that was a "judgement call", but the second one that "left no doubt". I am a bit baffled how the adage changed between the two opinions.

This is Rich's words, pasted again from one of the above PM's, that has me baffled. I'm putting it here again for the public to explain the logic to me, for I still don't get it:

I am fully aware of that phrase, Jim, but regardless, in context, someone complained that you were using it to call Alex "stupid". I could not find reason to disagree. I have to take things ate face value and am not going to cross examine someone to see if there were different motives involved. I really meant it when I warned people to be careful and circumspect in how they post.

How about a dictionary of adages, similar to the two quotes I provided you? Frankly, its not for you to explain, or me to explain, but for them to have some schooling, isn't it? Political correctness in the BOI now? The adage is the face value !! If 95% of the folks get it, and two don't understand it, we assess a fine because of the two that don't understand it ??

So, telling someone to "keep it simple-stupid", is now the same as calling someone stupid. Not a single person posted in the thread that I was being unprofessional calling people "stupid", and I believe they'd have been quickly informed of the meaning of the adage by others. I deliberately hyphenated the "simple-stupid" to avoid the confusion. If nothing else, this post may serve to warn others that you have to be just that much more .... what?

 

[reptilebreeder]

As you noted there is a saying "kiss= keep it simple stupid" you didn't say hey Alex there is a saying..........or ever heard of the saying....etc., you said

.....Here's the trouble Alex. You didn't keep it simple-stupid. You made your post here vague, the thread a wandering of accusations and innuendo, and getting just to the facts so that people could judge for themselves was like a bad trip to the dentist.

You specifically stated YOU did not keep it simple-stupid. At least you should have quoted it so you could say you "just meant the saying, not Alex"
Also, I don't think because only two complained, necessarily means that everyone else knows what you said, or meant. Many people don't use the complaint button.
besides, IMHO you got a freebee with the anonymous IM post in the same thread. Rich posted a "reminder" when he could just as easily have "nailed" you on that one, especially since that rule is much easier to follow, and much more "cut and dry" or "black and white" than trying to interpret what one meant when they post an "off color" remark.

 

[WebSlave]

Well actually apparently someone got a bad rash because I let that anonymous post slip by without a warning point. And it WAS a bonafide violation. And I was accused of playing favorites (yeah, really....) for not giving the warning point.

But at least it doesn't trigger a fine and suspension now like it would have earlier.

I'm glad I don't like the taste of alcohol or I would have to take up drinking.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Well, I posted on the thread that third party posts weren't allowed on the BOI. I may have brought all this attention to it.
I didn’t report it. My bringing it up was to merely to keep the thread from going down a road that would have turned ugly real fast. I understood what Jim meant by “You didn't keep it simple-stupid.” I can also understand how someone could have taken it wrong.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

And I was accused of playing favorites (yeah, really....) for not giving the warning point.

You mean Jims not your favorite? He's certainly one of mine. HA HA I like reading his stuff. It's like being back in school. I've learned many big words from Jim. LOL (that's a serious compliment BTW)

Really hard to believe that it actually offended someone though.
How about........K.I.S.S. I think everyone knows the meaning. Oh, yeah, and dont forget the......... "ever heard the expression" ........part of it. Sounds like that would have saved you a few bucks.



Rick

 

[Cat_72]

I specifically remember reading where Jim said that......and thinking, "Yep, someone ain't gonna get it." And I was right, though I knew exactly what he was talking about.

 

[Chameleon Company]

John and Others,
To his credit, Rich began a clear discussion with me about the anonymous post in a timely fashion. If you note the "reading and comprehension" thread in this same forum, it was a direct result of that conversation between Rich and I, and rather quickly resulted in the change in the penalty point/fine system that was instituted yesterday. I could post the PM's there and you would see that Rich plays "no-favorites" with me ! I thank those for recognizing the adage. I find it a bit humorous when others also recognize the adage but then feel that an explanation has to be atached to it when you use it ! Why use it ? Frankly, my disagreement is with Rich, for it was his call to make. Hopefully, no one will repeat my mistake.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Hey Rick,

You mean Jims not your favorite? He's certainly one of mine. HA HA I like reading his stuff. It's like being back in school. I've learned many big words from Jim. LOL (that's a serious compliment BTW)

I had a nice LOL this AM from you remark. Thank you. The irony of using "big words" at times, vs, this one example about "KISS" which is the time-tested adage to try to avoid complexity, is not lost on me, as the big word would have saved me $10, and the simplicity cost me $10 !

