Debating Issues and Behavior

[wade1]

Reefs.org has dutifully noted the concerns that have been fowarded to us in the last couple of weeks and have been working very hard at addressing them. Rest assured, these concerns are not being glossed over, but rather are being exceedingly scrutinized to find the best long term solution for this forum. Contrary to some expressed opinions, there is much work to be done and many things to consider. But be clear: Reefs.org has been and will be working to resolve this matter in a timely fashion. Significant changes are pending in the following week.

Reefs.org encourages everyone to discuss the issues without accusations against persons, businesses, or organizations. We feel that multiple parties involved have been guilty of this from time to time. Heresy and conjecture are not appreciated; all discussions should be squarely rooted in facts. At all times, please be civil to one another. Please understand that your point of view will unlikely mirror that of others on the forum, and your words may be viewed in a different context then which you had intended. Take great care in excercising how you express your ideas, omitting possibly offensive materials (implicit or explicit) and stating your opinions in a way that is respectful of those you're debating with.

At the time of John's posting, the Reefs.org admins involved in monitoring this forum concluded John's message did not constitute a personal attack. While his message was directed at individuals, John addressed issues exclusively (namely, how does one know their fish are truly cyanide-free) and refrained from personal accusations. However, we understand and appreciate how this may be sensitive for some members; this example serves as a reminder to everyone to refrain from personalizing issues if it can be avoided.

Please note it is a fine line between what is and is not a personal attack. As previously stated, it ultimately is dependant on the reader's point of view. Understand that while you may find another's post personally offensive, they may find yours equally offensive to him/her. We all need to practice personal responsibility, and always strive to be the better person in any discussion. A percieved personal attack is not an invitation to do so in kind.

Again, Reefs.org is working hard to make positive changes to the Industry Forum - the only such forum that exists. This is a valuable arena for critical discussion, and we ask that everyone take a deep collective breath and reengage each other with constructive dialougue. After all, we're all here for the common goal of advancing our Industry.

Thanks


Reefs.org Staff

 

[Anonymous]

Mary and Jenn,

You have no real way of knowing that your fish were net-caught. I'm not talking about species that are never caught with cyanide, but rather, the others. Your source for these fish does not know that they were caught with nets in any real sense.

I'm wondering if you are doing a disservice to the industry reform effort by selling fish as "net-caught", when all you can truly base that on is by trust and hopes. Overall health and low mortality may not be enough circumstantial evidence to support the contention of "net-caught", as highly-skilled use of cyanide can probably produce those results.

John Brandt

MASNA
MAC
CMAS-Chicago

As a lurker in this forum and having learned quite alot thanks to people that are in the "know",I have followed this thread with quite a bit of intrest.
It seems to me when you start a thread using peoples names you are calling them out on a particular issue which Mr. Brandt did.Without going into a long detailed account on this,I do believe this was a personal attack.
I also believe Mary and Jenn did a quite remarkable job of stating their positions on this matter,and each time they made it clear where they stand and asked for a rebuttal they were either met with silence or another attack in some other form.
As far as letting a moderator start a thread like this then say you do not feel it was a personal attack,how could you not?
David

 

[wade1]

We've pointed no fingers at anyone regarding this entire thread. There were too many wrongs and it cannot be made right at this late stage. The idea now is to put that behind us, we have talked with and explained John's role to him more thoroughly. We, unfortunately, did not explain things well enough early enough so part of the fault lies with the admins.

We are attempting to put the issue behind us so that we can all start discussions based on facts and without names and finger pointing.

Wade

 

[Len]

This is my personal evaluation, and not that of Reefs.org's or John's.

I understand how using personal names may raise red flags. But in pragmatic terms, I do not know how else John could've addressed the question to Jenn and Mary (whom it was intentionally directed to as far as I am aware). If we aren't allowed to address individuals or organizations with valid questions pertinent to industry reform, not much discussion would take place.

To clarify, I think John's post was definitely a personal question, but one that was not an attack nor was it irrelevant to Industry reform. IMO, there must be a clear distinction between asking a person, organization, or vendor a valid question and personally attacking a person, organization, or vendor with unfounded accusations. IMO, John's post fits the former description. Calling someone/something pathetic or desperate, on the other hand, constitutes a personal attack.

