Here is another way to keep flame wars out of this forum. We all have access to PM. if you have something negative to say put it in PM. Instead of trying to feel self important by using valuable reading space with dribble. At least with PM it is the most "manly" a person can be here because of the anonymity we face on the net.

By flaming you are really trying to boost your own self-esteem. This is what bullies do on the playground, "elementary my dear Watson, elementary." Grade school tactics. I know that some of us are barely out of grade school while some of us have a wealth of real life experience to contribute. I have read some really great posts and some really low budget.

I am proud to be a member here, but I am really amazed that we have even found the "balz" to accuse our fearless leader of not being the all he can be. That if nothing else speaks volumes. I hope we can all be great contributors to this forum for the advancement of Fieros. I am sure that even our "red" borthers have at times been very beneficial to the forum collectively - granted I have not read every single solitary thread to verify this comment, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Here we are on page three (now pager 4) discussing flaming and in the process just about creating more flames, just incredible. It is unfortunate that we do not leave the playground behind as children and join the larger world around us in relative peace. Common sense has got to enter stage right some time and may it stick around for a long time.
Galen
EDIT: my first page, how cool

[This message has been edited by stalen88GT (edited 10-26-2004).]

quote Originally posted by LZeitgeist: I'm pissed that he won't even help us try to keep his own house clean.

Oh shut up already. First, everybody is on my case because they think it shouldn't be my decision alone to ban someone. So by request, I implement a system so it's now the responsibility of the members. And now you are on my case for not disregarding what the members have voted?

quote What more are we supposed to do to clean it? We're USING the tools he gives us to do the best job we can.

Exactly, and those tools you've been given tell me that you don't want these guys to get banned. Yes, they've got a whole bunch of negatives, but what you don't seem to realize is that they got a whole bunch of positives too, otherwise that rating would be blinking like crazy.

quote Hell, evidently Cliff wants the trolls here since he doesn't seem interested in solving a very small number of very OBVIOUS problems.

Oh, quit your whining. That's bull and you know it.

quote If the host of the party doesn't care if a guest in his house is taking a big ol' dump right in the middle of the living room rug, then it doesn't reflect on the other partygoers - it reflects on the host.

Oh - puh-lease.

quote But hey, y'know, if he doesn't care, then I guess neither should I.

So what you are asking me is to disregard the rating system. Send out a message to all members: "hey, no matter what you vote, I'll ban whoever I damn well please". Well, maybe I should start with disregarding your rating then since you are on a destructive spree too. Let me quote you in another thread:

quote Don't bother writing Cliff with any complaints - evidently the people who crap on the carpet are more welcome here than the people that want to see them gone. Whatever. It's his party - we're just numbers.

If it were up to me, it would now say "User Banned" under your ratingsbar too. Why? Because IMO, you are now just as bad as the "very OBVIOUS problems" you are talking about. You know damn well why I don't ban people on my own accord, that I do care, and that I do everything I can to keep this place clean. You know damn well I spend an enormous amount of time trying to make this a nice place for everyone. Yet you've chosen to attack me personally. If it were up to me, you would be banned now. But that's exactly the reason why we have a rating system. Because it's not up to me.

So get your head out of your ass. If you want me to turn this forum into a moderator-dictatorship, fine. But that will not happen. So I'll tell you what I've told others. If you don't like it here, feel free to go.

Very well said Ciff, I've frequent other forums and this one is unique with the "rules" if you know what I mean. I mean most of the forums i've been to have a zero tolerance rule, a dictatorship you would say. I was a little surprised with the "ratings" system because of the power in the hands of hte people. Very unique and very cool how we basically "moderate" ourselves. So those who have a problem about the "moderating" shouldn't be attacking Cliff, they should be attacking "us?"? Since we are all "moderators" in a since. Just my opinion on this situation.

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: If it were up to me, it would now say "User Banned" under your ratingsbar too. Why? Because IMO, you are now just as bad as the "very OBVIOUS problems" you are talking about. You know damn well why I don't ban people on my own accord, that I do care, and that I do everything I can to keep this place clean. You know damn well I spend an enormous amount of time trying to make this a nice place for everyone. Yet you've chosen to attack me personally. If it were up to me, you would be banned now. But that's exactly the reason why we have a rating system. Because it's not up to me. So get your head out of your ass. If you want me to turn this forum into a moderator-dictatorship, fine. But that will not happen. So I'll tell you what I've told others. If you don't like it here, feel free to go.

So do it, then, Cliff - go right ahead.

But the message you're sending to me and everyone else here by exactly what you just wrote is that it only takes a few days of somebody trying to do something right around here using the wrong methods to be considered even worse than somebody who has spent over a year being abusive and insulting to the entire forum in every thread they enter.

Have you lost respect for what you've built here? Because believe it or not, I haven't. What about those of us who are trying to take it back from the ones who are disrespecting it, and have been the entire time they've been here? Those of us who made this into an online home and community, and one that you no longer seem interested in protecting?

I'm being abusive towards one member - one that's been abusive to everybody - not just in every thread he posts in, but also through PM and e-mail - and has been the entire time he's been here - and you're talking about banning me for being a troublemaker?

Where the heck is the logic here?

