Proposed changes to the BOI

[The BoidSmith]

Some concerns with the BOI have been:

1. Unjustified smearing of the name of individuals with unwarranted bad guy threads.
2. Oftentimes biased posts because of past transactions of individuals/companies objects of the thread.
3. Flame wars between members when taking sides.
4. Participants give “bad karma” as result of unpopular opinions.
5. Participants judge individuals/companies object of threads because their unwillingness to post and defend themselves.

What’s proposed?

1. No individual/company name will be posted by the thread initiator at the start of the discussion.
2. Posting names or information that enables readers identify the individual/company object of the thread will result in warning points.
3. Each thread contains a poll where membership are able to vote along the lines of:
a. The seller’s at fault.
b. The buyer ‘s at fault
c. No fault from either party
d. Both are at fault
e. Not enough information to draw a conclusion

4. Once a certain number of votes have been casted (predetermined, i.e. 30 or…) it’s the opinion of the majority that decides whose fault it is.

5. The thread originator then chooses the title from three options*:


a. Bad experience
b. Good experience
c. You decide


* Current Bad/Good Guy labels are misleading, as they judge the person and not the action. Using the word “experience” instead separates the issue at hand from the person’s character. It is possible for someone to have a bad experience with the best in the industry and vice versa, and it might be unfair and misleading to label them good or bad guys (particularly when it’s just one thread). This has proven to be an issue on several occasions. This change will also reduce problems created when a poster labels “good guy” a person/company with past bad transactions. This is also happening on a more or less permanent basis.


6. The title choice by the originator has to reflect the opinion of the majority of the voters or the use of “you decide” if the viewpoint of the majority conflicts with his/hers.

7. The thread originator then sends a message to the moderatos with the title, if he/she refuses to do so or doesn’t do it on a timely fashion then the title is posted based on the opinion of the majority of the voting membership.

8. The thread title only includes the name of the individual/company and the choice of three of the three qualifiers ( i.e. John Herpman, Bad Experience). There will be no adjectives affixed (i.e. “thief”, “con-artist”, etc.).

Among the benefits of the proposal:

1. It does not require reprogramming (and its associated cost).

2. No-one knows initially the name of the party addressed in the thread and thus there is unbiased discussion and decision.

3. The use of a poll ensures the opinion is also voiced by those that usually don’t participate of threads because of fear of retaliation.

4. Threads become more “civil” as posters don’t know who they are talking about.

5. Chances of litigation to the site are reduced.

6. Membership feedback before posting the thread title gives the initiator additional perspectives to ponder before doing irreparable damage to the image of another individual/company.

7. Increased sense of ownership by members that generally don’t post as they also contribute to the discussion with their vote.


Potential drawbacks:

1. The decision of who’s at fault might be slowed down depending on the speed of the membership vote.

2. People might wait until they know the name involved before expressing their opinion.

 

[WebSlave]

What’s proposed?
7. The thread originator then sends a message to the moderatos with the title, if he/she refuses to do so or doesn’t do it on a timely fashion then the title is posted based on the opinion of the majority of the voting membership.

Among the benefits of the proposal:
5. Chances of litigation to the site are reduced.

Anyone who alters any thread then becomes a co-author of that thread. Neither myself nor any of the moderators will be willing to accept that legal liability.

Sorry, but this appears to be the backbone of your proposal, and this alone shoots it right out of the water.

And before you think of an alternative, no, the BOI cannot remain opened to editing by the membership, the reason for which should be obvious to most people.

Without going into much detail right now, sorry, but your proposal is 180 degrees out of phase concerning WHY the BOI was set up in the first place. In some cases, time will be of the essence to stop a bad guy in his or her tracks, and all the while people are debating a theoretical situation without names attached, people will unknowingly be getting scammed. There is a very recent case on the BOI where several people saved some substantial money because the BOI uncovered a scam and they were actually able to cancel payments that were enroute to the scammer. It doesn't get much more "time essence" than that!

