Warning Points System Mod

[AncientDNA]

Here is the thread in question.
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26028&page=1&pp=40

 

[AncientDNA]

Dennis did say something to them about pulling up old threads. And rightfully so. But the level of moderation for paid members like you are very specific and are listed. You are not allowed to enforce just any old thing you feel like. Rich set it up that way for a reason. Because those are the only things he wants you people dealing with. Anything else he wants one of the regular mods to be informed about and for them to deal with it.

Which is why there is an 'abuse of the warning system' warning. I didn't see anybody warn Ed over his supposed abuse...maybe you should notify a moderator.

I'm not familiar with any posts where Rich delineates the roles of paid members vs. moderators in warning points system. As I'm both(and if there is) it's not readily apparent to me.

What puppytoes72 has been doing does seem to fall into a grey area, but perhaps a warning will serve as a wake up call to not toe the line so closely.
Like I said before, I only give warnings for a clear cut abuse and only if I catch it before, like, 20 others see fit to warn them too.

 

[Stardust]

I, too can only speak for myself and I am still behind on the rules and all the changing of them in the last years.
In the level I am now I am even more cautious and aware if and when I do give points as mine are now doubled for the individual I give them to. It is a responsibility that I am taking on and have to think very seriously about.
The point system was set high for this purpose. There are many individuals with different takes on when to and not to give points.
I would not have given puppytoes points for that nor do I believe, in my mind, that the giver of the points is abusing his power by giving one person points. If it were to continue on a consisant basis then I would re-assess my stance on it.

What I am unclear on is bringing up old threads. I thought (that is what I get for thinking) that that is the norm, not just randomly starting new threads???
Perhaps someone can clear that up for me.

 

[Wilomn]

I like Ed. I don't have any problems with him as a rule.

However, he and kevin have/had some sort of business relationship and when kevin was called out Ed stepped in and whacked the caller.

THIS is NOT cool.

He, Ed, should have had NOTHING to do with it at all. It was an abuse of power.

 

[KelliH]

What I am unclear on is bringing up old threads. I thought (that is what I get for thinking) that that is the norm, not just randomly starting new threads???

You are correct, Rozann. One is supposed to do a search and post one (one of) the existing thead(s) rather than start a brand new one on the same person/company.

 

[AncientDNA]

Kelli,
I agree, too a point, but Puppytoes posted in that old thread specifically to be abusive towards Sandfire.
If it's a different complaint, doesn't that merit a new thread?
I've been reading up on the BOI & warning points rules alot today, but don't recall any specific suggestions about choosing to post in an exisitng thread or creating a new one. Most likely I missed it...there is alot to read up on!
Can you point me in the general direction?
Thx

 

[jsrocket]

I see it as a wash. Puppytoes should have been warned for dredging up old threads, but wasn't. Her warning point level is fair, at the end of the day. Life goes on...

 

[DThomas]

You are correct, Rozann. One is supposed to do a search and post one (one of) the existing thead(s) rather than start a brand new one on the same person/company.

The reason for my admonishment to her was this: One thread started in the bearded dragon forum. 2nd thread titled "Update" continuing the same topic of discussion of the first thread. The discussion is extremely heated and calling into question business practices of an individual. She then resurrects a really old thread to continue the "calling out" in yet a 3rd thread. There is no need for the fight to cross three threads. I merged the two in the bearded dragon forum and moved the combined thread to the BOI.

On a normal day, I would agree with Rozann also that that is how it is suppossed to work. However, in the example I just cited, the OP was hap-hazardly posting across multiple threads, causing information to have the potential to be lost, and had crossed over from a professional, civil dialogue into an all out attack.

 

[AncientDNA]

Never mind...I found it.

Taken directly from the BOI rules for posting
"Please utilize the SEARCH function as much as possible before starting a new thread (topic line). In many instances, it is much better to continue an existing thread rather than starting a new one in order to preserve continuity in the information about a person or business. Most readers are much more inclined to read a single long thread, rather than dozens of smaller ones scattered all over the BOI. So don't let your message get lost in the clutter by ignoring this simple rule."

It seems to me that this is very general & leaves much up to the poster to decide for themselves if a new post is required.