In another thread, fierobear stated:

quote Originally posted by fierobear: When things seem to be getting out of hand, we make a stand. Not necessarily a bad thing - if we don't stand up to those who are getting out of line, it's like we are condoning their behavior. But it can result in a flame war. It goes back the the human nature thing. We all have opinions, and want to express them. The forum is our community, and since it is "self-moderating", we want to police the neighborhood. Solution? I don't know.

So which do you want? Evidently this is a nice, secure home for the 'bad guys' here - what about those of us who actually want to enjoy the Fiero community without being abused while we're here?

I'm making a stand against the abusers because I appreciate what you have built here and they aren't here for the community, only for themselves, at our expense. Maybe I'm the only one out of the group that is making that stand right now that's contacted you privately as well as publically about doing something about the problems we're facing, so I stick out in the forefront. I don't know, but if you really think that a week of me dishing out similar abuse in a warranted direction is so much worse than the ones who use that same abuse on a daily basis in every direction, then something's more wrong here than I can make any sense of.

quote Originally posted by LZeitgeist: what about those of us who actually want to enjoy the Fiero community without being abused while we're here?

so why are you abusing Cliff for not picking up your battle flag and going to war against your enemies?

You complain about other people following around and harassing members, well wtf do you think you have been doing to Cliff.. telling people he doesn't care, telling him how bad a job he is doing. He doesn't have to do this at all, he wants to. If he got fed up with it he could jus turn it off, why would he ban you? well because you make him not want to run the forum.. before complaining about other people on the forum stand back and look at yourself. You can't clean up someone elses act if you are covered in mud.

Cliff, just to remind you, there are plenty of people here who back you up on how good a job you are doing especially as one person running the forum.

Hang in there Cliff.

Some of us are happy with your efforts. Controlling this many people is just not possible. You can't many everyone happy, but your doing a great job making most of us happy.

Attacking or bad mouthing Cliff is just not cool. I hate to see this, and it's just about the worst thing a member can do. IMHO, I think it's grounds for an automatiac 1 or 2 day "time out" for the user to rethink his or her's views on if they want to remain a member of our forum.

I feel so strongly about this, I'd even go as far as saying, the few members that are attacking Cliff, I'd say unless you've been donating money to help keep the forum going, THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ATTACK HIM.

I've looked over the list of those that donated this year, and don't see alot of those members. Besides complaining, there are three ways to help our forum, 1. Donate , 2 Quit being a brats & get along 3. Stop using the forum.

Cliff is doing alot of work behind the forum that we don't see and is getting crapped on by those that won't even become a "valid member" by donating. I keep bringing this up because there are so many members that are saying "Oh, I can't" or " Oh I don't have enough cash"

Oh come one, can't even spare two dollars ? BS. Yes the forum is free, yes you can keep using it without helpping out, But do you really think you have the right to complain if you don't help out ?

In companies, unless your a Board member, your opinon doesn't mean squat. I feel unless your a "vaild member" here, the same goes here. I guess I'll say, Put up, or shut up.

[This message has been edited by CoolBlue87GT (edited 10-26-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: Cliff, just to remind you, there are plenty of people here who back you up on how good a job you are doing especially as one person running the forum.

Ok, Patrick & Cliff let's just cool out a little bit here.

Cliff: I know Patrick & I can tell you that his aggressivemess here is way out of character, so don't hold it against him. I think Patrick (LZeitgeist) is getting fustrated at the degree of difficulty of removing someone that everyone knows should be gone.

Patrick: Cool your roll dude, focus on the job at hand. I think Cliff is saying that he's just as fustrated as you are.

Thanks

Archie

[This message has been edited by Archie (edited 10-26-2004).]

I stopped trying to read this thread in it's entirety, to much BS, but I will post my thoughts on the subject.

Seems to me the ratings system is working fine, it's far more democratic than selecting a few individuals to be "moderators".
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Cliff can post every private communication I've ever had with him - while I have asked him to look at the situation and his methods of dealing with things here, I have never been personally abusive to him.

Just as I said above - one person who is here because he's driven end enjoyed Fieros since 1990 and wants the community to be free from abusers is going to be shown the door for wanting to do something right by using the wrong methods, while others who have been abusive, disruptive presences here their entire time are going to continue to stay because nobody else will do anything about it.

I've gotten three negatives already between the previous post and this one - it's no wonder that the 'bad guys' are here to stay.

If the community as a whole wants to get rid of someone who's trying to do something right, for the right reasons, but the wrong methods (since evidently the 'right' methods are ineffective), then so be it. The 'bad guys' abuse and ignore the rules every day - it's only when one of the 'good guys' goes against the rules that any sort of outrage is felt. Talk about unbelievably misdirected energy.

Think about what you're supporting and perpetuating before you cast or change that vote.

dbl post

[This message has been edited by Archie (edited 10-26-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Archie: Ok, Patrick & Cliff let's just cool out a little bit here. Cliff: I know Patrick & I can tell you that his aggressivemess here is way out of character, so don't hold it against him. I think Patrick (LZeitgeist) is getting fustrated at the degree of difficulty of removing someone that everyone knows should be gone. Patrick: Cool your roll dude, focus on the job at hand. I think Cliff is saying that he's just as fustrated as you are. Thanks Archie

Thanks, Archie. I appreciate your thoughts. Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

[This message has been edited by LZeitgeist (edited 10-26-2004).]