And John, I realize the word "You" was in the sentance, but the adage contains the word "it". The hypenated "simple-stupid" modifies the word "it", but I thank you for the attempted English lesson! I do not dispute that those with less a grasp of the English language may have focused on the "you", or those with a bone-to-pick (what a concept there, eh?). Rich admitted he was familiar with "KISS". If I had said "you are stupid", there's no doubt, and nothing to clarify. But Rich could have sent me a note saying that a clarification was needed to be posted by me, for some misread the adage, or did I rally mean to say "You are simple. You are stupid"? If I had made up an adage, with no basis in society and communication, then OK. Rich has made it very clear that things can be crafted easily so as to call someone stupid without saying so directly, as in my example "you are stupid". "KISS" is not even an attempt to be so loquacious (for you Rick !), but rather to keep things straightforward and simple. Its mentioned in just about every college course you will ever take that involves design, engineering, or communication. And yet, it is what ends up in Rich's crosshairs, and requires a rejection of the fact that it is an adage to make it into something else ! This one took a heck of a lot of creativity to find fault with. The continued "dumbing-down" of America. Go figure.

 

[WebSlave]

Jim, that one thread generated several reported posts, ALL of which were made by you. You appear to be good at the use of the English language, so please tell me what the word "warning" means in the use of "warning points" on this site.

Sometimes it's an accumulation of word and phrase combinations within a single post or a string of posts that appear to warrant a "warning" to the poster to watch his or her step. In that one post with the "KISS" phrase, I had received an earlier reported post about this following statement as well:

Some may think you are a petty jerk who can't handle competition.

Perhaps it was not intentional digs you were making and perhaps it was not meant as some people were reading between the lines in how you were phrasing things, but in my opinion you DEFINITELY needed a warning about the way you are choosing your words and phrases within your posts in relation to another member on this site.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich, I appreciate the expanded explanation.

I am reading that the "warning" was due more to an accumulating tone, and no longer the "KISS" adage? I believe it may have been the better approach to have identified it as such then. You have separate fines for "name calling" and for "general antagonism". You chose the one that is the automatic fine, the "name calling". My observation would be that antagonistic tones prevail throughout many BOI threads, and in the very thread you cite, I had been told to "shine my armor", "play in the sandbox", and would receive "free bullfrogs to replace the slugs I was currently with"! I had fun with each of those statements. I also believe all were made by the "stupid" entity prior to my KISS comment. The rancor in that thread was no where close to the volume levels normally tolerated, IMO, in other threads.

Your rules are written so as to be as objective as possible. In almost every enforcement of them, I have seen you and other Mods attempt to stay that way with them. Your decision here required significant subjectivity, and since it is now not as blatant as first indicated, maybe just a note to me would have sufficed if you didn't like the tone. ? Or a post in the thread?

And so as not to cherry pick, you quote this part of the post:

Some may think you (Alex) are a petty jerk who can't handle competition.

Here's the paragraph, in its full context.

Readers here will draw their own conclusions. Some will think Wendy and Jeane are trying to be scammers etc. Some may think you are a petty jerk who can't handle competition. Some may think I need to shoot myself !! I can easily see more than one saying "a pox on all their houses".

Obviously, I was not fined for threatening myself! I even used the word "will" for the folks I was defending (W and J), and "may" for Alex. Not by accident.

Let the viewers decide. I make no bones about thinking you stretched too far with your power to levy fines. If nothing else, let others absorb it, and exercise whatever caution they feel is necessary.

 

[Lucille]

I

Let the viewers decide. .