 

[hhmoore]

One major drawback, Dan, is that your proposal makes for a one sided story - Since the other party cannot be identified, they cannot post on their own behalf until after a decision is made. How often is it seen that among the first questions asked is "Has ______ been notified of this thread"? Taking the other party out of the equation means we have to take the OPs version as our only point of reference....personally, I think that could lead to even more problems.
There are some interesting thoughts, though (going back to finish looking them over, now)

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Dan, in order for any of that to work it would have to be a biased one party report to examine. The target wouldn't be able to address it because you wouldn't know who they are. One side would get to present evidence of there choosing until all the members vote and condemn the person with no rebuttal. Information couldn't be obtained to verify what the person reporting is truthful.

In the end we find the seller/buyer at fault and then let him /her in on the fact that the majority here find them guilty.

How can one have a informed opinion while not hearing from both parties? How can both parties participate and give their views without being identified?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

LOL, both posted at the same time but thinking along the same lines.

 

[The BoidSmith]

One major drawback, Dan, is that your proposal makes for a one sided story - Since the other party cannot be identified, they cannot post on their own behalf until after a decision is made. How often is it seen that among the first questions asked is "Has ______ been notified of this thread"? Taking the other party out of the equation means we have to take the OPs version as our only point of reference....personally, I think that could lead to even more problems.
There are some interesting thoughts, though (going back to finish looking them over, now)

Yes, good point. The problem is that the notification right now looks more like a desire to draw blood than looking for faireness. It's far from perfect but thanks for taking the time to look at it.

Best,

Dan

 

[The BoidSmith]

Dan, in order for any of that to work it would have to be a biased one party report to examine. The target wouldn't be able to address it because you wouldn't know who they are. One side would get to present evidence of there choosing until all the members vote and condemn the person with no rebuttal. Information couldn't be obtained to verify what the person reporting is truthful.

In the end we find the seller/buyer at fault and then let him /her in on the fact that the majority here find them guilty.

How can one have a informed opinion while not hearing from both parties? How can both parties participate and give their views without being identified?

Yes, the same point Harald made, and a good one indeed. I'll think more about it, there has to be away around it. Thanks Dennis.

Best,

Dan

 

[The BoidSmith]

Modifications to the proposed changes

The following modification addresses the concerns of "speed", "having both sides present in the discussion", and "the site administrators modifying the thread title":

The initiator starts a thread with the name of the company and one of the qualifiers:

a. Bad experience
b. Good experience
c. You decide

No other comments are allowed.

2. The thread contains a poll where membership votes along the lines of:

a. The seller’s at fault.
b. The buyer ‘s at fault
c. No fault from either party
d. Both are at fault
e. Not enough information to draw a conclusion

3. The title choice by the originator now reflects his experience without stating this individual/company is a bad or good guy right from the start. He just had an experience and could be a fluke or not depending on what's the final outcome. The opinion of the majority of the voters is what in fact determines the outcome.

The advantage of this is that as any reader has at the start of the thread a summary of maybe dozens of pages of discussion, an an extended opinion from previous readers. At a glimpse (speed is of the essence here) he can determine if in fact this was or not a bad experience, for example 80 percent voted bad experience. He can then choose to go for more information by reading maybe 35 pages of the thread but if he wants to draw a quick conclusion there it is in front of him. This addresses the concern voiced that sometimes they have to wade through hundred of irrelevant posts before really getting something out of it.

Benefits:

1. It does not require reprogramming.

2. The use of a poll ensures the opinion is also voiced by those that usually don’t participate of threads because of fear of retaliation.

3. Threads become more “civil” as this is just a bad experience and could be an isolated incidence. This decreases the chances of litigation as anyone can have a bad experience even with a seller of stellar reputation.

4. There is an increased sense of ownership by members that generally don’t post as they also contribute to the discussion with their vote. This opinion is very important as it addresses the voiced concern that the same individuals always participate in the discussions. Yes, the discussion will still be there, but now they are accompanied by the vote of anyone, those that frequently post and those that seldom or never do.