I'm sure this experience has taught John to avoid personalizing issues in this forum since people here are (IMO, overly) sensitive to any perceived slight. Fact is, this is a lesson we all should learn. It's either this or grow thicker skins like The Sumpers do To John's credit, he has been more then receptive to our constructive criticisms and the pending reform for this forum. You folks really have it a whole lot easier then he does.

Regardless of what your point of view is on this topic, let's all try to be civil and level headed and forge a more constructive path for this valuable forum.

I hope I've effectively explained my point of view. Again, this is only my personal viewpoint, nothing more.

 

[dizzy]

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. It's only you and me and we just disagree. So let's leave it alone.

Marshall Tucker Band

 

[JennM]

And, as always, this is *my* opinion...

Len wrote:

I understand how using personal names may raise red flags. But in pragmatic terms, I do not know how else John could've addressed the question to Jenn and Mary (whom it was intentionally directed to as far as I am aware). If we aren't allowed to address individuals or organizations with valid questions pertinent to industry reform, not much discussion would take place

John did not have to name names. There are more people than just two on this forum, who are trying to do the right thing, and to do their best to procure net-caught livestock. We all know who we are. I'd venture to guess that most regular readers of this forum know who we are. Just as we intentionally do not name certain wholesalers or exporters or importers in controversial discussions - we all know who is being discussed, but there is legal loophole created when names are not specified. It's a lot harder to make a case against what is implied, than what is blatently stated. Without naming names, there is no proof that any individual or entity is being slandered, or exposed. I believe there is also a rule here at RDO about that too - not to name names. John could have initiated that very same thread, worded differently, as was pointed out in the thread, by SciGuy2, John could have used the words, "For non-MAC people selling what they believe to be net caught fish". This would not have singled any one person or business out, but the constructive part of the discussion could have played out, and no harm done - at least until the next round of hostility began in the thread. I can think of at least 5 more people of my aquaintance on this list, who could have just as easily been named, but they were not. I do not believe this is a co-incidence that two of MAC's most vocal critics (but by no means the only vocal critics) were the ones called out. Perhaps we are the ones John is most familiar with, since he is still relatively new to this forum. I can think of at least one more vocal critic, another retailer, who was not known to John, but who expressed opinions in the thread, only to be met with hostility. Since this is still the "Industry" forum, it would behove the administrators not to allow to be alienated, the very people for whom the forum was created. I'd love to hear what the rest of MAC's board has to say about this - I wasn't a fan before, and now that one of its own has the ability to further damage already strained relationships.... well that's the last nail in the coffin for me, I think.

Saltwaterdave wrote:

I also believe Mary and Jenn did a quite remarkable job of stating their positions on this matter,and each time they made it clear where they stand and asked for a rebuttal they were either met with silence or another attack in some other form.
As far as letting a moderator start a thread like this then say you do not feel it was a personal attack,how could you not?
David

Thanks, Dave nice to see that somebody heard me. Also nice to know that I am not alone in my feeling about this. It's reassuring to see someone outside of the immediate situation sharing my view. I can acknowledge that I'm far from being objective - but then as a participant here, and not in an administrative capacity, there really is no onus on me to be objective. I call 'em as I see 'em. Since it's implied that I need to stop being so "sensitive" and grow a thicker skin... but hey, it's only my livelihood being dissed, right? Call me out by name, accuse me of making false statements and not being entirely truthful to my customers, and even speculate that I am doing a disservice to industry reform - and have no firsthand knowledge of this - but I'm supposed to just smile and roll with the punches. And I'm only criticizing an organization that wants to take a fee from me, wallow around in my business, and deliver a product - far be it from me to expect accountability, right? My skin is plenty thick, or I'd have made a heck of a lot more noise by now -- Mother always said, "Consider the source" and I'm doing just that. However, I'm not going to just disappear into oblivion either. I can't change the esteemed administrators' position, but I can certainly express my disagreement with it. And note it's being done constructively and respectfully.

Wade wrote:

We've pointed no fingers at anyone regarding this entire thread. There were too many wrongs and it cannot be made right at this late stage.