Not a lot to say in this thread but if people want people voted off well they just have to wait until enough people think it is warranted. Like it or not.
Those that have a problem with the way Cliff runs the forum, fine., give him a negative if you wish. Even though that is not what it is there for.

------------------

quote Originally posted by LZeitgeist: I'm pissed that he won't even help us try to keep his own house clean. If the host of the party doesn't care if a guest in his house is taking a big ol' dump right in the middle of the living room rug, then it doesn't reflect on the other partygoers - it reflects on the host.

[RANT]
The biggest problem that I see, is that Cliff built this house for everybody; and then he gave everybody the tools necessary to help keep this house clean.

Now lately, there's been a few people "taking a big ol' dump" in the middle of the floor. However, it's our job to help clean keep this place clean. If we see someone dirtying this house, everybody should be doing their part to help clean it up. If there's a few people that witness "someone taking a dump" in here, and they don't do anything to help clean it up; then they're just as guilty for leaving the mess, as the person is for making the mess in the first place. IMHO.

It shouldn't be Cliff's job to go around cleaning up after us. We have the power to clean this place up. The only way this place will get cleaned up, is if everybody does their part to keep it clean. Don't sperad dirt around here. Plain and simple. And if you do see someone speading dirt, than use your power to clean it up.
[/RANT]

Thank you for this place, Cliff.

quote Originally posted by Deabionni: [RANT] The biggest problem that I see, is that Cliff built this house for everybody; and then he gave everybody the tools necessary to help keep this house clean. Now lately, there's been a few people "taking a big ol' dump" in the middle of the floor. However, it's our job to help clean keep this place clean. If we see someone dirtying this house, everybody should be doing their part to help clean it up. If there's a few people that witness "someone taking a dump" in here, and they don't do anything to help clean it up; then they're just as guilty for leaving the mess, as the person is for making the mess in the first place. IMHO. It shouldn't be Cliff's job to go around cleaning up after us. We have the power to clean this place up. The only way this place will get cleaned up, is if everybody does their part to keep it clean. Don't sperad dirt around here. Plain and simple. And if you do see someone speading dirt, than use your power to clean it up. [/RANT] Thank you for this place, Cliff.

Thank you, Deabionni - that's exactly how I feel, but I'm frustrated beyond the point of being able to say it clearly, because it just seems like common sense.

And I notice two more negatives have been added. C'est la vie.

Like I said earlier, if the community as a whole wants to get rid of someone who's trying to do something right, for the right reasons, but the wrong methods (since evidently the 'right' methods are ineffective), then so be it. The 'bad guys' abuse and ignore the rules every day - it's only when one of the 'good guys' goes against the rules that any sort of outrage is felt. Talk about unbelievably misdirected energy.

Think about what you're supporting and perpetuating before you cast or change that vote.

And yes, thank you for this place, Cliff - I feel this way because I care about it.

[This message has been edited by LZeitgeist (edited 10-26-2004).]

I have a question.
As we know, in the begining the forum was moderated by just Cliff alone. It worked well but soon the forum continued to prosper and grew larger and larger with many thousands of members joining and soon Cliff realized that he could no longer moderate it all very well on his own. From this the ratings system came about and was then implemented. At some point though after the ratings system was put in place enough members thought that it didn't seem to take very many ratings on the minus scale to have someone get banned, and to try and be more fair to all members we asked Cliff to try increasing that number to see if that would work better. Now we have tested that new setting for quite awhile and many of us are realizing that the number may now be a bit too high.
I don't necessarily see these requests again to possibly change the number of negs required to ban a member as a bad thing at all, but merely a way of the users and the admin to continue to work out the bugs so to speak. It is not uncommon to have to tweak a new or upgraded system a bit after implementing it as you continue to work with it until you get it where you want it.
So my question is this. Is it quite possible that maybe the first adjustment Cliff made to a higher number required to get someone banned, in attempt to adjust the system in being more fair as we requested, was though maybe a bit closer to what we all wanted - not exactly where it needed to be yet to work as effectively as both Cliff and the majority of us members here would like?
Is it possible that since we have all now had a chance to test out this first change for awhile, that maybe it just might need another adjustement? A somewhat lower adjustment, as we continue to test and work out how the ratings needs to work well so it can not only be fair to all but also be very firm to better help us keep the PFF house clean?
What do others think of this?

Now, I hope that I have worded this in a way so it can create usefull and helpfull discussions and not arguments

Steve

Edited as I can't speel

[This message has been edited by Fiero5 (edited 10-26-2004).]

I hate to see Cliff getting attacks over this... I hate to see anyone getting attacked over this. I spoke out against people who were constantly trying to start trouble on the forum, now it appears that the forum is a battleground. Red, green, white... it's all crazy! I'm no part of any syndicate, brigade or anything else. I'm a forum member... period. I try to be a positive member. I try to answer questions. And I try to do it all respectfully of other people's feelings. That's it. Bottom line.

I'm not going to write a long dissertation here, but this forum was getting out of hand and that is what started all of this. But it is more out of hand now. It is a shame. But Cliff has always done exactly what we have asked - by giving us ways to police ourselves. I agree that maybe the percentage of negs needed now may be a bit high, but we asked for it. Like Steve said, maybe we learned a little and need to make another adjustment.. But none of us should be attacking Cliff for anything here. He has given us all of this at great expense to himself - both of his time and money. He is by far more fair than I would be and I have to give him credit for that... By all means, let Cliff know your thoughts, but never by personal attacks or saying he doesn't care...

