Warning Points System Mod

[kmurphy]

No message

 

[kbmxc]

Sometimes the original mods did, but it was more the exception than the norm...HOWEVER, you have to keep in mind that "ganging up" or multiple warnings are at the core of this new system. The whole idea is sort of a group feedback/peer pressure when somebody violates site rules. Do we all issue warnings for every offense we see? Of course not. Some of us have sharper, more distinct lines than others. We have different pet peeves. We may choose to "pile on" or not, at our discretion...but that type of response was both anticipated and expected - that is the reason that the warning level required to reach Fine & Suspension was raised so high.

It seems to me that the posts made since the one above are demonstrating that the mods are not the peers of the average visitor/member. They are all reptile breeders/reptile product business owners that may or may not have their own agenda which could be in contradiction to the welfare of the site. Just food for thought. Don't point me to death, lol

 

[Ed Clark]

Kevin, looking back on the moderator comment was the wrong thing to say and I agree with that. my only motive was to slow that person down.

No way would I give a warning to protect a friend, if they deserve something....let them fry.

 

[WebSlave]

It seems to me that the posts made since the one above are demonstrating that the mods are not the peers of the average visitor/member. They are all reptile breeders/reptile product business owners that may or may not have their own agenda which could be in contradiction to the welfare of the site. Just food for thought. Don't point me to death, lol

Well since the "average" visitor/member here either IS in business or hopes to in the future, even in a minimal manner, how else would you define "peer"?

 

[kbmxc]

I guess what I was getting at was that only those who can afford to be mods are the ones that will be policing everyone else. I hope that doesn't make me sound like a communists, lol.

 

[Lucille]

I guess what I was getting at was that only those who can afford to be mods are the ones that will be policing everyone else. I hope that doesn't make me sound like a communists, lol.

You are twenty and thus entitled to minimum wage. It would take you a couple days work to become a mod. Is it worth it to you? Only you can answer that. But surely, it is worth some effort?

 

[Ed Clark]

Wes, I like your style and you have provided countless laughts with some of your posts.

Dont make this into something that its not. I wanted to get Micheles attention and I did that. if there was a 1 point warning for being an angry Bearded Dragon owner, she would have gotten that. I believe that right now there are alot of angry Bearded Dragon owners but they cant come to the BOI digging up 3 plus year old posts to attack someone they did not buy from. thats my take on it anyway.

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?

 

[puppytoes72]

first of all JIM,im sorry if you have trouble reading my posts but i am horrible at typing and i really dont know much about computers at all.if i were to worry about spaces after commas and periods it would take me two hours to post DENNIS:yes you are correct,i did state that i purchased jojo from petco but when i found out she had adeno i went back to the store to fibd out where she came from.i wasnt mad but i thought they should be aware.i saw the proof with my own eyes, jojo got shipped to the store from sandfire one week b4 i bought her.what i was upset about is he said that he will not test and they also do not inform potential buyers about the virus.THIS is my gripe.you are also correct in saying that kevin did come here and admit that jojo did come from sandfire. WEBSLAVE,i did mistake DThomas for ed clark lastnight and i am sorry.i do remember DThomas speaking to me in my thread though.i will gladly post the PMs i got from Ed Clark to show you that he never mentioned the reason i got warned was for posting multiple threads or posting in 3 year old threads(again that was a mistake,im sorry), like i mentioned above i am horrible at computers,i can copy/paste but is there a better way to get the PMs on here?thanks! Ed Clark:i NEVER made it sound like i bought jojo directly from sandfire,i clearly stated that i got her from sandfire VIA petco in my thread.in the other thread i said"jojo came from sandfire" which is true(kevin dunn also said this).you really had no reason to give me points for"abuse",i even asked you and you could not give me a clear explanation of how i was being abusive.

 

[Wilomn]

Ed, you didn't answer my question. Do you now or have you in the past had a business relationship with Kevin?

 

[WebSlave]

Ed, you didn't answer my question. Do you now or have you in the past had a business relationship with Kevin?

So what point would the answer make? Does that mean that myself nor none of the other moderators here are ALLOWED to warn anyone who may be stating anything at all ABOUT a customer, supplier, etc. of ours, even though they may be obviously engaging in something that we find abusive? Sorry, Wes, that doesn't fly at all, and is completely irrelevant. The ONLY question that is relevant is "Was the member warned engaging in an activity here that deserved them being warned about?"