Jim,
I don't agree. I think that yes the viewers have every right to their thoughts and opinions about anything on this board (or anywhere else for that matter)
But we are on Rich's site and I think HE should decide how he wants his site run.
And this is no way meant as a criticism, but there are those who post all the time and never get a warning point. (I'm not one of them but I've kept it to a minimum). I think if you err strongly enough on the side of caution, there would be more time to talk about reptiles instead of trying to find the line in the sand.
I try to stay as far from that line as I can get (although I can see it fairly well), but I think most of the time I get my point across.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Lucille,
I don't disagree one bit with the general theme of your post. And the rules are Rich's to make. Never questioned that. But when I state the phrase "Let the viewers decide", I was not suggesting that it should be put to a vote, or a new rules approach where we have a poll on every transgression, etc. Once again, its an adage akin to something like "to each his own", and meant only that as with any post in Fauna, the reader will draw their own conclusion.
Surely some folks choose to stay out of many threads, make the points they care to, etc. You and others who have unblemished records are to be commended. Others of us will engage certain issues in a more direct manner, often taking on the fights that you have clearly expressed disdain for. In the thread in question, I received what I consider a "personal attack" after my very first post which was pretty devoid of anything personal. Even so, I realize that I am bound to play by the rules. Context is everything, and I would implore you to go to that thread, peruse it, and take a look at my last post just about 30 minutes ago. That is how it is supposed to be done, and I believe how it would have been handled had Rich, or anyone else, brought the mis-reading to my attention. No argument about "erring strongly enough on the side of caution", but the rules are the rules. I happen to think that I exercised considerable "err" on the side of caution, and that the rules were mis-applied here.

 

[Lucille]

Lucille,
I don't disagree one bit with the general theme of your post. And the rules are Rich's to make. Never questioned that. But when I state the phrase "Let the viewers decide", I was not suggesting that it should be put to a vote, or a new rules approach where we have a poll on every transgression, etc. Once again, its an adage akin to something like "to each his own", and meant only that as with any post in Fauna, the reader will draw their own conclusion.
Surely some folks choose to stay out of many threads, make the points they care to, etc. You and others who have unblemished records are to be commended. Others of us will engage certain issues in a more direct manner, often taking on the fights that you have clearly expressed disdain for. In the thread in question, I received what I consider a "personal attack" after my very first post which was pretty devoid of anything personal. Even so, I realize that I am bound to play by the rules. Context is everything, and I would implore you to go to that thread, peruse it, and take a look at my last post just about 30 minutes ago. That is how it is supposed to be done, and I believe how it would have been handled had Rich, or anyone else, brought the mis-reading to my attention. No argument about "erring strongly enough on the side of caution", but the rules are the rules. I happen to think that I exercised considerable "err" on the side of caution, and that the rules were mis-applied here.

Jim

I do not have an unblemished record, so perhaps I do not have standing to express my opinion here.
But take it as only my perception and opinion: I did not see it as you erring on the side of caution, I rather saw some personality conflict that was slowly escalating and becoming sharper. If that is not the reality of it, I apologize, but that was the sense that I was getting from what I was reading.
In any case, I defer to Rich, who made the judgment, the same way I did when I was corrected. When I received my warning point, I chose not to ask about it, argue it away, try to alter it (although I did try to auction it off one time without success). I just decided to be more careful.

 

[WebSlave]

Yeah Jim, I hear that all of the time. People always think what they posted was "different" or "exceptional". They think their post did not violate the rules because of what was in their head at the time and not how the words come across to someone outside of their head. Or since someone else posted something they interpreted as being as bad or worse then what they posted, theirs should be exempted in comparison. This has been beat to death many times in other threads, and I have no intention of repeating myself. Do the research yourself for the answers to why those arguments do not hold water. And when push comes to shove, I REALLY don't care that you don't like the fact that I warned you about your postings. I don't enjoy doing it, have much better things to do with my time, and just REALLY wish this site was 100 percent populated with people who act in a mature and professional demeanor. THAT is the goal of the rules I have put into effect here. The penalties are incentive for people to grow to that level, if they can. For those who can't, well, I'm not willing to lower the bar on the quality of this site to accommodate you.

But I will say this, Jim: I spent more of my time then I really had available in PMs to you about that thread in question, and I GUARANTEE I will not make that same mistake again. The warning point system has been, is, and always will be discretionary based on what myself or the moderators think about the post at the time we may read it. Sometimes we may spend more time then others pondering it, instead of just a flat out objective interpretation of individual words or phrases. Most times we won't. And I REALLY don't care whether someone doesn't like that aspect of it or not. It is the ONLY feasible way to handle it based on the fact that human beings are doing this work. If someone wants to whine about their warning points, well knock yourself out, but it is not going to change your getting the points at all. The thought went into the points BEFORE they were assessed and it is an extremely rare event when after thought changes that perception.