Ok, then lower the banned number... and add somehting like... the 1st time your banned you are banned for a month.... 2nd time it's for life.

Wow. This thread has gotten heated.

Cliff, I appreciate all you're trying to do, but it does get frustrating to us. I guess a big problem the members have is we have no idea what ratings a person has. We give out negatives to those we think should be banned, yet they're still here. As you pointed out, many of these "red bar" members have lots of positives, which is why they're still here.

So I guess our problem isn't really with Cliff, but the people who give the trash a positive rating. If it's a democracy: 1 person, 1 vote, and some vote to keep the trolls here, then that's the way it is.

I don't envy your position, Cliff. Like you said, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. The only difference is the name of the person attacking you for not doing things properly.

The only suggestion I have for Cliff is that once a member is banned - they stay banned. I think forum history has shown that in most cases anyone who's been banned and come back has reverted to their old, abusive posts sooner or later. Like you, I believe in second chances, but once you've been burned a couple times, don't keep putting your hand in the fire.

I love the "Ignore" list in the PM section. How wonderful it would be if we could do the same with members posts in the forum. Or even Ignore entire threads. Someone ticks you off, you click Ignore and never have to hear from them again. That has the added plus of reducing their audience so the trolls don't have anyone to flame. I have no idea how feasible or difficult that would be to code. Just a suggestion.

And Patrick - switch to decaffe, man!!

------------------

quote Originally posted by Songman: By all means, let Cliff know your thoughts, but never by personal attacks or saying he doesn't care...

Cliff can post every PM I've ever sent to him, or if he won't, I'll be glad to, because I have never personally attacked him, and I have nothing to hide.

No matter how someone would like to twist my words, my saying "he doesn't care" isn't an attack - it's a direct observation of what his seeming inaction on making a simple adjustment to solve the small number of long-time, ongoing problems here indicates - an adjustment that Fiero5 mentions above, and the same adjustment that I suggested to Cliff via PM a day or two ago.

I react this way because I care about this forum, about this community, about Fieros and about good people I see harassed here every day - not because I'm here to abuse anybody or anything. The ones that need to be shown the door sure can't say the same thing.

We've still got to remember that even though the forum has been at more of an uneasy position lately, we still have a better ratio of good threads to bad than most every other forum like this. That's due to people not giving up with the way things are, and not giving up posting in a courteous manner.

I'm not telling people to ignore everything around them, granted, there are actions that I think need to be taken with certain members. However, Cliff has done nearly everything possible to make all of us happy. He's listened to our little gripes, and for anyone to say that he hasn't done a fantastic job over the past 5 years is asking for trouble.

In 5 years there will still be dissent, there will still be flames, there will still be trolls and "good members". I just hope that in spite of our shortsightedness, there will still be www.Fiero.nl.

------------------

My Web page | The Turbo Super Duty Build.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: And Patrick - switch to decaffe, man!!

Dude, if this was your house, your Forum, I'd be defending it just as ferociously as I am here.

quote Originally posted by LZeitgeist: Dude, if this was your house, your Forum, I'd be defending it just as ferociously as I am here.

but i think he would still drink decaffe.

this whole thing HAS gotten out of hand and when i made this thread i thought that it would either die out like usual or i would get a few responses. i think that this has gotten off base and started to turn into a "he's doing this, he's not doing this" thread. we need to come up w/ a way to DEAL w/ these trolls. a way that doesnt involve cliff because he has given us the power to ban someone. im just not sure if some of those old positive votes are from old members that havent visited in 6months and never will.

everyone needs to take a break from this forum for a few days and come back. im pretty sure that some of the flames will go completly away. i know if i stay on here i get frustrated and get into arguments but if i dont log in for a day or even a week that i am much happier to be on here and i think that everyone would too.better yet what if cliff closed the forum for a few days... im sure he could use the time to upgrade his server if hes planning on it.
so we should:
1.take a break from here for a day or two

2.delete old members votes who havent logged in for over 6 months - but involve cliff so dont count of this happenig because he said we have the power already

3.lower the limit for banning - but involve cliff so dont count of this happenig because he said we have the power already

[This message has been edited by TaurusThug (edited 10-26-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Oh - puh-lease.

lol on a side note I say that all the time!! LOL thats freaky...
anyhoo cont.

Brad

I wonder, what is the exact ratio of minus to plus ratings that are needed to get someone banned? Maybe if we knew what it was we could comment on wether it should be changed or not. I personally hate when those who are hanging by a thread, challenge the rest of us to ban them, and take a chance to take pot shots at Cliff. It's like they are saying "in your face" as they wave their privates at us. Giving these guys a plus because one finds this behaviour amusing is the wrong kind of thinking. It is rewarding them for doing wrong. If you see something wrong, and you feel it deserves a negative rating, PM Cliff and give the negative rating. The faster we put the trolls down, the less of them there will be. The only catch is that we all have to do our part and not encourage this behaviour.

I agree it's gotten out of hand. Ignore whoever is bothering you, and move on with your life. Grow tougher skin. The 'bad guys' you speak of, are only ruining it for you, because you let them. You can kick them all out, but then what happens when another heated discussion starts up about some policy. Your going to gang up on them and complain until they are gone, and so and so. Just let it roll..

quote Originally posted by Songman: I'm not going to write a long dissertation here, but this forum was getting out of hand and that is what started all of this. But it is more out of hand now.