 

[The BoidSmith]

The advantage of this is that as any reader has at the start of the thread a summary of maybe dozens of pages of discussion, an an extended opinion from previous readers.

should have read:

The advantage of this is that any reader has at the start of the thread a summary of maybe dozens of pages of discussion, and an extended opinion from previous readers.

 

[Lucille]

Some concerns with the BOI have been:

1. Unjustified smearing of the name of individuals with unwarranted bad guy threads.
2. Oftentimes biased posts because of past transactions of individuals/companies objects of the thread.
3. Flame wars between members when taking sides.
4. Participants give “bad karma” as result of unpopular opinions.
5. Participants judge individuals/companies object of threads because their unwillingness to post and defend themselves.

.

True, there are misplaced 'Bad Guy' threads in my opinion, from time to time. But it usually doesn't take much reading through a thread to see this. The readers are quick to point out an unfair or misplaced judgment on the part of the OP.
When I read comments, I take into account who is making the comments, some posters are given more weight by me than others. It is not a democratic process- those whose opinions I value have more weight although of course well written, rational responses are always given weight.

The site is travelling in a direction that makes the BOI more professional. People no longer need to fear as they did in the past, a blatant ad hominem attack because there is much less tolerance now for that kind of rudeness. This means that more people may participate and post their experiences, ideas and opinions.

Sometimes, threads do get long; but it is the very interplay of comments and ideas that helps a prospective reader/purchaser choose whether he wants to spend his money with a particular vendor.

If it's not broke, don't fix it.

 

[The BoidSmith]

Thanks for your feedback Lucille. And you are right, it's not "broke" but it's "breakable", and thus the worries of a potential litigation. One of the concerns has been the wading through countless and repetitive posts. This certainly is a concern as it "slows down" the decision process of those looking for information. Allowing good and bad experiences to be posted within a thread is a very good move. The problem is that right now it takes too much time for an individual looking for feedback to go through them. With the current proposal in a matter of seconds he/she will have the opinion of a wide array of individuals, incredibly faster than it's actually happening which is the concern Rich has expressed.

Furthermore, by not allowing to post inflamatory adjectives such as "thief", "con-artist", etc. The site would greatly reduce the potentail for litigation. A seller will certainly take very differently a bad transaction thread than a bad guy thread. Moreso, it will also be in the benefit of the person posting the complaint as the situation will not be radicalized from the start increasing the chances for an amicable solution.

Just as an example, look at the title of this thread:

BHB reptiles "het" didn't prove out, won't fix it

The title implies BHB are "bad guys" that sold a normal BP as hetero. The title has allowed a person to cast the seed of doubt over a company with a spotless past (and likely future). It further states they won't fix it so the reader that skmis fast through will reach the conclusion that they are hard to deal with, which is apparently untrue also.

Just imagine for a moment the alternative title BHB reptiles. Bad experience

This individual purchased a snake and had a problem, period. He is not doubting the character or ethics of the company, just the experience. Do you see the difference?

If on top of this the opinions of maybe 100 individuals or more are added and available at a glance, this greatly increases the chances of a more informed decision when purchasing. If the person looking for feedback sees 80% voted negative, 15% positive, and 5% neutral he has the whole synopsis of the thread in 5 seconds.

Furthermore, this will allow individuals to express their opinions just once, period. They can debate all they want within the thread but there will be just one vote. So there will be similar weight by those that post several times a day with repetitive arguments vs. those that just silently give their opinion.

Just a feedback.

 

[Lucille]

Furthermore, this will allow individuals to express their opinions just once, period.

Real life doesn't always work that way. People change their minds, change their opinions; and this can actually be influenced by the way the buyer/seller handles himself, insights from other posters with experiences with one of the parties, etc. While reducing the process to immutable numbers may save time, it might lose content and be misleading.

The thread you chose, the BHB thread, is actually a great example for what you propose because it is a repetitive often incomprehensible mess of a thread. But if I was actually thinkig of purchasig something from them, I guess I'd take the time to read the whole thing.

