Warning Points System Mod

[DThomas]

The problem here is that you have given the keys to a few irresponsible people who believe the pinto they were given is somehow a Ferrari. They are going to run the heck out of it only to find out that the only thing they now own is a rusted out reputation..err pinto.

Griz

Just a different type of rope. How people choose to use it is going to be entertaining. I have to give Rich credit for coming up with new and inventive ways for people to hang themselves. It certainly is going to be interesting watching how this unfolds. I have no doubt we are going to learn a few new things about many of the members here.

 

[WebSlave]

Rich, if you want to throw yourself into the same category as a few of the individuals at the $100 level then so be it. I never have thought of you that way.

The fact still remains that being a moderator, having this power given to you, is a responsibility that should be earned not paid for. Through the very act of earning the responsibility should showcase to you that this person will wield the power appropriately.

YOU as well as Doc etc, have earned that right and have handed out judgement appropriately. Any business that you might have lost was arguably business that you never would have received regardless.

The problem here is that you have given the keys to a few irresponsible people who believe the pinto they were given is somehow a Ferrari. They are going to run the heck out of it only to find out that the only thing they now own is a rusted out reputation..err pinto.

Griz

Sorry, but you have completely dodged the issue I brought up.

No, I have not EARNED this position at all. I just started this site. I got the idea, put together the nuts and bolts of this idea, and launched it. No one voted me into it, nor did I in any way earn the ownership or admin rights to it. As for the site mods, there was no public voting on who I selected for the job. I asked THEM if they would help me. Same as I am asking the Benefactor and Endowment level members to help me now. There is absolutely NO difference at all.

So again, WHY are the drawbacks you now claim those Benefactor and Endowment level members are subject to when they help US to moderate this site not also applicable to myself, Jay, Dennis, and Ken? It has nothing at all to do with a "category", it has to do with the JOB being asked to be done here by MOST of you.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

"New" Business 101

I would have given the points myself but figured I would leave that for others to do so I could initiate testing on the system.

If you don't like or don't believe my reasons, then that is your problem.

I realize that Fauna is a business... for Rich, that is. I am a business owner myself, and I know that it can be a real headache at times. It comes with the territory. I can also understand trying to find solutions for getting rid of the headache. But, the headache is MINE, because I am the owner of the business. But, I would never dream of charging my customers to deal with my headache!

When you run a business, the customers become your employer... they provide the paycheck. Customers are not employees. A business is only successful if the customers are satisfied with the product and service they receive. If they aren't, they will take go elsewhere. Would I tell a dissatisfied customer to pack their bags? No. I might think it, but I would not say it.

The members here at Fauna are just that... members. But, if they provide Rich's paycheck for HIS business, they become customers. The only difference is that Fauna's "customers" are being charged not only for the product, but to run the business, too. Fauna's customers are paying to be employees to alleviate the boss's headache.

As a business owner, normally it would be eventual suicide to deliberately create dissent among the employees. Not in the case of Fauna, though. Dissent equals 'Fauna Drama', and with each page read, with each post, with each spell-check, the boss gets paid from the rotating advertisements. Fauna employees actually PAY for the extra responsibility of doing the boss's job instead of being paid for it!

Ingenious!

 

[Griz]

Just a different type of rope. How people choose to use it is going to be entertaining. I have to give Rich credit for coming up with new and inventive ways for people to hang themselves. It certainly is going to be interesting watching how this unfolds. I have no doubt we are going to learn a few new things about many of the members here.

Understood, but being the history buff that I am, did you know that the gallows often had to be replaced due to the sheer damage that dropping a person caused?

I understand hanging people. I understand allowing people to hang themselves. What I don't understand is giving the keys to the safe to people who have not earned the trust.

Griz

 

[DThomas]

I realize that Fauna is a business... for Rich, that is. I am a business owner myself, and I know that it can be a real headache at times. It comes with the territory. I can also understand trying to find solutions for getting rid of the headache. But, the headache is MINE, because I am the owner of the business. But, I would never dream of charging my customers to deal with my headache!

When you run a business, the customers become your employer... they provide the paycheck. Customers are not employees. A business is only successful if the customers are satisfied with the product and service they receive. If they aren't, they will take go elsewhere. Would I tell a dissatisfied customer to pack their bags? No. I might think it, but I would not say it.

The members here at Fauna are just that... members. But, if they provide Rich's paycheck for HIS business, they become customers. The only difference is that Fauna's "customers" are being charged not only for the product, but to run the business, too. Fauna's customers are paying to be employees to alleviate the boss's headache.