I totally disagree with this. There is plenty that could be done to make this right, but the powers that be are choosing not to. Circle those wagons, boys! I'm still trying to figure out why, but I have some thoughts about it, which I'll keep to myself for now. If I have committed any of the wrongs, so be it - point them out and I'll own them -- but I also expect the same of others. As I said before, I chose all of my words carefully -- very carefully, just as I always do, and I'll back up anything I've said with facts. Can everyone do the same? IMO some fingers SHOULD be pointed. I'm up for it. Sweeping it all under the rug doesn't make it go away. It just leaves a bigger mess for later. Accountability -- seems there's precious little of that in the world anymore.

Len wrote:

Calling someone/something pathetic or desperate, on the other hand, constitutes a personal attack.

If this statement refers to my use of the word "desparate" in my original rebuttal in the original thread, this is being "quoted" totally out of context. I did not use the word "pathetic" and I did not call anyone "desparate" however I stated that I felt that the moderator's "conduct in this thread very distressing indeed. Almost desparate, in fact." I did feel and still do feel that it was a desparate attempt to discredit me, and my peer(s), in an attempt to make MAC look better. That is my *feeling* on the issue, and since feelings can be neither right nor wrong, other than disagreeing with me, nobody can tell me that what I felt then or now isn't appropriate. Apparently I was not the only one who found John's conduct to be distressing, the magnitude of this situation and the length of time invested in dealing with it is a testament to that, and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion about it. However for clarity, I did not engage in name-calling, as it appears to have been suggested.

It's becoming quite clear that there are now two sets of rules on this forum. If another hobbyist or another retailer or other interested person, had set that thread in motion, and not one of the moderators, just how fast it would have been shut down, and the poster's hand slapped? (A certain thread about a certain sponsor comes to mind, but alas, I'm not nearly as important as a paid-up sponsor). Looking at the balance of John's thread and how fast other people were reprimanded for expressing their feelings on the subject, I've got to wonder....

John Brandt said

The hypocrisy in this forum is staggering!

Isn't it, though?

Fastening my seat belt. Fire when ready.

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

I'm confused. Are we not allowed to talk about MAC by name now?

 

[jamesw]

I'll flat out state as one of the long-time members and now admin here - we have no "hidden agenda" when it comes to the industry forum. Heck, we LOST a sponsor over this forum, but it is still open for everyone to use and I think that is testament to what we are here for.

Good question Rover about the names pollicy. What do you - the members think?

We have a "not naming names" policy when it comes to companies that was very successfully implemented by Mary when she was moderator. How would the members feel about extending that to non-profit organizations? They are companies too.

Thoughts? Does a double standard exist? We welcome feedback on this.

Sincerely,
James Wiseman

 

[Len]

Jenn,

My sincerest apologies if you inferred that my post was directed at you or singled you out to blame. It was not.

I am deeply troubled, however, by your accusation that our staff is biased and hypocritical. I have not seen any misbehavior by Reefs.org admins in this or any forum. In fact, just last week we shut down one of Mr. Brandt's thread for misbehavior. Only one person was warned in the previous thread. And we've let unflattering discussions about our sponsors persist in this forum (if you'd like examples, give me a PM). We've lost sponsors due to this. I really do not see the double standard or cover up you accuse us of. As far as a moderated forum goes, this is as tolerant and liberal an arena as you'll find. That much I can promise you. But if this has been a frequent occurance as you've implied, please cite examples and we will definitely give it due consideration. It is not our intention to pick sides in these issues, nor is it our desire to censor material. We strive to do what's best for our community; that's all. You will find few other moderated communities that embrace free speech as Reefs.org. This is why I've personally chosen to be an active member here. And this is precisely why I've decided to be an admin here. Fact is, this discussion would not be candidly discussed like it is now in many other communities.

I agree with you that John did not have to name names. It's an error of judgement I'm confident we've all learned from. But with all due respect, it could've been handled with much more maturely by the many parties involved. For you to suggest that you are completely guiltless for the escalation of events is not fair to John, our members, or the admins. We all played our fair share in bringing this to the present situation. But I hope we're all interested in resolving this issue and getting back to what's important. I know Reefs.org is.

You are also right that "nobody can tell [you] what [you] felt then or now isn't appropriate." But we suggest that it is inappropriate to air these personal accusations of intent in public. It is really no better then what you're accusing others of doing. In light of how I've seen you react to other posts, I can only imagine how you would've reacted if someone said the same of you. This is not to say you're wrong or hyper-reactive, but I am hoping you can see the other side of the coin instead of pinning all the blame on others.

