Wild Wild West - Part 2

[Mooing Tricycle]

Rich is right - for those who think moderating is easy and always fair and just will see just how much of that is subject to interpretation.

I really suck at this whole, breaking things down and understanding them thing... Seeing the big picture if you please.

bah, my mind is so aloof at times..

we were talking about this earlier in chat, i was more or less, trying to see things in whatever way i do. and trying to explain it and make some sort of sense out of it. ( i made none at all ) I dont even think I Know how i see things. Its just... messed up from everyone elses point of view i suppose. Or at least the general way of thinking.

I can see that being a mod must be difficult and that this is a taste for those who would like more power, and im really just going to give this stuff a rest and watch everything unfold.

I got all upset because i felt things should be done certain ways, and have no personal say whatsoever. When really, i shouldnt have even been trying in the first place. Guess ive learned that tonight as well.

if somethings going to be done. its going to be done regardless of what ive got to say, or what i think of it.

When stuff like this comes up. im just going to watch from now on methinks. Im not much good at politics.

 

[WebSlave]

In looking this over, I still have one question:
There continues to be reference to group response to retaliatory efforts/inappropriate use...Just how is the "group" or general membership going to know? I don't make a habit of randomly checking people's warning points, or why they were assessed. Is it just ASSumed (sorry - couldn't help myself...it has become a pretty natural way of typing that) that when given warning points, people will be launching a PM or email campaign to notify everybody of this wrong doing? Will there be a special room in Chat, or a special section here for people to post things of this nature?

How were karma abuses brought to light here? And in those cases, only the member giving and the member receiving the karma points really can see such things......

 

[Stardust]

I don't think that's good at all; that immediately paves the way for group actions and 'ganging' up. This might be a group action, in effect, but it shouldn't be one that happens through group discussion.

Generally, this system is going to prove much simpler than this thread is making it out to be. What is, is; what isn't, isn't.

This insomnia is really getting bad, lol.
Let me clarify. Perhaps I read what was said incorrectly (wouldn't be the first time in the last few days) but was responding and thinking that after the warning point was given that there could be a place where the two or more can discuss the point and justify it, also allowing the person who received the point to explain their actions.
They would still get the point(s) but it would show just how different views are, therefore be able to be thought about in individual minds.
This could perhaps cut down on the excessive explaining in the window as well as PM's and emails flying back and forth.

 

[WebSlave]

This insomnia is really getting bad, lol.
Let me clarify. Perhaps I read what was said incorrectly (wouldn't be the first time in the last few days) but was responding and thinking that after the warning point was given that there could be a place where the two or more can discuss the point and justify it, also allowing the person who received the point to explain their actions.
They would still get the point(s) but it would show just how different views are, therefore be able to be thought about in individual minds.
This could perhaps cut down on the excessive explaining in the window as well as PM's and emails flying back and forth.

I guess I would need to call such a room The Whine and Cheese Room....

 

[SoulSmilen]

I guess I would need to call such a room The Whine and Cheese Room....

That would be my take on it; no good could come of it, at all.

On side note, if one has to explain their actions or what they meant to justify innocence.. case in point. That thought into explaining could have and should have been used to begin with.

It's kind of ironic.. pretty much all of the points made (aside from the questions Rich specifically asked on points per infraction) and questions asked are nailing more nails in the coffin, in effect. I guarantee Rich is sitting back, watching, smiling smugly (not in a bad way) feeling he was right to implement this system to begin with.

 

[hhmoore]

I guess I missed the part of the discussion that dealt with the warning point display window (though I did understand that the info would be accessible - I guess I thought it would be similar to the current system, where the number is visible and details are accessible). Will this info be more obviously displayed, so it gets the attention of the masses? I just don't see most people routinely checking on others' warning points, seeing who assessed them, and why...though I guess if they were to do all of that, it is easy enough to think that they might then make an effort against whoever issued the points. I guess I still don't see much avenue for (significant) legitimate retaliatory warnings, as they would have to be based on current posts that violate rules...That doesn't mean that I can't conceive of people doing it; just that it would be so blatant that if people actually ARE following that stuff, it would be readily seen.

I am willing to do my part, and lend a hand (or pass out some warnings)...and I am generally careful enough about what I type that I wouldn't be too worried about retaliation.

Here's a question (2 actually). When a person gets "dinged" for something, will they be able to respond by hitting the ding-er with points for inappropriate warnings? That seems to be the easiest available retaliation. Is it conceivable to have some type of failsafe against that?

 

[DAND]

Quite honestly, Wes, if you wind up getting half of the points required for the fine & suspension (let's say 500 out of 1,000) don't you think you should take stock in yourself and perhaps self analyze the track you are on? When you begin to think that everyone is crazy except yourself, maybe it is best to do a re-evaluation of your own self.

