The New System: H's late night ramblings

[hhmoore]

Jim,
I am well aware of my words...it seems that you have misinterpreted some of them, however. My only mention of your translation was here:

I won't step on toes by discussing the multiplying power you refer to...except to say that you are a bit off in your translation of things

That was a stand alone statement, dealing with a specific issue, and it was separated from the remainder of my post.

As for the 10-20 folks that "would run circles around the enforcement efforts of the original 4 moderators"...perhaps, just perhaps, that sort of chaotic slamming of personalities and pursuing of vendettas was part of the reason things were done this way. In your opinion, there are a few people that should be banned...I tend to agree with you. I wonder, though, if we would be in agreement regarding the identity of those people.
It sounds as if you are desirous of a more trigger happy lot. I think that some others are standing alongside and right behind you in your chant. I personally, am not impressed by it. Nor am I seeking specifically to ban anyone (though my interpretion of things was that once the 500 points was reached, it would be a fine & suspension...not a ban). I am aware of the way the plan was outlined in the WWW thread, but I am, possibly, a bit literal in my view of the term moderate.
For what it's worth, I have spent significantly more time cruising the BOI than I normally would...almost to the exclusion of participation in the discussion forums. The BOI is an important part of this site. It is also the area that requires the most moderation. I will, none-the-less, be shifting my efforts a bit in attempt to find a happy medium. I don't mind being known as a moderator, but it is more important for me to be known for who I am...and that person can best be found and understood in other parts of Fauna.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Ok.

That was a stand alone statement, dealing with a specific issue, and it was separated from the remainder of my post.

As for the 10-20 folks that "would run circles around the enforcement efforts of the original 4 moderators"...perhaps, just perhaps, that sort of chaotic slamming of personalities and pursuing of vendettas was part of the reason things were done this way. In your opinion, there are a few people that should be banned...I tend to agree with you. I wonder, though, if we would be in agreement regarding the identity of those people.

Well, I would hope that you could understand that your claim that a "translation" was flawed was then tied to the explanation that followed, rather than assuming that it was "stand alone" with no supporting explanation.

I will take issue with you to what I highlighted above. I couldn't disagree more with that characterization. Its not a suggestion for chaos, but rather that other methods exist for selecting the adhoc mods, such that a group of "10-20-40" would be exactly that. If "perhaps, just perhaps" is to be taken as "anything is possible", it is also a pointless argument, as the issue is what is likely or expected, not what is possible. As it stands now, even fugitives can be deputized for $100, and in essance join the posse. Some certainly are so empowered as we speak. That is more likely a formula for chaos than anything I and others have suggested. The current system also has already created claims of vendettas being pursued. While other selection processes may not eliminate that claim, there are still better criteria available than "$100 and you are in". Is the idea of using "qualifying criteria" for any position of responsibility, such that the criteria are tied to the job expected, to invite chaos ???? That's as absurd as this:

It sounds as if you are desirous of a more trigger happy lot.

Is a good and effective police force in your town (or wherever they exist) the result of "trigger happy cops"? I doubt it. I also doubt it exists because they offered badges to the employees of the Parks Department, or for a fee. I am going to assume they had a vetting process tied to the requirements and expectations of the job.

Harald, if also doesn't matter if you and I are in agreement as to whom should be banned, for if I drop $100 neither you nor I collectively could do it anyway. By definition it has to be a group effort. While we need not agree, here's one current example: Scott Sanchez. Under the older enforcement system, he'd have been banned 20 times over in this past week (although I don't expect he would have paid and come back more than once or twice, but you get the point). Yet, he's still here. If "the 40" all walked the beat, or a differing group of even 10, selected from lists suggested elsewhere, were so empowered ..... wave goodbye to Scott Sanchez, cause he's long gone. Nothing trigger happy about it.

Lastly, as I said before, if you want to make a characterization or paraphrase of what I say or want, try using the quote function, or at least make a better effort to be accurate.

 

[Seamus Haley]

While other selection processes may not eliminate that claim, there are still better criteria available than "$100 and you are in".

... What would those be then?

 

[Chameleon Company]

Seamus,
They were discussed at some length in Rich's thread when he first introduced the system. Many folks offered ideas. Also, the recent "People's Choice" thread, in this same forum, solicited criteria and names. While I think the personal lists were a folly, the better debate would be criteria, and that debate has occured. In the end, Rich said some time ago that it is what it is, and to get used to it.