No it's not. You're just looking in the wrong places. Most of the threads that I read have no flames in them whatsoever. Count the positives instead of concentrating on the negatives.

quote Originally posted by TaurusThug: we need to come up w/ a way to DEAL w/ these trolls.

We already have it. 1) Rating system. 2) Ignore them. Use both.

Doug

quote Originally posted by Doug Chase: No it's not. You're just looking in the wrong places. Most of the threads that I read have no flames in them whatsoever. Count the positives instead of concentrating on the negatives.

Thats all well and good Doug until the number of threads begin to count up more and more. Your right, it "used" to be that most threads didn't have that problem. Well, things change. More recently many of the threads the rest of us have been reading or have started ourselves have sadly seen this happening more and more.
You can only ignore them for so long until they either 1) get a clue and finally leave (which hasn't happened yet) or 2) You finally have had enough and....well...I think thats where we are finally all at now.
Here's a question, if the trolls come into a thread and litterally spew their crap all thru it and get it off track, is it then ok to let it go and start up another one to replace it? That would be one way to really ignore them, right? I know Archie has done this a few times. Or is it better to just keep it going even though now half of your thread or more is now trashed while "hoping" it might get back on track? What usually happens as we know is that they then get nicely tossed in the trash can soon after where the ones that started the trouble to get it there are then joined in by a few more trouble makers and finish it off completely with even more spewing of insulting garbage.
And of course once a thread hits the trash, many of these idiots think it is then open season on the thread as well as anyone in it and say whatever they want to whoever they want no matter how hurtfull. In fact, usually the more hurtfull and insulting it is the better they enjoy it. Why we even have the trash to begin with seems more than a bit strange. We say we don't want this kind of thing on the forum, and yet we have an outlet, a reward if you will, for those that want to "continue" the thread ruining and crap spewing that ruined the thread to begin with. And even though it is in the "trash" it is still a part of the forum and a reflection on it which is kind of sad.
Maybe better yet, vote these trolls off all together allready and move on. That just might work too

quote Originally posted by LZeitgeist: Thank you, Deabionni - that's exactly how I feel, but I'm frustrated beyond the point of being able to say it clearly, because it just seems like common sense. And I notice two more negatives have been added. C'est la vie. Like I said earlier, if the community as a whole wants to get rid of someone who's trying to do something right, for the right reasons, but the wrong methods (since evidently the 'right' methods are ineffective), then so be it. The 'bad guys' abuse and ignore the rules every day - it's only when one of the 'good guys' goes against the rules that any sort of outrage is felt. Talk about unbelievably misdirected energy. Think about what you're supporting and perpetuating before you cast or change that vote. And yes, thank you for this place, Cliff - I feel this way because I care about it.

Patrick, you need to take a step back and look at this again while you cool off. I admire your determination and your goals, but you're asking Cliff to make a blatent double standard. Cliff decided that, once the ratings system that the people asked for was in place, he would not ban people unless the Forum voted them off. Period. Now you're asking him to make special exceptions to the rule and ban certain people that have not been voted off by the Forum. To do so would be hypocritical, a double standard, and completely invalidate the ratings system that we the people lobbied him for. I understand what you want to accomplish, and I agree with it, but what you're asking would put Cliff in a terrible spot.

Further, I think you're directing your attention and frustrations at the wrong place. Cliff has stated numerous times that the reason these people aren't banned is because they have a lot of positives in addition to all thier negatives. Cliff has even told us that many members with a big green bar have rated the trolls positive for whatever reason. The problem is not Cliff's inability to break his own rule (which, incidentaly, would make him no better than the trolls you seek to ban), it is your fellow forum members. If you should be frustrated with anyone over this, it should be every person who has rated a troll positive. Those people are the only reason the trolls haven't been banned. If anyone has something to answer for, they do.

Again, I'm with you. Theres no need for them here. But I'm pissed at every person out there who rated a troll a + just because they occasionally say something funny or "tell it like it is." Get some cheaper thrills. Go to ebaums or funnyjunk if you want a good laugh, don't do it at the expense of the forum.

everyone needs to look at the My Ratings section and re-evaluate who you've rated and why you rated that way... youd be suprized who youve given a plus to.

An observation...

...have you noticed that most of the "red bar" members don't have a Fiero worth much to speak of.... and so they feel they must throw insults at others to make themselves feel better.

Look at the signatures of these "red bar" members if they even have one. Your not going to see a nice Fiero.

I feel CoolBlue may be on to something. Maybe the way to keep the house clean is by having a membership fee? How many of you would walk into your Fiero club meeting and attack those that are there? The club I belong to collects a yearly membership fee. I know people would not stand for the BS at our club meetings, why should we stand for it here.

I know Cliff wants the Forum available to everyone, and maybe some parts would be, but I highly doubt we would have people putting down their hard earned dollars for a membership here, and then trying to see how far they can push the bar before they get banned.

Anyone remember Ryan DePietro or Steve Gibbs? Would we have ever had such nonsense if they would have paid a membership due to join? Why would anyone waste, say $25.00, to join here, only to be banned.

