Wild Wild West - Part 2

[Mike Greathouse]

Remeber Rich, just because something might appear to be fun does not mean it is a good idea......

Griz

Griz,
Are you posting personal information again?
Where did you find this picture of my sister?

 

[WebSlave]

And by the same token, are you then saying that those at the Contributor level ($25) have not also made a "demonstrably notable and supportive commitment ......... ", if that is the criteria ? Maybe just not as demonstrable ..... maybe not of "no consequence", just of "little consequence" ? With all the discussion here, and in prior threads, I have to agree with Mike that it seems a bit pointless, as so many who otherwise contribute here (no pun intended) will not be a part of this peer revue. Such that without a lowering of the participation level, and allowing for the expiration of the moderator up-grades, the number who actively participate here currently and who would qualify may be able to be counted on two hands, with fingers to spare ? I think it possible that the site may generate more income with its ability to entice larger numbers of folks to the $25 level than the lesser number who may opt for the $100 level. In all honesty, and in the true spirit of our Founding Fathers, as described it stinks of elitism, and has no semblance of a "peer review".

There are levels of everything. Certainly someone making a single post could be considered as being contributory to this site with such an event. I am choosing what LEVEL of contribution to make relevant for the implementation of this project. The range of selection is from NO ONE to EVERY ONE, and I am choosing to draw the line pretty close to the lower end (number wise) of that range via the criteria of membership level. Certainly I knew that anyone below that cutoff level would be upset about it, but that's just the way it is. The line had to be SOMEWHERE, and no matter where it would have been drawn, someone would have complained about it.

The purpose of this is NOT to entice anyone to spend money on a membership level nor as a revenue generator, as some of you seem to think. Matter of fact, I actually DON'T want this to be easily (or cheaply, if you prefer) available to everyone at just a whim. That will pretty much guarantee abuse, which I would like to avoid, and am using this as a method to try to limit such a result. Yes, I DO want to offload the management of this site onto YOUR shoulders, but not all of YOU. just SOME of you. So this is MY choice of how to select WHO can do this.

If some prefer to think of it as "elitism" then by all means think that way, if you like. But it is my choice to make as to what I believe the BEST way to do this. And if you will take note of my statement in my original post in this thread:

So what I am looking for HERE is some feedback on the warning points and NOT on this system in general. This is going to be done.

You will perhaps note that most of this discussion was not solicited by me. I don't mind answering questions, but I think you need to pay attention to that This is going to be done. statement.

Now, does anyone have any other suggestions concerning the warning points themselves and the point value levels?

 

[Griz]

Griz,
Are you posting personal information again?
Where did you find this picture of my sister?

Well, there was this time I was in Florida.....

Griz

 

[WebSlave]

But they already are! LOL

And just who would THAT be, Kelli?

 

[WebSlave]

That's what I thought we were doing with this new program.
Allowing the membership to make a statement about those who cross the line and deserve to be eaten.

Nope, not at all. This is kind of the equivalent to a Constitutional Republic in that there will be certain constitutional rules (the options in the warning points menu) that will need to be enforced by the various members qualified to do so. They can ONLY select warning points from that list, and that list only in order to apply those points. Anyone going outside of that "constitutional" limit will themselves be subject to sanctions for violating their authority. Those sanctions can be levied by anyone else qualified to do so under this authority.

 

[WebSlave]

Let's say there is a line in the sand, we all know how much you like lines Rich.

On one side of the line, you're the king, what you say goes, no questions asked.

On the other side of that line is Democracy, where opinions are asked for and given.

You, as the titular ruler, keep standing on the side of the line that best suits your mood at the moment.

One moment you are asking what we, the members, think or what we, the members, would suggest you do.

The next moment you have stepped over that line and are stating by decree how things will be, often belittling those who bothered to give the opinions you asked for.

NOW do you see how someone could mistake this ambiguity for democracy?

OK Wes, please show me where I solicited opinions on this plan? This thread was SOLELY for the fine tuning of the warning points and the values of them. Although I did know this would go off topic, I did not SOLICIT those opinions.

 

[Scott Ashton]

It isn't a democracy. Rich has stated this on more than one occassion.

Everyone that has a paid membership and to a lesser degree - those who don't pay to play can vote and have an impact.

For those with paid memberships - if you don't agree with how things are being run - don't renew.

For those who haven't opened their wallet to participate here - don't come here. Frequenting the site supports it. It adds to the "hit" count and thus enhances the value of this little piece of real estate.