In my opinion, if she was in fact reopening old threads along with starting multiple new ones simply to post the same message concurrently within them, then yes, this WAS abuse and needed to be dealt with.

 

[Wilomn]

I see it this way rich. If bought and paid for mods start protecting friends and business aquaintences then the fairness factor, HA, is gone. I'd like to know if ed was protecting kevin from being asked questions ed thought might be embarrassing.

If you don't care what standards your bought mods maintain that's cool for you rich. Some of us, myself in particular, think that it would lesson the validity of the entire moderation team if this was allowed.

 

[puppytoes72]

So what point would the answer make? Does that mean that myself nor none of the other moderators here are ALLOWED to warn anyone who may be stating anything at all ABOUT a customer, supplier, etc. of ours, even though they may be obviously engaging in something that we find abusive? Sorry, Wes, that doesn't fly at all, and is completely irrelevant. The ONLY question that is relevant is "Was the member warned engaging in an activity here that deserved them being warned about?"

In my opinion, if she was in fact reopening old threads along with starting multiple new ones simply to post the same message concurrently within them, then yes, this WAS abuse and needed to be dealt with.

thats not what i got the warning points for though. do i just copy/paste the pms? how do i do the qoute box? i do not see a button for this in my PM box.

 

[puppytoes72]

i also have another question. last night DThomas gave me points for "antagonizing".why did i jump from a 2 points to 14?? i can not figure out how i got 12 points for that( sticking up for myself) i do not see anywhere in the point system that gives 12 points. just curious

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

kevin dunn from sandfire posted in the thread..that isnt proof enough?? .

Come on now, you started this stuff before he made his comment, and you did NOT have proof to offer. Yet you attacked them anyway. Without Petco coming and backing you, it's third party info, and it ain't allowed on the BOI.

This is what I meant, but don't really think it's worth all the attention it's getting. It's just a warning, worse things can happen if you go to far. Learn from it and move on.

As for the jump in points, when a Blue mod (admin) hits you, it multiplies. Best to only make the little guys mad.


Rick

 

[Jim O]

Come on now, you started this stuff before he made his comment, and you did NOT have proof to offer. Yet you attacked them anyway. Without Petco coming and backing you, it's third party info, and it ain't allowed on the BOI.

Actually Rick, it's anonymous third party info that's not llowed. As long as sources are named it is not a violation of the rules.

 

[Seamus Haley]

Actually Rick, it's anonymous third party info that's not llowed. As long as sources are named it is not a violation of the rules.

Although without a name or at least store location "petco manager" is pretty difficult to pin down to an accountable individual.

 

[puppytoes72]

rick, i spoke to kevin dunn on the phone so therefore its not "3rd party" info.

 

[WebSlave]

I see it this way rich. If bought and paid for mods start protecting friends and business aquaintences then the fairness factor, HA, is gone. I'd like to know if ed was protecting kevin from being asked questions ed thought might be embarrassing.

If you don't care what standards your bought mods maintain that's cool for you rich. Some of us, myself in particular, think that it would lesson the validity of the entire moderation team if this was allowed.

"Bought and paid for" mods? Quite the opposite, Wes. But you know that already.... The needle just jumped back into that same old worn track on your record, I think....

But, I believe the rest of the mods will stop this sort of activity you are so worried about in short order if it gets out of hand. Before any mod can accomplish any real damage they could be neutralized with very little effort.

But in thinking of your statement, Wes, you have already made this earlier statement in this thread:

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

Well, what exactly is it that you believe you are trying to do now? Are you trying to be the MOD POLICE on this site now?

Seriously, Wes, thanks for looking out for me and this site.

 

[Wilomn]

Well, what exactly is it that you believe you are trying to do now? Are you trying to be the MOD POLICE on this site now?

Seriously, Wes, thanks for looking out for me and this site.

Such sarcasm rich. It hardly becomes you.

Who watches the watchers?

Anyone who wants to is the answer.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

Actually Rick, it's anonymous third party info that's not llowed. As long as sources are named it is not a violation of the rules.

Like Seamus said, Petsco is hardly a source. IMO. Now Jack Mehoff of Petsco at phone# xxx-xxx-xxxx, would be a source.

This how I took it when I read the rules. But I admit, that was a while ago, and I've slept since then. I could be mistaken.


Rick