Just my $.02

quote Originally posted by WingNut - MD: I feel CoolBlue may be on to something. Maybe the way to keep the house clean is by having a membership fee? How many of you would walk into your Fiero club meeting and attack those that are there? The club I belong to collects a yearly membership fee. I know people would not stand for the BS at our club meetings, why should we stand for it here. I know Cliff wants the Forum available to everyone, and maybe some parts would be, but I highly doubt we would have people putting down their hard earned dollars for a membership here, and then trying to see how far they can push the bar before they get banned. Anyone remember Ryan DePietro or Steve Gibbs? Would we have ever had such nonsense if they would have paid a membership due to join? Why would anyone waste, say $25.00, to join here, only to be banned. Just my $.02

I remember steve Gibbs...... He was a major @ss

Possibly there is an issue that I am not seeing here, but is seems like such a simple thing to do to simply warn the offender and or deleat (or lock) a thread (or post)when there is a problem. Cliff already does this ocasionally. The problem with banning someone is a number of people seem to think that banning is to drastic to do just because the person chooses to break a few rules.

Banning should be reserved for the elite few that are total donkey holes. If someone does something anoying, like an oversized sig they may not even realize what they are doing wrong, they just need a warning. Most people are more than willing to try to act civilized, a few are not.

I have only been here about 2 years, so any voting was done before I was here, likly the same with almost everyone here. There are still a few old timers that are around, but not many. It does seem wrong that if 100 people rate you and 80 rate you bad you get to stay and harass the rest of us. I think a solution to this would be to allow the person to stay, but he has to agree to follow the rules that the rest choose to follow. This is so easy, just do the right thing! If you don't, your abilities can be limited. Want to post pics? Then don't post ****. Want to have a sig? Then make it the correct size.

The answer here is moderators. Not ones that ban (that should be up to Cliff, it is his house) but ones that have the ability to enforce the rules. The banning could be left up to Cliff, just as it is now. His decision to ban could still be a reflection of the ratings. This way everyone will still be welcome, but they will be expected to follow the very liberal rules that are in place.

quote Originally posted by Fastback 86: Patrick, you need to take a step back and look at this again while you cool off. I admire your determination and your goals, but you're asking Cliff to make a blatent double standard. Cliff decided that, once the ratings system that the people asked for was in place, he would not ban people unless the Forum voted them off. Period. Now you're asking him to make special exceptions to the rule and ban certain people that have not been voted off by the Forum. To do so would be hypocritical, a double standard, and completely invalidate the ratings system that we the people lobbied him for. I understand what you want to accomplish, and I agree with it, but what you're asking would put Cliff in a terrible spot.

Geeze, if that is the message that I've been carrying across, then no wonder I've been getting negatives out the ears.

I'm not asking for a double standard - not in the least.

Cliff has stated that when he initiated the ratings system, people complained that the settings made it too easy to get banned. O.K., so Cliff listened to the group and made it more difficult to get banned. He put something good in place, and adjusted it when it appeared to not fit what was best for the group. That's great!

So, why is it so difficult to get him to adjust the 'breaking point' once more? That is all I've asked him to do. Seems completely logical to me that if it started out too easy, and now it's too hard, then how hard is it to split the difference between the two and give it another year to see how it works with the new settings?

I'm not asking for a double standard anything. I asked him for help.

I haven't asked him to ban anybody. I asked him to modify the tools we have so that we can all do a more effective job of 'self-policing' the forum.

Case in point - remember this thread? https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/026739.html (Be sure to check out the link *in* the thread to be reminded what prompted the thread to be started in the first place.)

And no, it's not just about the Chris Reeve thread - it's about a pattern of behavior over the entire course of certain members times here.

I didn't ask him to ban anybody - I asked the Forum members themselves for help in finally resolving a long-term problem that evidently a lot of people are turning a blind eye to, to the detriment of their fellow members.

I'm not 'putting' Cliff anywhere. I'm asking him to help us all by making his own policies and tools more effective, since obviously there are still some shortcomings.

I'm all for the ratings system, because I've seen it work. And I'll still be for the ratings system here, even if I end up getting banned for trying to do the right thing but with the wrong methods. Because that, too, will prove that it works. But it is in need of adjustment between where it used to be (too easy) and where it is now (too hard) - and Cliff is the only one who can make that modification. That is all I have asked him to do.

Yet, he says it's 'our job' to police the forum, and when the tools are proven ineffective, then what else are we supposed to do if we ourselves can't adjust our tools to be more effective for the good of the forum?

We can't make that adjustment, but Cliff tell us that it's up to us to do it. We can't! Just what *is* the 'breaking point' that it used to be set at, and what is it now? Given the state of things today, doesn't the logical answer appear to be to split the difference and see how it works?