As a business owner, normally it would be eventual suicide to deliberately create dissent among the employees. Not in the case of Fauna, though. Dissent equals 'Fauna Drama', and with each page read, with each post, with each spell-check, the boss gets paid from the rotating advertisements. Fauna employees actually PAY for the extra responsibility of doing the boss's job instead of being paid for it!

Ingenious!

I would have to disagree Marcia. They are not paying to do the boss's job at all. It is only an added "perk" if you will for the higher paid membership. No one is required to do anything. It is only there if they choose to use it. People have been clamoring for awhile for more moderation. Well, here is the chance for those that wish to participate. Rich had to draw the line somewhere as to who would be allowed this.

 

[DThomas]

I also do not believe that just because someone has a higher paid membership that they have more of an interest in Fauna succeeding than a regular registered member who may not be able to afford a membership. It's just they have more to lose if they abuse the privilege.

 

[WebSlave]

I realize that Fauna is a business... for Rich, that is. I am a business owner myself, and I know that it can be a real headache at times. It comes with the territory. I can also understand trying to find solutions for getting rid of the headache. But, the headache is MINE, because I am the owner of the business. But, I would never dream of charging my customers to deal with my headache!

When you run a business, the customers become your employer... they provide the paycheck. Customers are not employees. A business is only successful if the customers are satisfied with the product and service they receive. If they aren't, they will take go elsewhere. Would I tell a dissatisfied customer to pack their bags? No. I might think it, but I would not say it.

The members here at Fauna are just that... members. But, if they provide Rich's paycheck for HIS business, they become customers. The only difference is that Fauna's "customers" are being charged not only for the product, but to run the business, too. Fauna's customers are paying to be employees to alleviate the boss's headache.

As a business owner, normally it would be eventual suicide to deliberately create dissent among the employees. Not in the case of Fauna, though. Dissent equals 'Fauna Drama', and with each page read, with each post, with each spell-check, the boss gets paid from the rotating advertisements. Fauna employees actually PAY for the extra responsibility of doing the boss's job instead of being paid for it!

Ingenious!

Actually no, this is NOT really my main business. SerpenCo is my business. Perhaps if this site were a big money maker, I would have incentive to treat it differently. However, if this site ever brings in even a shadow of the money I make at my real business, I would be shocked to the core. This is really just a play thing. The money it brings in is now well into the black, but I seriously doubt it has paid for past expenses much less an hourly wage that anyone would consider as being "lucrative".

This site was not created with the intent of being a business, and I doubt it will ever reach that level of import to me in the overall scheme of things. Certainly every now and again I think maybe it could and I will sometimes try to look at it as a business, but that is sheer folly. I have seen how some incident can gut a chunk of the membership and draw away paying members. It is far too easy for someone to trump up an incident into a crusade to do that.

I would like to think that someday I would cut back the manual labor requirements of my SerpenCo business and rely on all my sites to help put food on the table, but I am realistic about that probability, which is not all that optimistic.

All those memberships (a small SMALL fraction of the total registered membership base, btw) are really donations, as the "product" received is virtually nill in relation to the "cost". There is no even exchange of services or products for the money offered, and I certainly don't expect that many people consider it that way. Yeah, some may donate to become a Contributor member because their curiosity about who is giving them karma points may get the better of them, but all in all, realistically nothing of any intrinsic USEFULL value is being received except for the visual recognition of actively HELPING this site. Right now, about the only service I would consider as being even slightly significant to a contributor would be the ability to post classified ads within the photopost classifieds section. Realistically, nothing else would be enough incentive to FORCE someone to pay in order to receive those minimal benefits received from that payment.

As for someone actively wanting to pay $100 just to be able to assess warning points to someone being a pain in the ass to them, well, I seriously doubt that. But you all can believe what you want.

 

[Griz]

Sorry, but you have completely dodged the issue I brought up.

No, I have not EARNED this position at all. I just started this site. I got the idea, put together the nuts and bolts of this idea, and launched it. No one voted me into it, nor did I in any way earn the ownership or admin rights to it. As for the site mods, there was no public voting on who I selected for the job. I asked THEM if they would help me. Same as I am asking the Benefactor and Endowment level members to help me now. There is absolutely NO difference at all.

So again, WHY are the drawbacks you now claim those Benefactor and Endowment level members are subject to when they help US to moderate this site not also applicable to myself, Jay, Dennis, and Ken? It has nothing at all to do with a "category", it has to do with the JOB being asked to be done here by MOST of you.

