Warning Points System Mod

[Sledgehammer]

We had shrilly in at least 2 different incarnations and that other idiot sludgehumper and a few others that simply should not have been given the chances they were.

Well Wes,
I'm starting to wonder if you suffer from a Split Personality Disorder.
Here you are trying to come across as a loyal supporter of Fauna, when in the past, you have been one of it's staunchest critics. It's becoming more and more difficult to decide which Wes is at the keyboard on any given day.

Also, doesn't the comment quoted above qualify you for warning points?
If I'm not mistaken, name calling has been clearly defined as a violation of forum rules.

 

[WebSlave]

Seamus, good point.

Sorry, I was never much in favor of any sort of truly genuine democratic method of management. ie: 51 percent of the members can vote to kill and eat the other 49 percent.

My preference is to have a set of rules here that are to be enforced by a subset of members, with all actions liberally sprinkled with a good dose of common sense.

Banning (or suspending) should be a rare event and completely justifiable based on the rules of this site. If the rules prove to be insufficient, then the rules need to be changed PRIOR to changes made in creative expansion of interpretation of the existing rules. The whole idea of this is NOT to boot people out of here, but instead to make every effort possible to get them to comply with what is considered to be acceptable behavior on this site. Penalties should necessarily follow corrective attempts done via warnings. Banning or suspending a member immediately is not corrective in methodology. Those are the results of failed attempts at getting the member to comply with the rules of this site. The member being warned should be made aware of what it is they are being warned against, with the hopes that such efforts will initiate a change in behavior. Those who cannot or will not change need to be evicted. But my preference is that they be given a chance to change before that event takes place. Basically give someone the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they have just made a mistake in judgement.

The above was the design criteria in mind when I set up the expanded warning points system. I purposely made it a difficult process to suspend someone. I felt, and still do, that it needed to be something that those members capable of doing would have to have the support of most other members in order to do so.

 

[Ed Clark]

Michael, I have no obligation to answer any questions from wes pollack. he has this johnny appleseed thing going on where he likes to go around planting seeds. I did answer his question and you might have looked around to find this out. let me help you out.

Religion, child loss, an personal vendettas are what we are coming to? Come on. In the words of that great Californian, "Can't we all just get along?"

This group is the "Brady Bunch of the Herp world." We are all married into it because of a common interest. Like Bobby and Cindy, disagreements and fights will occur but they always made up by the end of the half hour. Dragging up old issues and personal vendettas only causes more harm than good. Life is hard enough to deal with, without each of us reminding the others about the pains that exist in their lives. The purpose hers is to make a better product. How is any of this helping? We have knowledgeable people leaving because of others voicing inconsequential insecurities. Moderators, unpaid moderators, coins, pay before you play: all these comments are not helping us achieve our goal. If you look back about 250 posts ago I was in the middle of this to prove a point. I was trying to prove some inconsistancies in the moderating process. I must say I got frustrated and did not participate until now. It seems we have degressed instead of progressed. Wes's post says it all. We are trying to make a better place and we cannot afford to lose good members because of others who make a bad choice of their words. Rich has not quit or he wouldn't continue to post as he does. He does care but like most leaders it requires a huge amount of energy to do so. He has turned the reigns over to everyone of us. We drive this site by our actions and comments. If we want to drive it into the sewer we will continus if we keep following this path we have lately. Think about it we are rejoicing over a member being banned. ( I am not saying either way if it is good or bad). This is not proactive. We need to grab the bull by the horns and stop "belly bucking" (ouch) and get back to making this a place people want to come to learn about the reptile world. If we can do this the KING will notice and allow this site to flourish. This is our goal isn't it???


OK my 2 minute commercial is over. Back to the action of tearing each other apart and pointing out our misgivings and faults.

PS. By the way ED Clark you never did answer Wes's question. Being a guy that produces quality snakes I would have thought a little more about your actions in this thread. I held you in pretty high esteem until that point.

 

[kmurphy]

Here you are trying to come across as a loyal supporter of Fauna, when in the past, you have been one of it's staunchest critics.

Being critical of something doesn't necessarily mean a lack of support, in fact it often means just the opposite.

 

[CurtisF]

Being critical of something doesn't necessarily mean a lack of support, in fact it often means just the opposite.

Agreed.

I believe true supporters are ones who try to fix something, not sit back and wait for others.

 

[Wilomn]

Michael, I have no obligation to answer any questions from wes pollack. he has this johnny appleseed thing going on where he likes to go around planting seeds. I did answer his question and you might have looked around to find this out. let me help you out.

Yes, of course ed. Afterall it was ME who bought my way into moderation capabilities. And THEN it was ME who abused the privilege I had bought and paid for. And THEN it was ME who lied about doing that. And THEN it was ME who dinged a newbie for no real reason and THEN it was ME who opened another can of worms about why I did that.

Wasn't it ed?

Yeah ed, you're right, as always. It was ME ME ME who did ALL the above. It was ME ME ME who did all the above as a moderator, as someone who is supposed to be a step above average. It was ME ME ME who failed so miserably to maintain that single step. It was ME ME ME who brought down the whole team by lying.