 

[Wolfy-hound]

I disagree that the membership should vote on whether a thread is labeled bad or good. WE don't decide. The experiance, and hopefully a rebuttal, are posted and the READER decides on their own merits whether the evidence and postings of the thread have merit or not.

A vote by the membership would seem like the site members are all elitest and believe they are the judges of any situation, making it seem almost like the membership would be arbitrators. Also, it would simply be seen as a popularity vote. You can't ID the "bad guy", so a great deal of information would have to be editted, and they can't respond.. so now the membership is going to vote on biased one-sided information. The OP would simply have to post whatever he/she felt would get everyone on their side, behave in a reasonable and polite manner and the end result would be them "winning" nearly every time, without any rebuttal at all.

I don't see anything wrong in the way things are run now. If someone doesn't want to take time to read a thread to see what happened.. that's on THEM for being lazy. Spoonfeeding the information into anyone's mouth isn't needed, imo.

 

[The BoidSmith]

Real life doesn't always work that way. People change their minds, change their opinions; and this can actually be influenced by the way the buyer/seller handles himself, insights from other posters with experiences with one of the parties, etc. While reducing the process to immutable numbers may save time, it might lose content and be misleading.

The thread you chose, the BHB thread, is actually a great example for what you propose because it is a repetitive often incomprehensible mess of a thread. But if I was actually thinkig of purchasig something from them, I guess I'd take the time to read the whole thing.

What is proposed is not to reduce it to immutable members, is actually to expand the people that participate in the discussion by including those that are not so vocal or in other words "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts". The proposal is not excluding the discussion and participation, I'm in agreement with you in that this is an integral part of the discussion. The BHB thread was just the first in the front page but I'm pretty sure we can find dozens with a similar perspective, good and bad!

Best

 

[The BoidSmith]

You can't ID the "bad guy", so a great deal of information would have to be editted, and they can't respond.. so now the membership is going to vote on biased one-sided information. The OP would simply have to post whatever he/she felt would get everyone on their side, behave in a reasonable and polite manner and the end result would be them "winning" nearly every time, without any rebuttal at all.

Theresa,

Thanks for your input, by your comments it seems you just read the first post and not the modified version where the name is provided. How are you? It's been a long time!

 

[Wolfy-hound]

I took too long to post I guess. I stand by the other part though.

Hi! Been a while. All's okay here more or less.

 

[Southern Wolf]

If on top of this the opinions of maybe 100 individuals or more are added and available at a glance, this greatly increases the chances of a more informed decision when purchasing. If the person looking for feedback sees 80% voted negative, 15% positive, and 5% neutral he has the whole synopsis of the thread in 5 seconds.

Furthermore, this will allow individuals to express their opinions just once, period. They can debate all they want within the thread but there will be just one vote. So there will be similar weight by those that post several times a day with repetitive arguments vs. those that just silently give their opinion.

Just a feedback.

I do like the option of a poll.... but you would have to make it so folks can change their vote. How many times have we had pertinent info come to light after 3 or 4 days of digging. Someone that posts their vote at the beginning may need to change it because the OP turns out to be the bad guy... not the person of the thread.

 

[The BoidSmith]

I do like the option of a poll.... but you would have to make it so folks can change their vote. How many times have we had pertinent info come to light after 3 or 4 days of digging. Someone that posts their vote at the beginning may need to change it because the OP turns out to be the bad guy... not the person of the thread.

A good point and it shouldn't be that difficult to fulfill as the capability seems to be already there. If I'm not mistaken the "good guy certification" has a similar approach, that is the votes are modified accordingly as experiences change in time.

This proposal addresses one of Rich's main concerns, and a very valid one for that matter, and it's to speed up the decision process by the inquirer. When you are about to decide the purchase of an animal you don't have all the time in the world. Reading a thread completely will take a long time. Some have extra time to "burn" and some don't. How many times do we hear people asking for a "summary" of the thread? This will provide the reader with that capability.

But what's even more important thought is to allow only options for the title that refer to the experience at hand and not the character of the person. This reduces the chances of litigation. As stated before anyone can have a bad experience with a seller but it doesn't make the seller a "con-artist" or a "thief".