As to what your intentions are turning this thread into a discussion about YOUR warning points, I think I know, but for the moment I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. Just don't play "Mr. Innocent" with me, please. I've been doing this for far too long to NOT know. The benefit of the doubt is only because I'm not certain that YOU know what you are doing.

You know, I spend more time on this site responding to whine-o-grams then probably anything else I do here. If you want to play word games on this site, perhaps thinking that you can be clever enough to conceal your real intentions, well have at it. What you post may very well be completely innocent, but past history here with other posters has shown that to be the exception, rather then the rule. Generally speaking, if the TONE of the thread is one of heated thinly concealed antagonism based on the emotion of the discussion, whatever you post may very well be taken in the worst possible light, simply because that is very likely the REAL meaning behind it.

Saying "keep it simple - stupid" in a light hearted jokingly made post is FAR different from saying it in a thread where emotions are running high, and that poster has already indicated by their actions that they are getting emotionally perturbed by that discussion. Your later explanations, often made with a cooler head, will not change a thing in how it was interpreted at the time.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich and Lucille,

We will just have another one to agree to disagree on. If nothing else, it did make me aware of, and afford me the opportunity, to address it in the thread which is how correcting a misunderstanding should have been. It was not a slur or name-calling that required an apology or a retraction, just a definition for those not informed, or maybe foreigners still grasping the nuances of our language.

BTW, Lucille, Rich and I began a PM exchange yesterday about a one-point warning which I agreed was due, as I had violated the rules about anonymous posting. It was prior to this issue, and the discussion between Rich and I was the topic that became the "reading comprehension" thread in this same forum, and led to a change in the application of the penalty points and fines. I also acknowledged my culpability in the thread in the BOI, where I had made that offense.

As I am finding out now about the "KISS" phrase, in this thread, from Rich, is that I was fined $10 for reasons not initially communicated to me, at least not completely by anyone's measure now. I believe that you both understand that a person fined in this site has a reasonable expectation to have the offense and fine linked, so as to at least have the benefit of learning from it. My efforts here got me that explanation. Since I had to pay $10, I expected such, but readily admit that a non-monetary fine may have never made the radar. I thank you. Other readers here now have that benefit as well.

 

[WebSlave]

BTW, Lucille, Rich and I began a PM exchange yesterday about a one-point warning which I agreed was due, as I had violated the rules about anonymous posting. It was prior to this issue, and the discussion between Rich and I was the topic that became the "reading comprehension" thread in this same forum, and led to a change in the application of the penalty points and fines. I also acknowledged my culpability in the thread in the BOI, where I had made that offense.

That is not exactly accurate. I began this process before our PM discussion began, and it was actually my intent to withhold (or at least delay) the levy of the warning point (which would have caused a fine and suspension) until the new system had mostly been put in place. When the system were to be completely finished, part of the process is a clearing of the slate for all current warning points, which would have caused that Anonymous Quote violation to be a minor 1 point infraction. Unfortunately, with several reported posts coming in on that other post with the derogatory comments (whether or not they were misinterpreted) forced the issue before all the changes have been completed. But it seems no matter what I do here, I still come out looking like the ogre.

Honestly I am beginning to hate the warning system. Although I believe the intent of it is good, the application of it is causing me a huge amount of grief and aggravation. But try as I might, I can't think of ANY penalty system that would work any better. No one likes to be reprimanded, and most people take offense at it, just some more then others. But no one appreciates it at all. So I think this issue is rapidly coming to a head as to whether I am to continue with the aggravation of having rules here and the work of enforcing them, or just saying to hell with it, remove the rules and the enforcers of the rules, and let everyone have what it is they apparently want out of this site: To do as they please, how they please. Maybe what I want out of this site is just not possible to reach and it is time to stop trying. Yeah, it is probably just my other workload talking here, but it's talking pretty darn loud to me. I'm just TIRED of it all.

I have tried, but I don't see any way to have a middle ground. If there are any rules, even one, it has to be enforced, with penalties, or there is no sense in having rules. But quite frankly, I am tired to death of trying to make this site be what I want it to be. So I may just have to stop trying. I guess I just set my sights too high with this place.