Some of you may advertise here or even host through Fauna. Again - you have the opportunity to vote.

I'd bet that the bulk of the folks who regularly participate here aren't about to abandon ship anytime soon. Which is fine as I see it. Just don't complain when your suggestions/comments/criticisms fall on deaf ears. It isn't OUR site. But all of us have the ability to make our opinions heard.

So the only other choice is to grin and bear it. Its not our site, we are just guests who pay for the privilege of being here in some cases. I ponied up the $25 bucks when I first joined as a way of supporting the site. I'm not poor, but I'd really have to think hard to try and justify paying $100 bucks for the privelge of being able to ding people. Essentially its paying Rich for the honor of doing his job for him (ingenious if you ask me).

 

[Mike Greathouse]

I am choosing what LEVEL of contribution to make relevant for the implementation of this project. The range of selection is from NO ONE to EVERY ONE, and I am choosing to draw the line pretty close to the lower end (number wise) of that range via the criteria of membership level.

Rich,
It's your site and you are entitled to do whatever you want.
My personal opinion is that this "New Program", as currently planned, will prove to be a "Non-Event" and it's only accomplishment will be that of further dividing the membership here.

Count me out.

 

[Wilomn]

Perhaps not on this thread, I am not going to re-read it in its entirity but you have done so in the past; more than once or twice. This leaves an impression that you want opinions.

A king rules absolutely. You want to be the king. Then you ask for opinions. Then you dismiss the opinions and do what you want. Why bother to ask?

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich,

You will perhaps note that most of this discussion was not solicited by me. I don't mind answering questions, but I think you need to pay attention to that This is going to be done. statement.

It would seem that "this" ain't this:

Anyway, here's my gameplan. I want to offer qualified (PAID MEMBERS) the capability of assessing warning points to other members. I hear members complaining about other members all of the time, and they basically want ME to do something about it. It's getting to be a pain in the butt hearing such things. So I'm thinking about having the various levels of paid members have the capability of collectively ousting someone who is considered to be a major pain in the butt.

............ So let the members themselves police the site. If enough people feel that a particular member shouldn't be there, then they have the power to do something about it.

............Power multiplier for each Membership type (ie: Contributor level = x 1, Endowment level = x 2, Admin level = x 10) - Or alternatively, some warnings are only available to certain membership levels..

Of course its your decision. Does the excuse that you would have upset people regardless of where you drew the line validate that you drew it at such a non-representative place ? What are we talking about here, less than 5% of the paid members being able to participate ? 2 % ? That's peer review ? Member review ? Its statistically nothing. IMO, it makes the whole endeavor moot.

 

[Bill & Amy]

How many people actually fall into the Benefactor and Endowment levels of membership?

 

[shrap]

How many people actually fall into the Benefactor and Endowment levels of membership?

I believe Rich said the number was at 43 earlier, Bill.

 

[WebSlave]

OK, lets include the word "Republic", so that we now have a Democratic Republic ? Is that better ? Look Rich, you have established that the "voters" have to be land-owners ... actually plantation owners. Masssa Rich, how about just land-owners ?

You need to do more than just skim the posts, I think. I have been over this issue and the reason for my selection now several times. I'm not going to repeat myself yet again.

As for :


Well, here's from your first post intitiating this thread:


So, who is off topic ?

Did I confuse your use of the word "members" to actually represent some semblance of the word "members". Yup ! As Griz pointed out, most of your actual peer-recognized participants here don't rate as adequate enough "members" now. You gave the opinion that this was for members to self-police. But its not, its only for the most monied few. How effective will that be, with just a handful having police power ? It absolutely defeats the intent as stated in your first post, if not directly contradicts certain statements. Benevolent dictatorship maybe ?

Yes, I have actually said in the past that you can consider my role here as a "Benevolent Dictator". In that I mean I will try my best to do what is best for this site and the members, but that does not mean that any of my decisions are subject to your needing to approve of them.

As for definition of "members", I believe that would be defined as any number from "2 to ALL". since it is plural. My choice of a subset of "ALL" certainly qualifies for that definition.

And yes, the conversation veering off of my request for input on the actual warning points themselves IS off topic. Hair splitting, I know, but I'm not the only one splitting hairs in this thread, it seems.....

 

[Bill & Amy]

I believe Rich said the number was at 43 earlier, Bill.

Thanks, I missed it. This thread is growing faster than I can read. LOL!!!