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[WebSlave]

OK, so it would appear that your proposal is intended to make threads on the BOI incident based, rather than based on the actual business or person with whom the incident took place.

If someone opens a thread seemingly based on an incident, that would not be any different from what is taking place now. I would say in just about all cases, anyone starting a thread in the BOI is referencing a single incident that they are either unhappy with, or happy with, and from there, everyone else is welcomed to express their opinion, either with or without direct experience with either party. In nearly all cases, anyone expressing their opinion who has experience with either party is going to be referencing a DIFFERENT incident that they themselves were involved with. So immediately, the thread loses focus of the initial incident and revolves around the PERSON or BUSINESS involved. When push comes to shove, the DISCUSSION will generally be centered on how the parties involved handle themselves trying to resolve the incident, which in many cases, involves a policy issue of the seller, or expectations of the buyer. Such discussions cannot escape addressing the parties involved in relation to the incident.

The idea of focusing on the INCIDENT rather than the PARTY or PARTIES involved in itself is not a bad idea. But the philosophy behind it is contrary to WHY the BOI was set up in the first place. In the case of a "bad guy" as determined by a "bad incident", the BOI was never intended to be gentle and pussy foot around people who actually might REALLY be "bad guys" to try to keep from hurting their feelings. Management of this site is trying to nudge the "flavor" of the posts to being more civil and more professional, but all in all, the real goal of a thread being posted on the BOI is to provide encouragement for a PERSON or BUSINESS to make things right if the facts presented appear to support the OP's assertions with their statements. I think that trying to change the structure of the thread title, when compared to what the subject matter WITHIN the thread will actually portray, is going to be simply splitting hairs.

And yes, I used to be much more strict about the descriptive text chosen within a thread title in the BOI, but that is back when things progressed much slower here, and when I was a little more naive about the legal obligations I take on when I edit such titles. So if this sort of rule were to be enforced now, there would be no choice but to just delete the entire thread, since editing the title line is out of the question. More restrictive use of the title line CAN be implemented, but it will have to be with the use of an infraction. However, most people do not read the rules here, and it will not stop someone from getting their first infraction. But the thread will still be there, and other members seeing it, will then believe that thread titles created in that manner are acceptable. So more infractions will be required, which puts even more burden on the mods to enforce this new rule. Which in the end, probably won't accomplish much more than getting members pissed off at getting an infraction for a rule they knew nothing about. And quite honestly, infractions are only the "bark" of forthcoming penalties, not the "bite". Many people will glady accept that "bark" to get their licks in when they are angry at someone while involved in a deal gone bad. So we start all over again with other members seeing that thread title, and thinking that is OK....

As for the polls suggested, addressing this quote will pretty much explain the reason why that idea cannot be implemented in the BOI:

2. The use of a poll ensures the opinion is also voiced by those that usually don’t participate of threads because of fear of retaliation.

No, the polls could NOT be anonymous. If they are afraid of retaliation because of a post on the BOI, then they will be just as afraid of placing a negative vote with their name attached to it. One of the bedrocks of the BOI has been that if you don't have the guts to say something and put your name on it, then you have no business making what could be damaging claims against another party. Quite frankly, it's just not fair to the accused party, whether they deserve it or not. The accused should be able to address their accuser, as the GOAL is to try to provide incentive to make things right between the two parties, and in the same vein, guide someone into making better decisions in how to run their "business" when dealing with the public. Doing this sort of thing via an anonymous poll would just wind up being a destructive flame fest since there will be no accountability at all to the votes, and no way for the target of the thread and poll to know who is dissatisfied with them, nor WHY they are dissatisfied, and therefore unable to address and possibly FIX the problem.

Secondly, to try to curb abuses from a single person making multiple false accounts to pad the poll with their own opinion, access to the poll would have to be limited to paid members, as I consider them more "verified" then members who simply have to provide acceptable answers to their profile fields upon registering. To do otherwise, I believe, would just be foolish on my part to allow.