Seriously, if a majority of people here are dinging you with warning points, don't you think that SHOULD be telling you something significant about yourself?

There is it there in a nutshell. Rules are put in place; if you can't follow them there will be repercussions.

Think of it along the lines of driving down the street. The rules state that you are required to stop at a stop sign. If you think you are above the rules and run the stop sign, be prepared to get T-boned and don't whine about it afterwards.

 

[Mike Greathouse]

I just don't see most people routinely checking on others' warning points, seeing who assessed them, and why...though I guess if they were to do all of that, it is easy enough to think that they might then make an effort against whoever issued the points.

I'm sure that there will be plenty of "Self-Appointed Hall Monitors" who bring these issues to light.

 

[ms_terese]

I guess I would need to call such a room The Whine and Cheese Room....

At the very least, this is boosting Rich's sense of humor, so I say let the fun begin!

Most especially if the multiple-shades-of-gray areas are restricted, it may just work.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

Suppose I were to make a list of words considered profanity and "crap" were to be one of them...

Kinda like the old George Carlin comedy routine where in one breath he says ALL the words that you can't say?

 

[bsharrah]

Racist/Prejudicial remarks 4
Actual or implied threats 4
Excessive antagonism towards another member 2
Warning system abuse 2
Antagonism towards moderator 2
Spamming 1
Failure to post FULL NAME on BOI [BOI] 1
Inappropriate advertising 1
Shotgun style advertising 1
Posting off topic message 1
Unnecessary roughness 1
Failure to provide SUBJECT NAME in topic line [BOI] 1
Anonymous third party quotation [BOI] 1
Posting BOI topics in other forums 1
Private message abuse 1
Karma abuse 1
Trader rating abuse 1
Profanity 1

With the exception of those specific to the BOI, everyone of these rules is open to a wide range of interpretation. Many people assume the general consensus will interpret them with what many of us percieve to be "common sense". This is not going to happen because "common sense" does not exist. We all think we possess it, yet we all know that isn't true.

Bart

 

[Seamus Haley]

In looking at the list again, I'd probably change "Posting an off topic message" to "Creating an off topic thread" to allow for changes in content and context as discussions progress. A post made after X many replies may not have a lot to do with a thread title ro the initial post, but still be relevant.

 

[Chameleon Company]

My only real concern may have been expressed by others in various ways,and if so I apologize for the redundancy.

Its your site Rich, and like others enforcement plans, I see pros and cons. My biggest "con" is the power levels assigned. While words such as "qualification levels", etc, have been used, it all comes down to how much one pays. This new system seems to be a hybrid of Karma, in that it empowers members, and the point/fine system once the domain of only the super-mods. While karma power had no real teeth, it still was based on a members qualifications, part of which was peer review. In the new system, its all about the money. Some newbie who pays $50 will have more censure power than an old-timer who only spends $20. If possible, I would suggest a system that requires a flat-fee payment to participate at a base level, to which the only multipliers applied would be based on karma level, that being the peer empowerment factor. As a suggestion every 1000 points being a multiplier of one. I realize it may be too much programming, or reduce the income incentive, and those are valid reasons to keep it simple as currently described, but it would give the system more of a true "peer review" quality.

 

[Mike Greathouse]

My only real concern may have been expressed by others in various ways,and if so I apologize for the redundancy.

Its your site Rich, and like others enforcement plans, I see pros and cons. My biggest "con" is the power levels assigned. While words such as "qualification levels", etc, have been used, it all comes down to how much one pays. This new system seems to be a hybrid of Karma, in that it empowers members, and the point/fine system once the domain of only the super-mods. While karma power had no real teeth, it still was based on a members qualifications, part of which was peer review. In the new system, its all about the money. Some newbie who pays $50 will have more censure power than an old-timer who only spends $20. If possible, I would suggest a system that requires a flat-fee payment to participate at a base level, to which the only multipliers applied would be based on karma level, that being the peer empowerment factor. As a suggestion every 1000 points being a multiplier of one. I realize it may be too much programming, or reduce the income incentive, and those are valid reasons to keep it simple as currently described, but it would give the system more of a true "peer review" quality.

Exactly right Jim,
Those were my very concerns in my earlier posts.
Anyone can come here and drop the money and automatically carry the big stick. I still think that there should be no multiplier. Every Fauna member, regardless of their membership level, should have the same power in the new system.

Only then, will it be a true peer-based system.

 

[Griz]

I just wish that Rich would stop being such a sadist and just implement his ideas. I don't believe he really wants our thoughts/concerns on this nor do I believe that he necessarily needs to. Instead of throwing things out there to get the membership riled just put it in force and move on. Either that, or leave things alone and stay behind the scenes. I am starting to believe he really likes the attention, whether negative or not!