 

[Stardust]

Thank you Dennis for clearing that up for me. It was confusing to me to try and read all these different threads in different places, hard to keep it all clear in the mind.
If I handled the thread I start incorrectly I am sorry. I did an inquiry as opposed to a good/bad guy thread so as to stop the Denise thread from going further off topic and did not resurrect a Dachui good/bad guy thread because I thought this was different so I put in there inquiry.
In this instance I thought I was doing was correct under the circumstances, if I did not, then again I apologize.

 

[KelliH]

The reason for my admonishment to her was this: One thread started in the bearded dragon forum. 2nd thread titled "Update" continuing the same topic of discussion of the first thread. The discussion is extremely heated and calling into question business practices of an individual. She then resurrects a really old thread to continue the "calling out" in yet a 3rd thread. There is no need for the fight to cross three threads. I merged the two in the bearded dragon forum and moved the combined thread to the BOI.

I get it now Dennis. It has been pretty confusing with all the different threads with basically the same subject. I understand what you are saying though.

 

[DThomas]

Thank you Dennis for clearing that up for me. It was confusing to me to try and read all these different threads in different places, hard to keep it all clear in the mind.
If I handled the thread I start incorrectly I am sorry. I did an inquiry as opposed to a good/bad guy thread so as to stop the Denise thread from going further off topic and did not resurrect a Dachui good/bad guy thread because I thought this was different so I put in there inquiry.
In this instance I thought I was doing was correct under the circumstances, if I did not, then again I apologize.

I think you handled it correctly under the circumstances. The topic is a very heated and emotional one and is better served in a thread of it's own.

 

[WebSlave]

What is the explanation supposed to mean? Now you can't post unless you've actually dealt with the individual? I have no problem with the current system but there should be some consequence to giving out bogus warning points.

Nope. That isn't the case at all. And as best I can foresee, it never will be that way here. Not only is a self defeating method of doing what the BOI was designed to do, is would be completely unenforceable. How would you PROVE there was an actual dealing, and who would want to try to pursue that proof to verify it? Certainly not me.........

On another topic this issue about multiple old topics being opened seems to have started when very recently Dave Lawson apparently searched through the site and began posting slams against Neil Gubitz in every old thread he could locate. Certainly there is no specific rule against that sort of thing, but at times, the mods will have to use their own initiative in order to put the brakes on behavior that they feel is not in the best interests of this site and it's members. Since this was obviously a case such as that, he was warned by one of the mods to cease and desist. However, Dave seemingly ignored that warning and consequently got slam dunked out of here.

So my belief is that the mods are now being more sensitive about this sort of abuse. Opening ONE old thread is certainly the preferred method of continuing that information database on a particular person, but opening SEVERAL concurrently (old and/or new), well, that's pretty much overkill and certainly will be viewed as abusive.

In any event, my preference is for an existing thread (singular) to be utilized whenever possible. But obviously it would be a frustrating task to try to enforce it, so I don't. Personally I think it would be best that way, but it's not worth the effort to try to pursue that goal.

 

[Jim O]

That warning was bogus, plain and simple. It was when it was given and it still is now.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Posted by Sammy:
Well if you cant talk about someone you didnt purchase from I guess this forum just needs to be closed down then. Because no one would be allowed to talk. That warning is BS and who ever gave it to them is wrong.

From Wes:
It was plain and simple an abuse, though perhaps not egregious, of power.
The slap that was given was not warranted.

Webslave:
How would you PROVE there was an actual dealing, and who would want to try to pursue that proof to verify it? Certainly not me.........

Having given up being a regular poster here, I had no intention of posting again, although I still check in 1-2 times per week. That will fade to zero as well. But here I am agreeing with Sammy, Wes, and Rich, all in the same thread, and that rated an acknowledgement. I marked the calendar, and will dole out karma for the above as I am able. My take is that Ed's warning was as absurd as all say it is, to include Jim O's last post. To Kevin, and Sammy, and Wes, and Rich, and Jim O. ... nice to see a spade called a spade. I did not check, but if anyone dinged Ed for his own abuse of paying to be a cop, good job. To those who could have but didn't ....... get some balls.