Actually this question of the poll being used in this manner was addressed when I set up the Good Guy Certification program a while back. It was designed to be sort of a "BOI Lite", and I ran through the scenarios mentioned above at that time as well. But that is an "opt-in" process whereby members would choose to participate and accept a rather lengthy disclaimer in order to participate. A participant gets to display a symbol on their website in return for volunteering to participate in this program. THEY choose to participate and accept whatever results from that participation explicitly.

Quite frankly, I don't believe this would work well at all if the polls had to be set up by the members themselves whenever they created a new BOI thread. As I'm sure many people can imagine, the poll itself would be filled with options that a likely pissed off member is going to choose when creating the poll. While maybe entertaining, it would not help trying to move the BOI into a more professional atmosphere. And the polls WOULD have to be done that way. Management cannot add in a poll after the thread has been created, because that would be, in effect, EDITING that thread, and then becoming a co-author of that thread in the process. Making a rule whereby a poll has to be included in every thread and must adhere to a stated structure would be an exercise in futility, which will just have us having to delete most threads created within the BOI because of non-compliance with this new rule. So yes, even more burden placed on the mods to try to enforce something of this nature.

The BOI is the way it is, and run the way it is, because of initial design goals, evolution based on what is perceived as best to meet the desires of most of the membership, limitations of the technology incorporated into the software being used for a "message board" based system, and because of liabilities that could be incurred if not run with certain legal aspects kept in mind. ALL of these issues had to be taken into account concerning what you see in the BOI today, and they certainly have to be kept fully in mind with any proposed changes. In most cases, changes cannot be implemented until one of the above guiding situations improves enough to allow a change to take place.

I hate to appear to be negative because I shoot down suggestions like this, but quite honestly, not only have a spent a lot of time thinking about the design and mechanics of the BOI all through the years, I still am continually looking at ways to make things better based on what appears to be the fluid nature of how this site grows and what direction it appears to be moving in over time. When I retired my reptile business, I did NOT retire from what I am doing here. When changes become necessary and/or prudent, and technology will accommodate such changes without dramatically impacting the income that comes from this site (custom mods ARE expensive and recurring), then I will do what I can to make changes that appear to be for the betterment of this site and the members. I do encourage suggestions, but I also strongly encourage members making such suggestions to realize that not everything that is suggested can be implemented for a variety of reasons. And quite likely many suggestions have already been addressed in the past, and rejected for one reason or another.

I do hope my perspective and opinion is helpful in explaining why things are as they are here.

 

[The BoidSmith]

The idea of focusing on the INCIDENT rather than the PARTY or PARTIES involved in itself is not a bad idea. But the philosophy behind it is contrary to WHY the BOI was set up in the first place. In the case of a "bad guy" as determined by a "bad incident", the BOI was never intended to be gentle and pussy foot around people who actually might REALLY be "bad guys" to try to keep from hurting their feelings. Management of this site is trying to nudge the "flavor" of the posts to being more civil and more professional, but all in all, the real goal of a thread being posted on the BOI is to provide encouragement for a PERSON or BUSINESS to make things right if the facts presented appear to support the OP's assertions with their statements. I think that trying to change the structure of the thread title, when compared to what the subject matter WITHIN the thread will actually portray, is going to be simply splitting hairs.

As you very well said things evolve constantly and although it might not have been the initial philosophy it doesn’t hurt to review it sporadically to check if any improvements can be made. What I propose is not to be “gentle and pussy foot around people”. But my personal perception as an outsider is that we attempt to take a fox in the middle of the chickens by using a 16 gauge shotgun instead of a .22 rifle. Yes, we will take the fox out, but it will not be clean, in fact we will kill some chickens in the process and the remaining ones might go lay far away from the coop. Does the end justify the means? I’m not sure at this point. And yes, maybe I’m sounding somewhat naïve, in fact as years go by instead of hardening up it seems as if I’m more understanding. There are a lot of honest, hard working people out there; one misconstrued title can throw out the window what they worked so hard to accomplish.

