Warning Points System Mod

[puppytoes72]

oh right,you are the one that subtly threatened me with fines and a suspension for mistakingly posting in an old thread.ED is the one that gave me warning points for posting a thread against sandfire.either way my warning was not for posting in multiple threads or posting in old threads,actually it was just for speaking the truth.sorry for the confusion DTHOMAS

 

[DThomas]

oh right,you are the one that subtly threatened me with fines and a suspension for mistakingly posting in an old thread.ED is the one that gave me warning points for posting a thread against sandfire.either way my warning was not for posting in multiple threads or posting in old threads,actually it was just for speaking the truth.sorry for the confusion DTHOMAS

The last person that went around resurreting old threads from years back just to carry over a pissing match got themselves fined and suspended. I would suggest everyone keep that in mind.

Yea my mistake, I see where I posted your name in this reply. Yup, directed directly at you alone. How about I just give warning points next time or suspensions instead of offering a suggestion to stop some action. I'm sure you would have liked that much better. Is that what you would have prefered? Maybe ruthless enforcement of the rules with you might be the answer since you get so worked up over a nudge to stop something.

 

[Stardust]

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)

I haven't seen that PM and I also didn't give the point.

Michele,
I totally respect some of your posts here and your passions and stances. The mods can not remove those points so why not just move on? Think of it this way, a lot of people are stating they think you should not have gotten those points your point has been noted, it is 2 points out of 500 points it is just not worth letting it get to you.

 

[Wilomn]

it is 2 points out of 500 points it is just not worth letting it get to you.

Trust me on this one, she's giving good advice. It's not worth worrying over.

 

[puppytoes72]

no,actually i get worked up about the"politics"here.i was bullied that day because i came here to warn ppl about sandfire.i tried to do a good thing,but for some reason Ed wanted me to keep my mouth shut about it.i was treated very unfairly!i came here for one reason,to warn ppl and i DO have the proof and also kevin dunn was here and he didnt even deny that jojo came from him,but i was bullied by ed saying i had to post proof in the BOI.why was i told that?THAT is what i got the warning points for.do you blame me for getting worked up? actually i forgot about it until i stumbled upon this thread and saw that lies were being told about why i was warned.

 

[puppytoes72]

I haven't seen that PM and I also didn't give the point.

Michele,
I totally respect some of your posts here and your passions and stances. The mods can not remove those points so why not just move on? Think of it this way, a lot of people are stating they think you should not have gotten those points your point has been noted, it is 2 points out of 500 points it is just not worth letting it get to you.

ty very much and i do see your point.i really dont care about the warning points,i care about the reason why i got them.now they are lying about why i got them.its really not fair how i was treated.again ty for your support and the others that have stood by me through this and my sandfire thread.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

I can't for the life of me figure out how you, (ED) figure a warning was in order. The comment left makes it seem underhanded in ways. Like perhaps a little malice involved there? Maybe it's the comment left that makes it seem that way.
With the title comes a certain amount of responsibility. Yer a role model now. You should avoid .

Although I think the warning point was definitely petty and undeserving, I also agree you (puppytoes) didn't have to resurrect a long dead thread. I mean, from what I am reading lately, the whole country may be Adeno positive. To try and single out a particular breeder by posting in every thread you find on them, is also somewhat petty IMHO. Your single thread, (at each forum you posted) would have sufficed I think.

Checking thread dates is good BTW.


Rick

 

[puppytoes72]

rick,yes i should have checked the date on that other persons thread but i didnt and i said i was sorry for that.the other persons thread was at the bottom of the page that said"similar threads".i didnt notice the date.i was a little emotional that day.

 

[puppytoes72]

oh boy,i just got more warning points for antagonizing.i guess we arent allowed to speak our mind and state our side?

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

oh boy,i just got more warning points for antagonizing.i guess we arent allowed to speak our mind and state our side?

Musta antagonized him in some way.


I think you missed the point in my post. I'll be more subtle. It's not the date thing so much as it is the pettyness behind what you are doing. I ain't referring to Adeno, but the way you are going after the breeders, with no written proof.