Griz

 

[WebSlave]

Exactly right Jim,
Those were my very concerns in my earlier posts.
Anyone can come here and drop the money and automatically carry the big stick. I still think that there should be no multiplier. Every Fauna member, regardless of their membership level, should have the same power in the new system.

Only then, will it be a true peer-based system.

Well Mike, let me ask you this, then. How would you feel if you pissed off, say Shrillomn, and he decides to create 100 new registrations and use ALL of them to pound your warning points (and you) into oblivion? What would prevent that from happening if this were opened to EVERYONE, regardless of membership level? As for me going into Sherlock Holmes mode to try to ferret out false identities, no, that DEFINITELY is not going to happen.

No, I believe that some sort of filtering criteria is definitely needed, and quite honestly although in most other instances I treat all members the same, paid or not, in THIS case I believe I should use the level of paid membership as a yardstick measuring their commitment to the health and welfare of this site in general. Anyone will sign up here for free. Some may even pay the $25 Contributor membership to help out. Very few will pay the higher levels, and those that do, obviously are doing so because they want to make a special effort to help out here. Or am I wrong about this view? It sounds reasonable to me, because realistically there is really no major incentive for someone to pay for the two highest membership levels beyond what I am perceiving as being likely.

 

[WebSlave]

I just wish that Rich would stop being such a sadist and just implement his ideas. I don't believe he really wants our thoughts/concerns on this nor do I believe that he necessarily needs to. Instead of throwing things out there to get the membership riled just put it in force and move on. Either that, or leave things alone and stay behind the scenes. I am starting to believe he really likes the attention, whether negative or not!

Griz

Try polishing off the dust on that crystal ball.... It's not working too well.

I have mentioned SEVERAL times I am waiting for a response from my programmer about some issues. Quite frankly, I have not heard back from him for several days now. This is rather unusual, but that is just the way it is. In the meantime, I don't have a problem addressing questions and concers here. Even though it immediately went off topic....

 

[Mike Greathouse]

Well Mike, let me ask you this, then. How would you feel if you pissed off, say Shrillomn, and he decides to create 100 new registrations and use ALL of them to pound your warning points (and you) into oblivion? What would prevent that from happening if this were opened to EVERYONE, regardless of membership level?

As stated previously, this new system should be somewhat self policing.
I don't think that someone creating 100 new identities in a short period of time would go undetected by the people here - especially if they were pounding someone for posts that did not deserve warning points.

I have never received a warning point and don't expect to. If all of a sudden I was receiving them from 100 people who had all joined Fauna in the previous day or so, I think that everyone would understand what was going on and deal with it.

You just have to have faith in the system.

I do.

Do you?

 

[Keith Northrop]

Yeah Butt!

How many of you have signed up Alter-egos'..... I say wipe off the slate clean
and re-register all.....Like Shrilloman......who is obviously someone with another account.......Newbies should have no power.....We need the Wisdom
of the Wise(Old)......I say Form it like a Democrcy...Vote In Members to
positions of Power......Maybe a Board of Directors so to speak....Just give me
the facts.....
P.S......Rich....I took my warning points Like a man......

 

[Wilomn]

Rich, are you REALLY asking for help or just getting even with some perceived error that you think members think about you?

You don't like the PMs and threats and bullsnot, you don't believe that everyone believes you get as much as you do, you don't want to have to keep doing it yet won't/can't make more mods and so you do this, give the very ones who have made the most noise, complained the most, driven you to the point you are now, the power to change your site to what they think is should be.

Not much of a king in my opinion.

We both know enough about human nature and web personalities to know that there will be cliques and groups and secret handshakes going on that have never heretofore existed and that the ones engaging in such are not the ones you would have chosen, or so think I, to be the leaders/moderators/go to people on this site if you hadn't just given up and given in.

I don't think you want this site to fail but I do think the road you're placing it on is an unnecessarily bumpy one.

There is no doubt in my mind that almost everyone will be looking at warnings to and from everyone, like that accident that almost everyone will slow down to see. It won't be resistable, people want to know what others really think and that will also be a drive. Those who need attention will now have an avenue available to them which will provide that attention in abundance.

Those who really care about the well being of this site have already been doing what they can to make it better, offering advice and opinion as needed or perceived as necessary.

It will most assuredly be interesting, but not the cool kind like watching those eggs hatch, not knowing what will come out but knowing it won't be anything but good. This will be the interesting in the way watching a mutated amphibian try to ambulate is interesting. Sad and in a way horrible, completely avoidable yet allowed to continue for the very ease with which it sustains itself, needing nothing from you but the initial push of the start button.