More restrictive use of the title line CAN be implemented, but it will have to be with the use of an infraction.

If that’s what it takes so be it.

However, most people do not read the rules here, and it will not stop someone from getting their first infraction.

Well, as you know “ignorance of the law is no excuse” Would it be costly to have the basic rules for posting show up when you click start a new thread? Maybe expand the box where it says: “Board of Inquiry® This forum is provided exclusively for the discussion of specific persons or businesses in the herp industry. YOUR FULL NAME is required for each message you post”, with perhaps a condensed version of the rules.

2. The use of a poll ensures the opinion is also voiced by those that usually don’t participate of threads because of fear of retaliation.
No, the polls could NOT be anonymous. If they are afraid of retaliation because of a post on the BOI, then they will be just as afraid of placing a negative vote with their name attached to it.

You may be right, but I’m not so sure. It seems people don’t mind voting in a poll as they do when someone address them directly in a thread.

One of the bedrocks of the BOI has been that if you don't have the guts to say something and put your name on it, then you have no business making what could be damaging claims against another party.

Actually I was thinking the other way around, not having the guts to say something positive about someone because of fear of the negativity. In this second instance I truly believe that if they don’t have the guts to say it out loud it should be expressed anyways. And I agree with what you said, posts should not be anonymous.

Secondly, to try to curb abuses from a single person making multiple false accounts to pad the poll with their own opinion, access to the poll would have to be limited to paid members, as I consider them more "verified" then members who simply have to provide acceptable answers to their profile fields upon registering. To do otherwise, I believe, would just be foolish on my part to allow.

This would be exactly as it is right now, wouldn’t it? If it has to be for paid membership only so be it. It might be a greater incentive for people to sign as members.

Actually this question of the poll being used in this manner was addressed when I set up the Good Guy Certification program a while back. It was designed to be sort of a "BOI Lite", and I ran through the scenarios mentioned above at that time as well. But that is an "opt-in" process whereby members would choose to participate and accept a rather lengthy disclaimer in order to participate. A participant gets to display a symbol on their website in return for volunteering to participate in this program. THEY choose to participate and accept whatever results from that participation explicitly.

Good. Einstein was probably not thinking about Faunaclassifieds and the BOI when he defined insanity as: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. You can try the same thing over and over and if the audience’s approach changes with time so will be the outcome.

Quite frankly, I don't believe this would work well at all if the polls had to be set up by the members themselves whenever they created a new BOI thread. As I'm sure many people can imagine, the poll itself would be filled with options that a likely pissed off member is going to choose when creating the poll.

What I was thinking of was not to leave to the poster the title option but choose from predetermined titles:

Examples: a. extremely bad experience
b. bad experience
c. you decide
d. good experience
e. great experience

Now these “should” lead to a more professional-looking atmosphere, wouldn’t they? This is not precluding what we both know will happen inside the thread, but that’s up to the civility or not of the participants and completely out of your control and responsibility. And there will be no editing, polls will be what they are.

While maybe entertaining, it would not help trying to move the BOI into a more professional atmosphere. And the polls WOULD have to be done that way. Management cannot add in a poll after the thread has been created, because that would be, in effect, EDITING that thread, and then becoming a co-author of that thread in the process.

The second proposal takes that into account; no participation by administrators.

Making a rule whereby a poll has to be included in every thread and must adhere to a stated structure would be an exercise in futility, which will just have us having to delete most threads created within the BOI because of non-compliance with this new rule. So yes, even more burden placed on the mods to try to enforce something of this nature.

It seems that cannot be controlled unless of course it pops-up the moment one clicks to start a new thread, but that might require reprogramming and $$$...

I hate to appear to be negative because I shoot down suggestions like this, but quite honestly, not only have a spent a lot of time thinking about the design and mechanics of the BOI all through the years, I still am continually looking at ways to make things better based on what appears to be the fluid nature of how this site grows and what direction it appears to be moving in over time.

You simply have more information at hand than most of us do, and it’s very difficult for us to give 100% useful feedback with that handicap. Just trying to be helpful.