Oh Rich, don't take anything that I have said as indicating that you are exempt from the same "penalties." You're not that special.

However, you chose to create this site and therefore you agreed to accept the responsibilities. However, for your own personal reasons, you want to pass those responsibilities onto others. That's fine however, I would like to believe that you respect your own site enough to "qualify" the new owners vs making it based solely upon them paying for the privilege.

Some of these individuals, in my humble opinion, have a hard enough time monitoring themselves vs being given the ability to monitor this site. And some of THOSE individuals come across to me as being rather clueless when putting together what the actual cost of this responsibility is.

Griz

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

I have to give Rich credit for coming up with new and inventive ways for people to hang themselves.

OK, but I still don't understand why it should be so entertaining to spend so much time and effort to watch people hang themselves.

 

[WebSlave]

Oh Rich, don't take anything that I have said as indicating that you are exempt from the same "penalties." You're not that special.

However, you chose to create this site and therefore you agreed to accept the responsibilities. However, for your own personal reasons, you want to pass those responsibilities onto others. That's fine however, I would like to believe that you respect your own site enough to "qualify" the new owners vs making it based solely upon them paying for the privilege.

Some of these individuals, in my humble opinion, have a hard enough time monitoring themselves vs being given the ability to monitor this site. And some of THOSE individuals come across to me as being rather clueless when putting together what the actual cost of this responsibility is.

Griz

Yep. My criteria was that if someone were willing to put the extra effort of paying MORE than most to help financially support this site, then obviously they must be willing to help in other respects. As for the forum moderators, if I trust someone enough that they have that responsibility, then I will certainly trust them with this task as well.

There will be personal conflicts all of the time. It would be virtually impossible for me to find members to help out in this task that SOMEONE would not take exception to. People here take exception to ME, so I can't require someone else to be completely without controversy and therefore be a better man than I am for the job. I used the criteria I did based on the above mentioned reasons. And that is good enough for me.

 

[WebSlave]

OK, but I still don't understand why it should be so entertaining to spend so much time and effort to watch people hang themselves.

Oh really? Then why are YOU here?

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich, while you and the other super-mods did not "earn" your original appointments from a peer-review standpoint, you have now withstood the test of time in a peer-review system. You also chose your super-mods with prior knowledge of their abilities, not because they paid you $100 .... I hope.

As for $100 members having more to lose ? With all things being relative, to include that not all with power paid $100 to begin with, I would disagree somewhat, and also continue to feel that it is a more flawed criteria that other available standards.

I thank you for addressing the issue regarding which nametag a moderator may be wearing at any given time. I would hope to see a standard from on-high that advises moderators to realize they while they may choose to play when not in uniform, that the standards change accordingly. In your police example, I would expect a call for back-up. But in another police example, I would expect a different level of standards and violations if I was belligerent with an officer writing me a ticket while on duty, or getting in an altercation with the same officer off-duty in a bar over a girl .

 

[DThomas]

OK, but I still don't understand why it should be so entertaining to spend so much time and effort to watch people hang themselves.

Well, I can only speak for myself but I like it for the phsycological aspect of it. It's interesting to see how people react to different situations. Some react better than others and different situations cause others to react differently. It's just human nature.

 

[Wilomn]

OK, but I still don't understand why it should be so entertaining to spend so much time and effort to watch people hang themselves.

Let me try to enlighten you on this one.

There is a small circle of people here who actively wish I was not a member. I know for a fact that owens, loosewheel and dandy would love it if I would be rash enough to either get myself banned or provide sufficient cause for rich to ban me.

Knowing this, knowing that they are gunning for me brings in group dynamics. dandy wants so very very desperately to be seen as a big man, a serious player to Fauna at large but especially to his group of cohorts and, of course, his idol Rich. dandy NEEDED to get that first shot off to impress those for whose approval he so craves. owens followed not far behind. She who hails from Tx has yet to enter the fray publickly but, if she runs true to her past, has been quite active in the unseen background.

Now, many of us who KNOW all of the above are quite quite amused that dandy did JUST AS WE KNEW HE WOULD for the reasons we knew he would.

That is some HIGH humor. He may well have impressed his cronies by his daring doo, but in reality he has merely shot himself in the foot by his NEED to brag about it, to make it public to MAKE SURE everyone knew he got off the first shot.

People who have such needs are often lacking pride and value of self. Hmmmm, ponder that dandy. People who need others to tell them how cool they are or what a good job they did are often notthe most secure folks out there, often not the most intelligent, often not the nicest people out there.