 

[WebSlave]

Of course its your decision. Does the excuse that you would have upset people regardless of where you drew the line validate that you drew it at such a non-representative place ? What are we talking about here, less than 5% of the paid members being able to participate ? 2 % ? That's peer review ? Member review ? Its statistically nothing. IMO, it makes the whole endeavor moot.

Yep, exactly. Take it or leave it. Use it or not. Really, it doesn't matter to me. I'm just putting some tools in place for those who think they can handle the responsibility and authority and REALLY WANT to do so. If the "price" (in more ways than one) is too high for you, then so be it. But after noon time on Sunday, when someone complains about this being the "Wild Wild West", I can ask what YOU have done PERSONALLY to try to make it better.
:laugh: :laugh: Not worth it to you to help? Fine. I understand. No, really, I do........

If no one uses the warning points, then I will just have to assume everyone is happy with the site and what the members here are doing. Not a problem.....

 

[Mike Greathouse]

But after noon time on Sunday, when someone complains about this being the "Wild Wild West", I can ask what YOU have done PERSONALLY to try to make it better.
Not worth it to you to help? Fine. I understand. No, really, I do........

I've done plenty. Of course, the willingness to help now, apparantly comes with a $100.00 price tag.

 

[shrap]

For those with paid memberships - if you don't agree with how things are being run - don't renew.

I made that decision long before any mention of this latest "Program". As did my choice to not participate here as much as I once did went into effect long before any mention of this latest "Program".

The direction this site has went with the total lack of leadership and commitment from the top to the direction the community itself has went (constant drama and infighting), this site has lost much of the appeal it once had for me.

I certainly aint expecting nirvana, but this site, this community, as a whole has taken three steps backwards over the last year in my personal opinion.

 

[Mike Greathouse]

I made that decision long before any mention of this latest "Program". As did my choice to not participate here as much as I once did went into effect long before any mention of this latest "Program".

The direction this site has went with the total lack of leadership and commitment from the top to the direction the community itself has went (constant drama and infighting), this site has lost much of the appeal it once had for me.

I certainly aint expecting nirvana, but this site, this community, as a whole has taken three steps backwards over the last year in my personal opinion.

Agreed.

Gone are the days when the membership ponied up auction items to help offset the cost of running this site.

Gone are the days, when contributing $25.00, $50.00, $100.00, or even $250.00 provided the membership with a "moderated" site with the intent to benefit the reptile community.

Now, for that same price, we can have the opportunity to take pot shots at each other. Well, at least at the higher dollar levels.

 

[Wilomn]

Yep, exactly. Take it or leave it. Use it or not. Really, it doesn't matter to me. I'm just putting some tools in place for those who think they can handle the responsibility and authority and REALLY WANT to do so. If the "price" (in more ways than one) is too high for you, then so be it. But after noon time on Sunday, when someone complains about this being the "Wild Wild West", I can ask what YOU have done PERSONALLY to try to make it better.
:laugh: :laugh: Not worth it to you to help? Fine. I understand. No, really, I do........

If no one uses the warning points, then I will just have to assume everyone is happy with the site and what the members here are doing. Not a problem.....

Kinda sad Rich. Now you're selling the ability to do the job that mods, the people YOU won't appoint, should be doing.

Who was it who did that before.......ahhhh yes, most of the disposed royalty the world over. They sold the ability to rule to the few who not only wanted it but had the wherewithall to do so.

It really is a BIG step down.

No offence to anyone who actually has the membership level to give out points, unless I'm already on record as not a friend of yours, but this is sort of like saying, "I'd like 90% of you who are most qualified to achieve the goals I've set out to not participate in this program because you haven't given me enough money to warrant your consideration for this program which you would no doubt be good at as well as for."

You've done some intersting things in the past but this may well be the topper.

So far.

 

[WebSlave]

I've done plenty. Of course, the willingness to help now, apparantly comes with a $100.00 price tag.

So how did what you did in the past change with this new program, Mike? You never were enabled to enforce the rules here, were you? So what does that "$100 price tag" change for YOU? That "$100 price tag" ONLY enables members to be able to utilize the warning points system to help enforce the rules here, which you NEVER had access to before. You seem to be implying that now there is a fundamental change in your "willingness to help" in ANY fashion because of something that was NOT taken away from you at all. You haven't LOST anything, you just haven't GAINED anything.

If you don't need to or want to enforce the rules, then no problem, that is your choice to make. If you yourself do not run afoul of the rules, then does it really make a difference if a $100 paid member assesses them against you or I or the moderators do?

So what EXACTLY are you upset over about this?