With all due respect, I request that you extend us some constructive suggestions instead of your usual malay of accusations. You mentioned "there is plenty that could be done to make this right," but left it at that. While we may not agree with some of your suggestions, we'd like to hear your (and everyone's) input. Nothing is being swept under the rug as was suggested.

We really want to get back to constructive discussions about the industry and put this behind us after we've addressed all your concerns. This forum has never been as lively as it has been in the last few weeks, and I'm hoping we can soon rise above the administrative and peronsal issues and return to the purpose of the Industry forum.

 

[Len]

In regards to Rover's question, that is a definite dilmena we face. It is not fair for people to continually lob accusations at an organization only for these people to complain that any questioning of their business is an unfair personal attack. This, IMO, is double standard defined.

So what do you all think?

Personally, I think that discussions about individuals, organizations or businesses should be allowed so long as they're discussions about the industry founded on facts and motived by issues. The Industry Forum is no place to air personal disagreements or bad history. Admittedly, this can become a bit hairy. It's really a tough quandry we're in.

 

[flameangel1]

my opinion only--
Personal derogatives and insinuations such as made by a certain moderater, should never be allowed. As a moderater, he/she holds a "higher" position and this definately gives posters a feeling of CONTROL over the rest of us..
When that person does not know the facts before he speaks and then insinuates derogatory remarks toward us when we post our feelings about something, many of us find it VERY offensive !!!

As far as commenting on an organization that intends to CONTROL us in this industry, we should have every right to critisize (sp) or applaud, as our personal feelings warrant.
We do have the right to do so about our government and as such should have the same rights here. Any organization that seeks to run ramshod over our industry, should be subject to discussion by those of us involved in this industry. If some of us are finding fault with how that organization is conducting its future control- I think it is mandatory that we speak out about it !!!!!! We should not blindly just follow !!!!!!

As far as making derogatory remarks about someones business- KNOW the FACTS FIRST !!!!!
This forum can and has been very helpful in distributing facts concerning this industry. It also is bringing many of us together who do care very much about what is happening within it.
But, please continue to ALLOW that to happen !!!!

If MAC wishs to have a forum,of their own, they have that right ..
They have their own website , this should be ours..

 

[JennM]

I agree with you that John did not have to name names. It's an error of judgement I'm confident we've all learned from. But with all due respect, it could've been handled with much more maturely by the many parties involved. For you to suggest that you are completely guiltless for the escalation of events is not fair to John, our members, or the admins. We all played our fair share in bringing this to the present situation. But I hope we're all interested in resolving this issue and getting back to what's important. I know Reefs.org is.

All I have asked for since the onset of this debacle, is a sincere APOLOGY and a retraction of unfounded accusations from John Brandt, who is now consipicuously absent from these discussions. I stated this in my private communication with ALL the RDO administrators. Unfortunately, I do not have an army of administrators to back me up, but I'm comfortable discussing my own issues by myself. I don't need to have anybody else go to bat for me, but I see that some have, and I thank them for their support. I have addressed ALL of my comments in this forum in a polite and civil manner, so please spare the patronizing bit about hyper-reacting or whatever. It's a lot more about priniciple than it is about "freaking out", but that appears to have been disregarded too. I've been the owner/moderator of my own forum on an unrelated topic for the last 4 years, I know what the other side of the coin is like, very well. Perhaps that is WHY I'm pushing this issue so hard. An apology is what can make things right. I'm not holding my breath, mind you, but if there is any one interested in what I believe is the "right thing to do", well that is it. Putting it all behind us and moving on, without a proper apology to those who are deserving, IS just "sweeping it under the rug". There is no resolution, just sticking it on the back-burner.

If you read my last post, there are a number of suggestions, including how the original offensive thread could have been worded, and dealt with. It seems now, that an opinion about me, my motives and my attitudes has been cemented with at least some of the admins, so really, nothing I say or do at this point is going to be "right". Speaking of pinning blame, if I were paranoid I'd almost think that you are trying to blame me for John's mis-step. Glad I'm not paranoid. I'm not sure why I'm still being taken to task for wanting things made right, but oh well. As I said above, if I've committed sins against the members/admins of this forum, please do point them out, and I'll make that right. You said I wasn't guiltless regarding the escalation - please point out where I made inflammatory or accusatory remarks? I defended myself, nothing more, nothing less. I've read and re-read my postings ad naseum, and I really can't see what I did besides defend myself against unfounded accusations, and I did it with civility and decorum, so why keep on to me about this? There's an easy way to make it all go away, the door is open.