None of this is new. I've said it all before. He is JUST intelligent enough to know that he was insulted in the past and is now doing what he can to even up a score that only he can see.

And it backfired.

THAT'S the funny part.

Had he just done it and shut up, none of the last 20 posts would be here, or maybe 40 by now. But he didn't, couldn't, wouldn't BECAUSE he NEEDS recognition as the guy who got the first shot at ME, WILOMN, no one of consequence.

That's the funny part.

 

[WebSlave]

Rich, while you and the other super-mods did not "earn" your original appointments from a peer-review standpoint, you have now withstood the test of time in a peer-review system. You also chose your super-mods with prior knowledge of their abilities, not because they paid you $100 .... I hope.

So what you are saying is that you are not giving those members a chance to prove themselves with this same test of time? Why not?

As for $100 members having more to lose ? With all things being relative, to include that not all with power paid $100 to begin with, I would disagree somewhat, and also continue to feel that it is a more flawed criteria that other available standards.

There would never be 100 percent agreement with my choice, no matter what it would have been.

I thank you for addressing the issue regarding which nametag a moderator may be wearing at any given time. I would hope to see a standard from on-high that advises moderators to realize they while they may choose to play when not in uniform, that the standards change accordingly. In your police example, I would expect a call for back-up. But in another police example, I would expect a different level of standards and violations if I was belligerent with an officer writing me a ticket while on duty, or getting in an altercation with the same officer off-duty in a bar over a girl .

All persons capable of being in a moderator capacity are "on duty" at all times when they are logged in here. That has to be how they are treated, which realistically, if you treat them belligerently, then that is still a violation of the rules. The difference of a single point in the warning total is not all that substantial of a complaint issue.

 

[Griz]

Yep. My criteria was that if someone were willing to put the extra effort of paying MORE than most to help financially support this site, then obviously they must be willing to help in other respects. As for the forum moderators, if I trust someone enough that they have that responsibility, then I will certainly trust them with this task as well.

Just because someone will pay more to this site does not mean they have the mental fortitude, wherewithall, etc to be able to handle it.

Your fooling yourself if you don't think there are at least a few sitting back in their gray leisure suit, hairless cat in their laps, right pinkie in their mouth, just waiting to play Dr. Evil.

If that's the type of person you want running your site then that's a sad commentary as to how you value this site. And you know which of the new mods are capable of handling this. Respect the site Rich and others will follow.

Griz

 

[Griz]

So what you are saying is that you are not giving those members a chance to prove themselves with this same test of time? Why not?

Rich, get real here. That's the problem, some of these people have proven themselves incapable over the test of time. Your definition of proof must be different then mine.

Griz

 

[DThomas]

Rich, get real here. That's the problem, some of these people have proven themselves incapable over the test of time. Your definition of proof must be different then mine.

Griz

But then he would be chastized for being subjective and excluding certain members. He has made a level playing field for all members in this category. So now, when they do screw up and I am sure a few will, all of the evidence that will be used to remove them will be there for all to see. No subjectivity will be involved but of course there will be some I told you so's.

 

[Wilomn]

Rich, get real here. That's the problem, some of these people have proven themselves incapable over the test of time. Your definition of proof must be different then mine.

Griz

There's story Griz, a real old one, about these guys who so complimented an Emperor (just so there is no confusion Rich is a sometimes King) that they convinced him that only a chosen few had the abilities to see and appreciate the wonderful garments with which he was arrayed.

It's just an old story, but I've liked it and likened it to similar situations in my own life.

Do you think those old stories could have any bearing on modern day life or is that just me stretching my overworked imagination?

 

[Griz]

But then he would be chastized for being subjective and excluding certain members. He has made a level playing field for all members in this category. So now, when they do screw up and I am sure a few will, all of the evidence that will be used to remove them will be there for all to see. No subjectivity will be involved but of course there will be some I told you so's.

Bah....

Rich already has all of the information he needs to be exclusive. Nothing like rewarding those who have already proven themselves incompetent.

I just sold one of my boa's for $1000 over the weekend. I am going to take that $1000 and send it out to the top 10 worst Karma users on the Fauna board in $100 increments. This way, each of them can have the keys to the castle as well. Sure, Rich will benefit from receiving $1000 but will the site? Would the site be better off? This is starting to become less and less about the site....

Griz

PS It will be the top 10 worst DESERVED karma recipients vs those who got thrust down into the pits in one swoop....