I am despicable.

Oh and one little detail. In order for all the above statements to be TRUE, my name must also be ed clark.

 

[WebSlave]

OK! Enough! I have added a new warning point:

Attack on a member outside of the BOI

It's a five (5) pointer.

I feel that such things are necessary in order for the BOI to operate in a manner to be effective, but outside of the BOI it just is not needed nor wanted.

And this has been getting to be more and more the case on this site.

Although I do not actively condone having warnings applied retroactively, I will NOT entertain reviewing complaints about that happening against someone. Perhaps the incentive to create a new rule just needs to have it applied against the people whose actions created that necessity.

 

[Sledgehammer]

Being critical of something doesn't necessarily mean a lack of support, in fact it often means just the opposite.

Kevin,
Go back and look at some of Wes' posts during the last few months.
I was being kind with the use of the word critic. Had I accurately described his behavior, my post would have been subject to warning points.

 

[Wilomn]

Yes, of course ed. Afterall it was ME who bought my way into moderation capabilities. And THEN it was ME who abused the privilege I had bought and paid for. And THEN it was ME who lied about doing that. And THEN it was ME who dinged a newbie for no real reason and THEN it was ME who opened another can of worms about why I did that.

Wasn't it ed?

Yeah ed, you're right, as always. It was ME ME ME who did ALL the above. It was ME ME ME who did all the above as a moderator, as someone who is supposed to be a step above average. It was ME ME ME who failed so miserably to maintain that single step. It was ME ME ME who brought down the whole team by lying.

I am despicable.

Oh and one little detail. In order for all the above statements to be TRUE, my name must also be ed clark.

Well well well, it only took dandy, er eddy, a couple of hours to decide that he needed to ding me with Rich's new 5 point ding.

Excellent moderation there eddy. I mean it's not like you are uninvolved in this and can see it from an outside perspective, no no no, not at all.

You're exactly what is WRONG with bought mod status eddy. You don't have the intelligence to carry off being a mod and since I have called you on it YOU have made it PERSONAL and are NOW ABUSING your status to hit me with points I don't deserve.

You're a piece eddy ol boy, a real piece.

IF any of you with mod status agree with me I suppose we'll see ol eddy here hit with an abuse of power ding or three, eh?

Way to go eddy, prove what a big man you are.

Can't take the heat, can't answer questions, can't get yourself out of the trouble you get yourself into so you just hit me for not being nice to you.

Do you check your spine at the door or is it always missing?

 

[jsrocket]

You're exactly what is WRONG with bought mod status eddy. You don't have the intelligence to carry off being a mod and since I have called you on it YOU have made it PERSONAL and are NOW ABUSING your status to hit me with points I don't deserve.

It is pretty clear to me who is making it PERSONAL.

 

[Wilomn]

It is pretty clear to me who is making it PERSONAL.

jim, since you seem to have missed the point YET AGAIN, let me explain it to you.

I am NOT a mod. Should I choose to make something personal, which I have as yet not chosen to do, I am at liberty to do so. Were I a mod, someone who is supposed to have standards above and beyond those of a normal member, I would NOT give dings to someone who had pointed out my inadequacies.

For example: eddy the mod has lied. eddy the mod has lied about lying. eddy the mod has given points in retaliation for things people said about other people he considers friends. eddy the mod has given me points soley because I have questioned his ability to be a moderator.

I don't suppose you suppose, because you just don't seem smart enough, to think that perhaps he should not be using his mod status to smack me for pointing out his failings?

Do you see the point now?

 

[varnyard]

Warnings to Wilomn
Warned By Warn Date Reason Relevant Post Moderator Comment
Ed Clark 04-23-2007 Attack on a member outside of the BOI [ View Post] Wes, we all are trying to maintain civility on this site.

Yea, the system is working for some.

 

[Clay Davenport]

Ed is taking it personal and there's two things wrong with him dinging Wes for that.
First of all the "offense" was committed before the warning existed. While there is no rule against issuing points for previous infractions, at the very least it's tacky and vindictive.
In the real world if a law is passed you're not guilty of breaking it before the fact. In my opinion the same principle should apply.
Rich gave Wes a ding for the same offense, but it was committed after the warning was created, Rich didn't go back and warn him for the previous post.

Secondly, the general consensus among the mods when the program was first started was that we would not issue warnings in thread we were participating in since it made it personal. Once again there is no rule against this, so it's not clear cut abuse, but we all understood the idea behind it agreed that it was in bad form to use the warning capabilities against someone you were personally involved with.
As an example, there was a thread I was involved with where a certain individual called the people who held the opposing view, myself included, idiots and morons, but I refused to issue him points for the name calling because I was personally involved. It's just bad form.

I don't like Ed's moderating "style" if that's what you want to call it. So far I think he's only the second one with whom I haven't agreed with their methods. He doesn't demonstrate the ability to maintain the objectivity and level headedness required for the position.
Regardless though, that is how the system works, and he along with anyone else is free to pay the cash to give out points. In this case however, I tend to believe that the ability to issue points was a deciding factor in the amount of the "donation".