Rich, if there is a way to relegate my account to an "inactive" or "unpaid" status, and perhaps donating my remaining paid access to the Twilight Zone, please do it. Happy trails to all.

 

[Seamus Haley]

If the comment field had been left blank and the warning point was looked at strictly based on the violation cited (abuse of another member) and the contents of the post (ressurecting a thread to throw around unbacked claims and accusations)... would it have been justified?

My first thought when looking at it wasn't that the comment was intended to explain the rules but that the comment field was used almost as a rebuttal to the contents of the post. That is to say that the warning point was issued for abuse but that the comment was left without intending to be an explaination of the point.

I could be wrong of course, I'm guessing at motivations and timing and which part of what was a mistake but... it's what it looked like to me. Making it less of a malicious abuse of the warning system and more an error in using one of it's features. The comment field for warnings has been left blank when things are obvious, sometimes has had small explainations about things (like how letter omission can still get a person tagged for profanity, or that blank lines count as signature lines) and have sometimes been used for comments directly aimed at the poster... "We need to talk" or "This stops now" or "Keep it up and you'll be banned" ... I think there may even be a few that are even more subjective along the lines of "If you don't like ____ then just leave" so leaving a message about the contents of a post rather than a strict explaination of a warning point that's been issued isn't new either. Maybe new since the deputizations went into effect and maybe some clarification about the comment field would eliminate the issue entirely, but not new.

 

[pscaulkins]

That warning was bogus, plain and simple. It was when it was given and it still is now.

I couldn't agree more with that statement. I know of other people thinking the same thing. So wrong.

 

[puppytoes72]

The reason for my admonishment to her was this: One thread started in the bearded dragon forum. 2nd thread titled "Update" continuing the same topic of discussion of the first thread. The discussion is extremely heated and calling into question business practices of an individual. She then resurrects a really old thread to continue the "calling out" in yet a 3rd thread. There is no need for the fight to cross three threads. I merged the two in the bearded dragon forum and moved the combined thread to the BOI.

On a normal day, I would agree with Rozann also that that is how it is suppossed to work. However, in the example I just cited, the OP was hap-hazardly posting across multiple threads, causing information to have the potential to be lost, and had crossed over from a professional, civil dialogue into an all out attack.

first of all i had a thread of my own,and when i had a very important update i did start a new one,im sorry but i dont have the ability to edit.i also posted a reply in someone elses thread BUT I DID NOT REALIZE IT WAS OLD.sorry,ppl make mistakes and im not used to this forum.BUT i did not get warning points for those reasons,i got warning points for "being abusive to another member".when i replied back to you"why?"you said that i needed to post proof about sandfire.that is not true,after that i read the rules and it said that proof is optional.i really think my getting warning points was personal.i still have the PM's to prove it if you would like.i was never abusive in my thread.this is the thread that i got a warning for http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97713 ty to those that supported me in this!

 

[puppytoes72]

Give me a break. The post they were warned for had nothing to do with old threads or violated any other rule that the mini mods are allowed to access points for. NOT ONE.

They simply didnt like the persons posts. Which is what the karma system is for.

true,i didnt receive the points for that old thread that i posted in,i was clearly told in a pM that i recieved the points for MY thread against sandfire.ed told me i needed to post proof.(very wrong)

 

[DThomas]

first of all i had a thread of my own,and when i had a very important update i did start a new one,im sorry but i dont have the ability to edit.i also posted a reply in someone elses thread BUT I DID NOT REALIZE IT WAS OLD.sorry,ppl make mistakes and im not used to this forum.

You don't have to edit, it's called using the REPLY BUTTON. This forum is no different than BD.org in basic functions so that's just a bunch of bull.

BUT i did not get warning points for those reasons,i got warning points for "being abusive to another member".when i replied back to you"why?"you said that i needed to post proof about sandfire.that is not true,after that i read the rules and it said that proof is optional.i really think my getting warning points was personal.i still have the PM's to prove it if you would like.i was never abusive in my thread.this is the thread that i got a warning for http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97713 ty to those that supported me in this!

I did not give you those warning points. Maybe you need to slow down a little bit and think before you hit submit. You are letting your emotions get in the way of logical thinking.