Soooo does anybody know what happened to furryfrog02?

I don't know how all members feel about it, but I think if the "name" that disappeared wants people to know, the "name" will get in contact if they were that connected. Perhaps a group such as the Ancient forum, general discussion, errors , etc. could set up a contact exchange on FB, Twit, or other such sites in case of not being available any longer.
If such happened to me, I would go to a different forum and sign up with a new name, and live with the lesson learned ( which is usually a positive thing) IMO, No disrespect to anyone intended. Jim

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I thought so too until I heard the comment

 

Jim, you boys can't patch things up with him?

 

To be honest, I wasn't aware of it until much later after it was over. All such actions are usually checked by upper management and they will adjust any action they feel was inappropriate. I feel 100% that there was nothing personal about the result of the interaction,it was the subject matter. I have no way of knowing if the new member read the rules, although most do not until something happens to them, but it seems both took offense, and that is how bad things result. Actually, for the large number of members we have very low percentage of interactions like this , except for major elections years where the numbers climb significantly. IMO, Jim

 

Neither member was "new" is my understanding?

 

So one day he's hopping along from lily pad to lily pad and the next day he's gone. That's how it looks to a lot of us, I hate to say it. You're not discriminating against animals, I hope.

 

@desertgem , Jim,
I'm still relatively new here, at least compared to the old timers. I've had my time outs like many others. I do feel I learned what's acceptable here and what's taboo. I might even agree that the punishment fit the crime.

That last sentence is my bone of contention. Every single situation requiring sentencing so to speak, is different. Since there is virtually no communication between the mods and the membership regarding infractions and resulting punishment, as well as between the mods and the perpetrator, having some discreet, read private, latitude in your punishment, explaining why you've elected to levy for instance a three month suspension as opposed to a perma ban can go an incredibly long way to member morale and perceptions.

In the same vane, you can also make those three month suspensions very clearly known to the perp that it is a final warning. One more infraction, however minor, within a stated period, even as long as a year, will result in the final ban hammer coming down.

I do believe in rules. I do believe in accountability. I also believe the punishment should fit the crime. Even our judicial system has tiered punishments for serious infractions such as DWI. Loss of license doesn't always happen on the first offense. It might, depending on the severity of the offense, but it can also be put off until a second similar offense. In other words the judge has the ability to apply discretion. It's not always cut and dry.

I think it would be a very diplomatic gesture to at least revisit this situation with hippity hoppity to maybe come to an understanding that could somehow result in his reinstatement after some moderator agreed upon suspension.

FYI, I was a silent observer of the thread and posts that resulted in this unfortunate situation. I knew something was going to come down. I was just hoping it would be temporary as opposed to permanent. No need to rule with such an iron fist. Even felons are eligible for parole after a certain time served. The reality is, as bad as Furry's faux pas was, it wasn't murder.

 

That's exactly what we have, though, at the root. We rely on the subjective judgement of the mods and admins.

 

I feel like I’m missing something here. I thought at the time it was a bot FF was responding to. With all the bots spewing political nonsense to every forum, it’s hardly surprising someone would be triggered. The goal of these bots is to sew discord and the messages are continually refined to improve their deleterious effects. Read to me like one tricked a long time contributor here, and he made a prohibited post in reply.

What’s gained by banning a contributor? The forum is poorer for it. My two cents. Don’t hand the bot a win. Delete the posts. Block the bot. End of.

 

Has the frog gotten a temporary ban before?I don't recall seeing a single one of his post mod edited for the bad.Of course the mods won't tell us,I've only been on here for a few years.So I don't know if the frog got enough warning points with previous temporary bans,and this was the final shot that ignited the flame.

 

The rules are, in summary, "you get enough penalty points, you're gone". Not subjective. I agree that it's the doling out of penalty points that is subjective. What I was referring to is the suggestion that we take a "oh it's that really nice guy who likes frogs and posts fluffy bunnies and rainbows and roses all the time so let's not ban him even though he has too many penalty points" approach to enforcement, which is extremely subjective.

 

That's not what I really think of FF2, btw.

 

I accepted being a moderator with the knowledge that I was to enforce the rules and regulations established by the administration and not interpret them differently for members I might like or dislike. I sometimes push against boundaries when I feel it is important to all ( such as the early pandemic misinformation) but I recognize a firm limit when I see one and stop inside the line. Members can keep asking moderators to intercede, but reality is we have no authority to change the situation. IMO, Jim

 

Well good for you. And thanks for letting us know. At first we thought you were a schmuck, but now we know better.

It got ugly. That's the only way it makes sense. I've had mods on my back, too, but I don't go flying off at them for it. I understand they're the last word, and I act like I understand it. We don't bite the hand that feeds us, then bitch we're not getting fed.

I'm just going to say, I think the frog can come back. But that's up to him, not us.

 

Donna, one wastes one's time arguing with conspiracy advocates here or anywhere else. Their minds are made up, no amount of evidence contrary to their beliefs is considered and anything that does is accepted as divinely revealed truth. They may have a right to express their opinions but I have the right to reject them. Heavens know how few sites there are where posters can enjoy having conversations about anything substantial ( like numismatics) without someone lobbing hand grenades into the conversation sending it spinning off into black holes where rationality and civility are forever lost. I'd like to have at least one place where arguments are about whether silver double denarii are attractive coins, one should apply crystalline wax to coins to improve their appearance or slabbing ancients is blasphemous. By the way I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that coins should be stored and displayed chronologically. Anyone want to discuss that?

 

This is uncalled for, here. You want to sing, find a choir.

 

I think the rules of the forum need an overhaul.

Banning for life people like Steve X6, Ken Dorney, furry frog does nothing for coin talk as a business or as a place to support the coin community.

Life is not black and white, it is gray. There should be room in the rules for giving a person who is a big contributor to the community less than a lifetime ban. To me this is just lazy moderation and I'm pretty much done here.

John

 

You obviously didn't get my point. And I don't think I was being unclear, so that's on you. In fact, I said nothing about the avatar itself, or its content. Zero. I agree that the avatar was political, and, therefore, inappropriate, as any comment on its substance would be. (Your insistence on referring to the avatar as "protected" political speech is mystifying, since its status as protected from governmental restriction in a First Amendment context is completely irrelevant in a privately-owned forum like this one.)

Instead, my comment was on the tagline, which revealed the poster as a proponent of a certain group with a well-known conspiracy Weltanschauung. So I listed several well-known beliefs of that group. None of which should be characterized as political opinion, because they concern matters of historical and present fact. Unless you, too, believe that the children killed at Sandy Hook never existed, JFK Jr. didn't die in that plane crash, and leading members of one major party eat babies? If I were to state that I happen to know that you are an actual lizard with a humanoid face, and you denied it, should your denial be considered an impermissible political statement? That would be the logical conclusion of your arguments, your parroting of ancient memes about hiring a choir notwithstanding.

Finally, I will never believe that the anti-politics rules here are applied neutrally, as long as Mr. Flag of Treason's avatar is allowed to remain.

 

Define "big contributor" in a consistant and objective way.

 

Donna, political speech is banned, here, without regard to content, because it’s divisive and distracting of the business, here. We’ve elsewhere for our emotional reactions, and I suggest you take yours there. Thanks for your cooperation, and quit suggesting I “eat babies,” btw. Let the record reflect, I never ate one, ever, my entire life. Honest.