 

[puppytoes72]

Musta antagonized him in some way.


I think you missed the point in my post. I'll be more subtle. It's not the date thing so much as it is the pettyness behind what you are doing. I ain't referring to Adeno, but the way you are going after the breeders, with no written proof.

kevin dunn from sandfire posted in the thread..that isnt proof enough?? he didnt deny anything i said.i also have all the paperwork to prove it too.im really not looking to argue here(otherwise i would be up to 500 points by tommorow).i just came here to set things straight on WHY i got the warning points.im not going to keep repeating everything i stated in my sandfire thread.

 

[DThomas]

oh boy,i just got more warning points for antagonizing.i guess we arent allowed to speak our mind and state our side?

No, you are allowed to speak your mind as long as you keep it civil and professional. Don't think for one minute I missed the sarcastic attitude in this post..

oh right,you are the one that subtly threatened me with fines and a suspension for mistakingly posting in an old thread.ED is the one that gave me warning points for posting a thread against sandfire.either way my warning was not for posting in multiple threads or posting in old threads,actually it was just for speaking the truth.sorry for the confusion DTHOMAS

 

[puppytoes72]

yes,but i didnt miss the sarcasm in your statements either:"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." and "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."and"Yea my mistake, I see where I posted your name in this reply. Yup, directed directly at you alone. How about I just give warning points next time or suspensions instead of offering a suggestion to stop some action. I'm sure you would have liked that much better. Is that what you would have prefered? Maybe ruthless enforcement of the rules with you might be the answer since you get so worked up over a nudge to stop something."

 

[Jim O]

Michelle, I have posted earlier in this thread and I agree that I would not have "awarded" those points, but they are there and they really are meaningless considering the total required to be suspended. However, keep going after Dennis (and he is really as fair and level headed as they come) is going to get you thrown out of here.

Look at it this way, 500 points= $50 suspension, so each point might be 10 cents if you look at it that way. So the 2 points that are in question would cost 20 cents but only if you get there. And you will have to work hard to get there.

Now, please don't take this the wrong way, but please, look at your posts above. PLEASE use spaces after periods and commas, and before and after quotation marks and parentheses. Your posts are difficult to read for those of us with aging eyes.

 

[Seamus Haley]

So uh... has anyone actually asked Ed what he meant by putting that comment where he did? People who don't like him are mostly lining up to claim it was wanton abuse... people who do like him are lining up to his defense... couple indifferent people have added comments and speculation but uh... has Ed explained it at all?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Michele,
Going to give another perspective on this.

Your first post on that thread.

sandfire has adenovirus in their colony.i had jojo tested and she came up positive.i spoke to kevin at sandfire and they refuse to test for adeno!!

The second post from someone else.

You also forgot to mention you got it from a PetCo, which is important, at least in my opinion.

The third post.

I dont think you need to ad your comment to every thread ever made about Sandfire. Especially one that is 4 years old? The two or three threads you've already made ought to be enough to show up if anyone is searching for information on Sandfire Dragon Ranch, I would think.

Part of the fourth post.

Can you provide proof that the dragon you purchased from PetCo came from Sandfire?

Can you also prove that Sandfire has adeno virus in their collection?

Can you prove that the dragon was positive BEFORE it got to PetCo?

Can you back up anything that you have said here on the BOI with indisputable facts?

Then you have Ed’s post.

Michele, You did not purchase a beardie from Sandfire Dragon Ranch!

You bringing up a thread that is 3 plus years old is vindictive, and will not further your crusade!

What kind of Quality reptile do you expect from Petco?

I have had nothing but good from the fine folks at Sandfire Dragon Ranch.

Sandfire hadn’t posted yet. You stated you knew it came from them based what a PetCo manager told you.

When Ed wrote his warning

You can not talk about someone that you did not purchase something from. Think about that!

I can see some rationalization for what he may have intended with the warning. Not agreeing with it or stating I would have gave you one myself. Just stating a plausible reason. It's obvious that most believe Ed gave it for other reasons. I have no idea.