*sigh*

[This message has been edited by LZeitgeist (edited 10-26-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Fiero5: Thats all well and good Doug until the number of threads begin to count up more and more. Your right, it "used" to be that most threads didn't have that problem. Well, things change. More recently many of the threads the rest of us have been reading or have started ourselves have sadly seen this happening more and more. You can only ignore them for so long until they either 1) get a clue and finally leave (which hasn't happened yet) or 2) You finally have had enough and....well...I think thats where we are finally all at now. Here's a question, if the trolls come into a thread and litterally spew their crap all thru it and get it off track, is it then ok to let it go and start up another one to replace it? That would be one way to really ignore them, right? I know Archie has done this a few times. Or is it better to just keep it going even though now half of your thread or more is now trashed while "hoping" it might get back on track? What usually happens as we know is that they then get nicely tossed in the trash can soon after where the ones that started the trouble to get it there are then joined in by a few more trouble makers and finish it off completely with even more spewing of insulting garbage. And of course once a thread hits the trash, many of these idiots think it is then open season on the thread as well as anyone in it and say whatever they want to whoever they want no matter how hurtfull. In fact, usually the more hurtfull and insulting it is the better they enjoy it. Why we even have the trash to begin with seems more than a bit strange. We say we don't want this kind of thing on the forum, and yet we have an outlet, a reward if you will, for those that want to "continue" the thread ruining and crap spewing that ruined the thread to begin with. And even though it is in the "trash" it is still a part of the forum and a reflection on it which is kind of sad. Maybe better yet, vote these trolls off all together allready and move on. That just might work too

I think a step back and looking where you stand is in order. Its not just everybody else..

Here's another suggestion. Banning should be difficult so people don't get banned for one screw up, etc. It should take a pattern of behavior to get enough negatives to be banned. That said; however, if Cliff lets someone who has been banned back on, I think they should have a much lower percentage of negative to positive ratings before they're banned. If he gives you a second chance, that means you'd better not screw up.

Say it takes 95% negative ratings to be banned. If someone is readmitted, make the percentage 70%.

I'm not sure what the exact numbers should be, but I definitely think a member returning from being banned should be held to a higher standard (more easily banned) because they've already proven they were a trouble maker. Put the burden on them to prove they've changed.

LZeitgeist, I hear what you're saying, and I've given you a plus for stepping forward. I've had enough of it, too. Nobody's been stalking me or flaming me and I stay out of other poeple's fights but I've had enough of having to step over those big piles of poo on the carpet. We can vote and vote and vote and the only one who'se been affected by it in the recent past is Greg:

There's still more mileage in that pic, right?

We've got guys out there with major negatives on the scale, and it's frustrating that we just can't seem to shake them. I don't know what to say here - I don't beleive for a second Cliff's decisions are easy, but there's a small number who are running amok here with a feeling of immunity. It works both ways, unfortunately, so a group could band together and give eachother plusses and it would be next to impossible to rate them off.

Maybe we only count ratings from members who are positively rated? If you're in the red, your ratings to other people (including others in the red) do not count. Could be tricky to implement, but Cliff's already done some great programming around here.

[This message has been edited by Stinkin_V8 (edited 10-26-2004).]

Y'know, just for clarity's sake, to put everything on the table, I'll post publically every PM I have sent to Cliff regarding recent events to show that I'm not abusing him, or disrespecting him or taking this place for granted - I'm trying to do some good.

Evidently people are thinking I'm harassing Cliff via PM, etc., etc., but when Cliff signs back on, he can attest that every word I'm posting is true and unadulterated. I have been asking him for help, even through my own frustration at our hands being tied.

Here they are, in chronological order:

quote Topic: Fwd: Re: Drudge Report: Christopher Reeve is dead Recipient Cliff Pennock - Administrator - 10-12-2004 01:13 PM Sorry to bother you with this on top of everything else, but since you'd asked us to let you know where problems were occurring, here's an abusive PM I received in regard to recent happenings. Perhaps it can be seen as 'just desserts' for speaking against the foul players, but either way you feel about things, apologies for all the drama. Patrick ----- Message Forwarded from CertifiedMechanic ----- So what background do you have for an education. Because you must be the most ****ing dumbest person I have ever run across. I took 7 years of knowledge and never gave it back? I believe the fiero forum was around in 1999. That would be 5 years. And no where did i state I have been browsing the forum for 7 years, but the case that I owned a fiero for 7 years. Btw, i dont need any of the forums help. So why should i provide anything back? Please explain to me why someone who has a degree in automotive tech and also an engineering degree need help from no experience people like yourself? What you have between "im back" and you is your business. But whatever makes you think you got a bigger penis by acting all badass on the internet is very sad. And boohoo if someone pisses you off, as me for an example. Grow up you ****ing pussy. Are you still living at home, and ask mom to hold you in your arms when someone makes fun of you on the forum. Maybe "i'm back" did a good job of that. Good luck in the real world. ****ing panzy ------------------------------------ (end of forwarded message)

quote Topic: P.S. - re: fowrarded message Recipient Cliff Pennock - Administrator - 10-12-2004 01:16 PM I have not responded to 'CertifiedMechanic', nor do I plan to. I figured the best course of action was to simply forward the information to you rather than escalate it. Sorry for the mess. Patrick

quote Topic: Re: P.S. - re: fowrarded message Recipient Cliff Pennock - Administrator - 10-12-2004 01:29 PM Thanks. I apologize for all the drama. I'm sure you have better things to do with your day/evening than play referee/babysitter. Patrick