 

[Seamus Haley]

Seamus,
They were discussed at some length in Rich's thread when he first introduced the system. Many folks offered ideas.

Many ideas were discussed, but every alternative that was offered was rejected for legitimate reasons- or that's the way I remember it anyway, if something slipped past me though or you have chriteria that weren't discussed, I'd be interested in knowing what you propose. If you just mean that you think some of the rejected proposals (post count or membership length for example) would have been better then I'd just appreciate a little confirmation about your meaning there.

Sure you can't clarify with something specific? I rmemeber suggestions from trader ratings to the karma system to membership length to post count to open nomination and voting from the member base- it's a bit vague to simply say that something better was proposed and rejected without pinning it down given the number of suggestions that were discussed.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Seamus,
What it comes down to is opening up the debate all over again, which serves no gainful purpose. Its been had, and the decision-maker has already stated once again in this thread that he is aware of the alternatives proposed. My recollection of the "debate" was not that other ideas were so much debunked. Rather the benevolent one said "no", that he was content with his plan, which is an understandable stance. It was not a vague conversation when it occured. Issues raised here now had more to do with clarifying that there were other ideas that did not invite additional chaos, as was alleged, and did not encourage being "trigger happy", etc. Those discussions are earlier in this thread if you'd care to review them. I also took issue with the number "40". It is well explained also.

 

[WebSlave]

I also took issue with the number "40". It is well explained also.

My comment was that there are now 10 times the number of "moderators" available to issue warning points in the effort to help civilize this place. That comparison being 40+ members now against the original 4 before that plan was set into motion.

And I still stand by that figure. The fact that some of that 40 are not going to read each and every post here, nor engage in active moderation is irrelevant to the comparison. During the tenure of myself and the site mods, we each and collectively went through periods where we just were not interested or available in being active as moderators. Which is most certainly true today. Ken is tied up greatly with his personal life. Jay is VERY busy with his work. I, personally, don't care to spend the time to read many of the posts here with other things pressing for my time, which is going to get worse before it gets better. So that really leaves Dennis carrying much of the load. And most CERTAINLY, he has his own life to lead as well.

So with that in mind, if only 10 of the 40 are actively using their "powers" of administering warning points, the relative percentage comparison really remains the same regardless of the actual numbers.

And the point of all this is that no matter HOW many members are engaging in moderation, someone will ALWAYS complain about it as not being enough, not being effective, or one or more are being biased and we ALL are inconsistent.

As for hand picking "troops" with seek and destroy orders, no, I think that would be a mistake. There has to be some freedom of expression here (especially in the BOI), and this could be a classic case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Seriously, everyone GENERALLY wants to have the police catch the law breakers, but NO one really wants a cop at every corner and one to drive to and from work with them every day. How many times have you fumed because a cop was in traffic with you and you felt restricted in how you normally drive?

 

[Chameleon Company]

Got me laughing a little bit now ......

... and that would be with you, and not at you ....... but

How many times have you fumed because a cop was in traffic with you and you felt restricted in how you normally drive?

In all honesty, being as I am a safe driver, the answer would be:

Not as many times as some jerk was weaving in and out of traffic, or speeding, or cutting folks off, etc, and I thought "Where's a friggin cop when you need one".

Those few times in my decades of driving when I went over the next hill and actually saw the fiend pulled over can be counted on one hand. I cheered ! You drive a Vette, and I a truck, so our viewpoints may differ

If I felt like a greater debate, I think I could tear your other analogy apart, but that may just be my own arrogance speaking. However, maybe 'tis safe and accurate to agree that any system will have its detractors.

 

[hhmoore]

Jim, I've seen you in action enough to recognize the futility in responding further. While it is tempting to do so simply as an exercise, it would be a waste of that oh so valuable commodity - time, and I just don't have enough of that to go around. Have fun.

 

[Dragondad]

Jim

Someone told me not to long ago some advice, let me repeat it for you...
