It's wise to consider how such actions have the potential to affect public opinion towards you both on a personal and business level.

 

[varnyard]

Ed is taking it personal and there's two things wrong with him dinging Wes for that.
First of all the "offense" was committed before the warning existed. While there is no rule against issuing points for previous infractions, at the very least it's tacky and vindictive.
In the real world if a law is passed you're not guilty of breaking it before the fact. In my opinion the same principle should apply.
Rich gave Wes a ding for the same offense, but it was committed after the warning was created, Rich didn't go back and warn him for the previous post.

Secondly, the general consensus among the mods when the program was first started was that we would not issue warnings in thread we were participating in since it made it personal. Once again there is no rule against this, so it's not clear cut abuse, but we all understood the idea behind it agreed that it was in bad form to use the warning capabilities against someone you were personally involved with.
As an example, there was a thread I was involved with where a certain individual called the people who held the opposing view, myself included, idiots and morons, but I refused to issue him points for the name calling because I was personally involved. It's just bad form.

I don't like Ed's moderating "style" if that's what you want to call it. So far I think he's only the second one with whom I haven't agreed with their methods. He doesn't demonstrate the ability to maintain the objectivity and level headedness required for the position.
Regardless though, that is how the system works, and he along with anyone else is free to pay the cash to give out points. In this case however, I tend to believe that the ability to issue points was a deciding factor in the amount of the "donation".

It's wise to consider how such actions have the potential to affect public opinion towards you both on a personal and business level.

Great post and point Clay!!

 

[Ed Clark]

Clay, did you read this new rule?

OK! Enough! I have added a new warning point:

Attack on a member outside of the BOI

It's a five (5) pointer.

I feel that such things are necessary in order for the BOI to operate in a manner to be effective, but outside of the BOI it just is not needed nor wanted.

And this has been getting to be more and more the case on this site.

Although I do not actively condone having warnings applied retroactively, I will NOT entertain reviewing complaints about that happening against someone. Perhaps the incentive to create a new rule just needs to have it applied against the people whose actions created that necessity.

 

[shrap]

LMAO.....

 

[ravensgait]

Clay, Wes, seems that some are taking my stated personal feeling as some kind of rule for UN troops, Mods whatever ya want to call them.. Now I don't know if they have made it a rule since I was a UN troop because I can no longer see the Mod Forum, I'm a forum Mod on the outs lol. But a while back when asked why I didn't warn someone in a thread I was actively involved in I said that I, me, myself, didn't think it was fair for me to warn someone under those circumstances.. Just thought I'd mention it since some seem to think it's some kind of rule.... Randy

 

[varnyard]

Clay, did you read this new rule?

Yea Ed, we all seen it, you used the new warning on a old post before the new warning was instated.

I will also add, I am no longer a mod here. I will not be using my awesome power (Paid to play) here on any dinging on this site. Therefore, I will no longer turn a blind eye, right is still right, wrong is still wrong, bottom line.

Enough said.

 

[Clay Davenport]

Clay, did you read this new rule?

What's your point Ed? Are you saying I'm attacking you or are you in some vague way attempting to justify the warning you gave Wes for breaking that rule before it existed?
To quote part of what you quoted from Rich:

Although I do not actively condone having warnings applied retroactively, I will NOT entertain reviewing complaints about that happening against someone.

Applying the warning retroactively is exactly what you did, and while Rich stated he would not review complaints on the matter he also said he did not actively condone it. The way I see it you took that to mean even though the boss didn't particularly like it, he wouldn't smack you for it anyway and took that as a form of permission.

Clay, Wes, seems that some are taking my stated personal feeling as some kind of rule for UN troops, Mods whatever ya want to call them.. Now I don't know if they have made it a rule since I was a UN troop because I can no longer see the Mod Forum, I'm a forum Mod on the outs lol. But a while back when asked why I didn't warn someone in a thread I was actively involved in I said that I, me, myself, didn't think it was fair for me to warn someone under those circumstances.. Just thought I'd mention it since some seem to think it's some kind of rule.... Randy

I actually wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I brought that up. Many of us expressed the same opinion and even the super mods said that was the way they always tried to do it long before the lesser mods were created. They refrained from issuing points for attacking a mod when they were the mod in question, they left those points to the other mods.
I did state that there is no rule against it, just that as a general consensus most of us felt that was the appropriate way to handle it.

 

[varnyard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Clark
Clay, did you read this new rule?

Clay Davenport: What's your point Ed? Are you saying I'm attacking you or are you in some vague way attempting to justify the warning you gave Wes for breaking that rule before it existed?

Wait now Clay, you are now in violation of the Mod rules. You must not confront a team member in a open forum. You must go to the moderator forums to contest your fellow team member. That’s the rules, and do try to support your fellow team member!!

What a joke!!! You know it was a slurring pun Clay!!