I'm just looking at the context in which he wrote those words. Ed has been here long enough to know that the literal meaning behind his statement

You can not talk about someone that you did not purchase something from.

isn't true. But in the context of that thread, it doesn't have the same meaning. Does that make any sense to anyone else, or just me?

The only facts given at that point was that you did purchase the dragon from PetCo and posted on a thread about someone else.

I would have asked you to prove it myself, but Kevin later erased any reason to do so.

This isn't meant to criticize you but I also find it somewhat troubling.

I would liken it to purchasing an IBD infected snake.

If I purchased one that was infected from a pet shop or jobber, I would have a hard time justifying attacking the original breeder without anything concrete that it couldn't have come from the multiple hands on the snake. I would hold accountable the person that I purchased from.

 

[WebSlave]

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!

I guess that I don't understand what you are saying here. You are replying to DThomas saying that you replied back to him about warning points, yet from the warning point log, he did not give you any warning points prior to the one where he felt you were being snippity to him. Which took place AFTER this quoted post. That original warning point entry was from Ed Clark, for which there is some controversy over whether it was warranted or not.

So yes, please post ALL the PMs so we can see what it is you are talking about. You appear to be implying that Ed Clark was abusive towards you in issuing those warning points, and I think evidence of such should be forthcoming if that is in fact true.

As for you going into attack mode towards Dennis, I strongly recommend that you do not. ALL of the site moderators here can suspend members or ban them outright with sufficient cause. It is rare for that to happen, but they do not have to put up with abuse from anyone. They are trying to do a tough job here, and although disagreements will certainly crop up, they do not have to put up with any sort of abuse that surrounds such disagreement. Also, please bear in mind that they are human beings as well, and just as you, can have issues going on that will make them more or less inclined to take some abuse at that time. If you hit them at the wrong time, just like you, they may respond with more emotion than other times would have presented.

The warning system is designed to try to help members by nudging them in the correct direction when they go outside the lines of what is considered to be acceptable here. Of course, some will be more strict than others about the interpretation of the rules, and there will be cases where mistakes in judgement take place. It does happen, but that was factored into the total needed to tripwire a fine and suspension. I purposely made it so that a member will have to make a REAL effort to get suspended here, nor can any one member capable of issuing warning points abuse the system without being transparent about that effort.

Without knowing Ed Clark's mind and the PMs that were sent to you, my inclination would be to assume that Ed was trying to nudge you into recognizing that evidence to support your claim, while not required, is rather important to support what you are saying against someone else on this site. But we'll know more when you do us the kindness of copying those PMs here so we actually know what words passed between you two about this.

Thanks.

 

[Ed Clark]

My main objective of giving Michele a warning was to slow her down alittle, just a little slap on the wrist to get her attention, thats all. I think it has already been made real clear about the numerious posts in different threads and bringing up ancient threads that she is doing to put the blame on SOMEONE. she bought her Beardie from petco and was making it sound like she purchased it directly from sandfire. I stand by my decision to try and slow her down and would do it again. the moderator comment was a poor choice of words and would have been better off left blank.

Sammy, Wes, Kmurphy, pscaulkins and a few others. you are very critical of some of us guys that have upped our memberships to try and help police this site and make it better.keep in mind that we paid to help make this a better site!

If some of you feel that you can do a thankless job better, well...put your money where your mouth is and help out and stop being so critical of the people that have offered to help around here.

 

[Wilomn]

I don't feel a need to be the Police to help out around here.

As I stated before Ed, I don't have a problem with YOU in particular, I just don't think you did a good job THIS time.

Do you have a business relationship or have you had one, with Kevin?

 

[kmurphy]

Sammy, Wes, Kmurphy, pscaulkins and a few others. you are very critical of some of us guys that have upped our memberships to try and help police this site and make it better.keep in mind that we paid to help make this a better site!

Ed, I have never made one post criticizing anyone that has upped their membership for the purpose of helping out Fauna. I don't believe I have ever made a post criticizing the new system.

I disagree with you though, I shouldn't have to pay in order to point out what I see as an injustice. I still don't agree with your assessing warning points but I will accept the fact that you felt you were doing the right thing and not giving the points to protect your friend.