Take a powder

 

[KUVACHIM]

"Take a powder"
---is that a reference to.... nevermind

 

[Chameleon Company]

Call me old school, but as another example, take the current "Go Lizards" thread in the BOI, post #61 and beyond. While the post is only about 40 minutes old, with a few more competent and interested cops on the beat, it would have likely picked up some dings by now. More importatnly, and we'll watch this one unfold, but this guy should end the day at least 50% on his way to suspension, if not be suspended just for that one post. Why ? Not only because he is scum, but more importantly to make it clear to other participants here that you know how to clean house. Am I saying he should have 250 warning points by day's end, if not 500 or more ? No. It won't happen anyway. I'm saying that a system that allows the likes of Scott Sanchez, after his threats, Keith Northrup, after his threats, and now this bum (Reptile Adoptions or some such nonsense) to still be a a part of the Fauna Community, after having gone so far over the top and sown their aggravation on other members, is begging for a fix. Many of your regular members can go toe-to-toe with these bums all day and night, if we wanted to waste the time. But there are no finer examples of posts and entities that scare off greater participation by other normal people, while also standing as examples for others to point at when they need to ridicule Fauna.

 

[WebSlave]

Jim, please review the history of Chris Johnson here on this site taking into account the rule changes I made a while back to "clean house". Read with some comprehension of WHY not allowing someone to publicly shoot their own feet off up to the waist does NOT serve the public in the manner in which the BOI was intended to help accomplish. In other words, why should I chop down the tree that someone is bound and determined to hang themselves by once they have wrapped the rope firmly around their own neck?

If I REQUIRE that everyone act like a "good" guy, then how will those wolves in sheep's clothing get exposed?

Sorry, Jim, we have been there already, and I learned from that mistake. I am not about to repeat that particular one again. I have specifically told the mods that the BOI needs to have much more leeway than the rest of this site concerning antagonistic and abusive behavior (as long as it is NOT directed at the mods for the efforts to moderate). There is a limit, of course, but the goal there is for the BOI to be allowed to serve it's purpose.

 

[Mike Greathouse]

Rich,
While I agree with you completely and I applaud your efforts to increase the level of moderation via the new program, there is one issue which would seem to need to be addressed by senior management.

There are a handful of individuals here (names are not important as everyone knows who they are) that contribute nothing to this community other then a high level of disruption. They have been given all of the rope in the world and have used every strand.

They are demeaning to the members here and to the site itself. Although the entertainment level is occasionally increased, it is my belief that they very likely, prevent other more well intentioned members from participating here.

Sometimes you just have to make a stand and take out the trash.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich,
I appreciate your indulgence of my complaint. Rather that go back and research all of the earlier history of TSE, let me summarize an after-action report, and then see how it might relate to your thoughts.

TSE aka Chris Johnson was able to milk his existence here and steal a lot of money. Many of those taken noted that he had no easily recognized bad marks against him, and in fact had the highest trader-rating, etc. By the time Chris was seen to be someone to avoid, it was too late. Whatever the earlier circumstances you refer to are, in hindsight, if an opportunity was missed to "red-flag" Chris, then it is a shame. As all things Chris Johnson unfolded, I recollect nothing in his entire history here that shines well on Fauna.

More leeway and other such terms are quite subjective. In the older system, threats against other members almost always managed a suspension. I would think that threats of lethal force might be at the high end of such infractions. It is my estimate that such threats now earn someone about 20-30% of a suspension, and that only occurs with super-mod attention. That's leeway alright

The schmuck that I referred to above did accumulate about 100 warning points in a hurry. About 90% of that effort had to come from you and the bigger stick you carry. I'm with Mike here. While this particular exposed alias entity (Reptile Adoptions, Doug, Bob, whatever) could probably care less, dinging someone and possibly suspending them is often not for their sake, but more for the sake and reputation of the site and its members to see that you put out the trash.

Some of your members here have law-enforcement backgrounds. Some military. Many more have business backgrounds where discipline came with the turf. There is no quicker way to lose the trust and respect or your peers and subordinates than to not render timely and effective discipline, so as to not only minimize the chance of the problem reccuring, but to also display to all that you maintain order in the environment to be enjoyed by those who do play by the rules.

I agree that you can't please everybody. Let that not be an excuse for ignoring the more obvious tweaks that are becoming apparent as being needed.

 

[Lucille]

Rich,
While I agree with you completely and I applaud your efforts to increase the level of moderation via the new program, there is one issue which would seem to need to be addressed by senior management.

There are a handful of individuals here (names are not important as everyone knows who they are) that contribute nothing to this community other then a high level of disruption. They have been given all of the rope in the world and have used every strand.