quote Topic: Fwd: Re: Apologies to Aus Recipient Cliff Pennock - Administrator - 10-13-2004 11:03 AM Just for your information - more abusive PM's... what a surprise. Y'know, it's pretty simple for a guy to say "Aus, I apologize for the remarks I made about statements I accidentally attributed to you. I'm sorry." One doesn't have to drag anyone else's name into it, nor take further shots at them in the middle of a supposed "apology". And since he was supposedly going to ignore any other replies in the thread, then he could have simply apologized to Aus in private - instead, he did it publically to give the appearance of saving face. Both are the reasons I called him on it. If I had read any sincerity in his apology to Aus, I would have left it alone, and if he'd simply made the apology, my respect for him would have been raised an iota. But his actions then (and now, with this PM - BTW, there'll be another one on the way shortly - I haven't opened his other PM to me yet) prove to me he's full of it. Take it as you will. Thanks, Patrick ----- Message Forwarded from I'm Back ----- Hey maggot, I was merely illustrating the fact that I screwed up by the person that the post was supposed to be going to. I didn't expound or take an extra shot at you, and I didn't put in another word to you. The term, "whiny little conservative" is going to be ringing true soon I see as the Repubs are becoming the whiners. Don't worry Nazi, just like your relatives, PFF will soon be a pure society; problem is that then you will have to find another reason for internal divide. Cliff was right to close the thread as the whiny maggot conservatives like you can't help yourself but to invade a simple single-use thread and trash it, and I was not in any way going to respond to you or any of your girlfriends regardless of Cliff closing it or not. Anyway, be a good little maggot Repug and post this you little victim. ----------------------------- (end of forwarded message)

quote Topic: Fwd: Re: RIP Superman Recipient Cliff Pennock - Administrator - 10-13-2004 11:06 AM Here's the other one. More of the same. I'm not going to deign to respond to him, so I hope you'll do something to resolve the situation for all involved. If I can help, let me know. Thanks, Patrick ----- Message Forwarded from I'm Back ----- What a sorry Nazi maggot. You can't help but to share your whinyness with everyone can you? I will let you be the only person to bring up the thread Cliff closed, that is, unless some of your other whiny conservs join you. --------------------------- (end of forwarded message)

quote Topic: 'The Punisher' making child **** comments? This is O.K.?? Recipient Cliff Pennock - Administrator - 10-25-2004 09:37 AM Three examples from the 'Fiero5 - Jordan's car in the magazine' thread you moved to the junkyard: ----------------- quote: Originally posted by The Punisher: I swear I saw a pic of Jordan in an adult magazine posted here a while back..Hmmmm.. Call MAtlock!!! quote: Originally posted by The Punisher: I can see it now. jordan out signing autographs to a total of three 13 year old ricer kids. It will be awesome! You will be using the other 47 to heat your dilapidated trailor house this winter. Will Jordan be signing with his rela name? Or will he be signing with his **** name? quote: Originally posted by The Punisher: I want you and Jordan to Autograph my Ballz..use permanent marker as they tend to get quite sweaty. ------------------ So now it's acceptable here for members to relate other member's kids with pornography? This would be completely unacceptable anywhere else I have seen on the Internet, and the offender would most likely receive a permanent ban for their efforts. And these posts were already in place when you merely moved the thread to the Trash Can instead of doing more to resolve the issues. The problems plaguing the Forum could be solved right now by decreasing the percentage of neg vs pos votes needed to ban members. Also, making those bans permanent would be suggested as well - as difficult as you seem to have made it for a required 'majority' to be reached, our hands might as well be tied as far as a 'self-policing' forum. If all you're going to do is hand out dry, useless twigs for us to 'vote' with, the least you can do is sharpen the ends. Do something, Cliff. It's obvious to anybody and everybody who the ones are who need to be shown the door. If you condone it, you promote it. Patrick

quote Topic: Yes, another flamewar... Recipient Cliff Pennock - Administrator - 10-25-2004 10:58 AM https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/027151.html Why is Ed here??? Why do you allow someone who does nothing but stir up crap and strife continue to be a member of the community? WHY?? You say that no one tells you about problems. So people are now telling you about problems. What good is telling you about problems if nothing is going to be done to solve them? The reason this sort of thing upsets me so much is that I appreciate everything you do here, and I respect the efforts it takes to keep things going. Thank you for that, and for everything else. But I get mad when someone else comes in and craps all over what you've done. You deserve better than that. And we are trying to get the handful of people who do so to stop crapping on what you've done, but if all we have is what you've given us to use, then we either need to be given more effective tools, or assistance from you in putting a stop to it. I've stopped telling people about this place because of jerks like Ed, et al being allowed to run rampant everywhere here, causing flamewars in every thread they post in, and reveling in the attention. They're not here to participate - they're here to gain attention to themselves through strife and namecalling and bullcrap, and they call it 'debate' and 'free speech'.

I know everybody's tired of reading all this junk, but what I ask is that if you're going to rate me negatively for what you think I'm up to, or what you think I'm after, well, here are the facts of the matter.

If the facts still weigh against me, then I can live with that with a clear conscience, stay or go.

quote Originally posted by Stinkin_V8: Maybe we only count ratings from members who are positively rated? If you're in the red, your ratings to other people (including others in the red) do not count. Could be tricky to implement, but Cliff's already done some great programming around here.

Sounds kinda pre-15th Amendment to me. A person's right to rate should not be determined by the color of their bar.

------------------
Member of the Central Cartel, the Switzerland of PFF.
Bringing Moderation to the Red Green Show.

quote Originally posted by Unsafe At Any Speed: Sounds kinda pre-15th Amendment to me. A person's right to rate should not be determined by the color of their bar.

I agree.