They are demeaning to the members here and to the site itself. Although the entertainment level is occasionally increased, it is my belief that they very likely, prevent other more well intentioned members from participating here.

Sometimes you just have to make a stand and take out the trash.

Good post, and I agree that there are those whose participation has declined as a direct result of this handful.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

Rich,
I appreciate your indulgence of my complaint. Rather that go back and research all of the earlier history of TSE, let me summarize an after-action report, and then see how it might relate to your thoughts.

TSE aka Chris Johnson was able to milk his existence here and steal a lot of money. Many of those taken noted that he had no easily recognized bad marks against him, and in fact had the highest trader-rating, etc. By the time Chris was seen to be someone to avoid, it was too late. Whatever the earlier circumstances you refer to are, in hindsight, if an opportunity was missed to "red-flag" Chris, then it is a shame. As all things Chris Johnson unfolded, I recollect nothing in his entire history here that shines well on Fauna.

More leeway and other such terms are quite subjective. In the older system, threats against other members almost always managed a suspension. I would think that threats of lethal force might be at the high end of such infractions. It is my estimate that such threats now earn someone about 20-30% of a suspension, and that only occurs with super-mod attention. That's leeway alright

The schmuck that I referred to above did accumulate about 100 warning points in a hurry. About 90% of that effort had to come from you and the bigger stick you carry. I'm with Mike here. While this particular exposed alias entity (Reptile Adoptions, Doug, Bob, whatever) could probably care less, dinging someone and possibly suspending them is often not for their sake, but more for the sake and reputation of the site and its members to see that you put out the trash.

Some of your members here have law-enforcement backgrounds. Some military. Many more have business backgrounds where discipline came with the turf. There is no quicker way to lose the trust and respect or your peers and subordinates than to not render timely and effective discipline, so as to not only minimize the chance of the problem reccuring, but to also display to all that you maintain order in the environment to be enjoyed by those who do play by the rules.

I agree that you can't please everybody. Let that not be an excuse for ignoring the more obvious tweaks that are becoming apparent as being needed.

VERY well said. Personally, i think the warning limit is MUCH too high. Now that things have been tested.. i believe its time for a re evaluation of the warning limit. Too much BS has been going on to warrant these people staying on this site! it really drags the whole place down...

 

[WebSlave]

Rich,
While I agree with you completely and I applaud your efforts to increase the level of moderation via the new program, there is one issue which would seem to need to be addressed by senior management.

There are a handful of individuals here (names are not important as everyone knows who they are) that contribute nothing to this community other then a high level of disruption. They have been given all of the rope in the world and have used every strand.

They are demeaning to the members here and to the site itself. Although the entertainment level is occasionally increased, it is my belief that they very likely, prevent other more well intentioned members from participating here.

Sometimes you just have to make a stand and take out the trash.

Been there and done that, Mike, and all I got for my efforts was heaping big servings of CRAP from quite a few individuals. To give you a PERFECT example, check out this thread -> http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73508

So what I have done is to give everyone here the potential to make this site what they want it to be via their own efforts. Yes, I set the bar high, which I think most people will recognize is a necessity to try to limit abuses that most likely would result. Obviously some people will say it is TOO high and will want me to do all the dirty work and catch all of the resulting flak because of it. Thanks, but no thanks. I've done my best with this iteration of the changes here to try to empower the members to do what they THINK needs to be done, yet tried to limit the damage that could be caused by blatant abuses. No, it's not perfect, but perfection is just some pie in the sky idea that will be different for everyone anyway. But the way I am looking at it, is that each member CAPABLE of issuing warning points is voting with their warning. If 40 members positively, absolutely wanted to get someone justifiably booted out of here, it would take them all, acting concurrently, only less than TWO WEEKS in order to do so with that current 500 point threshhold.

So if you all want the trash taken out, then by all means, do it yourselves....

 

[Mike Greathouse]

Sorry Rich,
I will not pay you $100.00 for the "privilege" of taking out the trash on your website. There are many other member-friendly sites where like-minded people can discuss reptiles, without all of the nonsense.

See you around....

 

[WebSlave]

Sorry Rich,
I will not pay you $100.00 for the "privilege" of taking out the trash on your website. There are many other member-friendly sites where like-minded people can discuss reptiles, without all of the nonsense.

See you around....

That is certainly one of the choices you can make, Mike. See ya....