This is "The Industry Behind the Hobby" forum. Now it's being run by a MAC rep (who is also involved with the industry). I'll go ahead and say what I've been thinking: This circumstance COULD be construed as a conflict of interest. That thread, and how it was dealt with by RDO was evidence of that, in my opinion. Shall we be afraid to be critical of MAC now, for fear that the MAC Moderator will come down on us (again)? When the forum was run by Mary, a person whose sole livelihood IS the industry, and who has been affiliated with various organizations, the tone was much different. Now, if there is question as to whether we can name MAC in our discussions, I see no future for positive input towards MAC's progress because much of the discussion will be silenced forever, out of fear of reprocussions against those who would speak out. Regardless of personal opinions about MAC I think we can all agree that the discussions here have had a strong influence on how MAC has proceeded and has defintitely changed some of their priorities. It has brought many issues to the front burner. IMO we made a difference. Now this may end too. Sad. Believe it or not I think that we are all on the same side here, (well most of us anyway), but we disagree on how to accomplish the goals. Now if there is fear of reprocussions for being critical, that will just stymie the process altogether. Then everybody loses.

There is a large difference between businesses being critical of one another, or individuals being critical of businesses and businesses being critical of an organization, NGO, business or entity (call it what you will...) which wants to regulate them. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? It all boils down to accountability, and I will repeat that accountability appears to be in very short supply indeed.

It would be totally inappropriate and unprofesional of me to say that somebody's store (by name) sucked, that some wholesale place (by name) sold sick fish, or that exporter XXX used questionable practices. That is what I believe the "no names" rule is designed to accomplish. Aside from being just plain unprofessional, it would probably spawn a law suit, especially if the accusations were totally without foundation. This is also where I fit John Brandt's comments in the initial thread - these were unfounded accusations against me and against another, and my response to those accusations was to provide tangible proof that the accusations made against me were wrong. An apology always seems more sincere without an attorney present....

Conversely, I see nothing wrong with asking questions and expecting accountability from an organization who has actively solicited my participation, by way of a fee, an inspection, a mountain of paperwork, and an expectation, and in return I should be able to receive livestock with an expectation, even a guarantee. If the guarantee isn't worth the paper it's written on, I want to know before I jump through all the hoops to sign up! I'll refer once again to the car analogy - I would not buy a new car without doing some homework, asking questions, likewise I will not buy certification without the same due diligence. I appreciate being able to have a forum such as this in order to do that exploration, and make my own opinions and contributions known. I like to hear the input of others, hear about the experiences of others, not JUST about MAC but about industry issues as a whole. Non-MAC discussions don't seem to illicit much response anymore (see my thread about oxygen regulators...), and isn't it ironic that this place has had more activity since all the controversy began?

It's unfortunate that RDO has lost sponsors - I don't believe I participated in the thread(s) that resulted in that - I know enough to stay away from some topics, so I'm not sure why that fact was brought into this thread, unless RDO is airing all the dirty laundry at once.

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

FWIW and I'm not trying to disparage any one through comparison, when Mary was the Moderator the only company that was allowed to be discussed by name was her own. And I think it was necessary in an effort to be transparent, and in an effort to dispell any notions of a conflict of interest. This is all that I expect of John. As mod, he's free to close any thread that he construes as a personal attack, but for him to break the rule of "not naming names" sends a confusing message and makes it seem as though he has an agenda. By having a MAC rep as moderator and limiting the discussion regarding MAC doesn't make any sense. I was under the impression that the entire point of appointing him was because he was affiliated with MAC, and would be able to dispell any false notions and answer any questions. So far all I have seen is incredulity that we are even questioning the organization, and defensiveness about our skepticism. If we carry out the no names policy to it's logical conclusion, we will soon have an Industry forum that doesn't allow direct reference to the Industry.

 

[Anonymous]

Any not-for-profit/non-profit organization is not at all the same as a company or business. As such, it is open to scrutiny, just as our government is. Since they have no profits to protect, they are not in the same boat as a business, company, or incorporation.

Also, it is my opinion that when someone posts about their direct experiences with a company, that should not be disallowed as well. The reason some took umbrage, in my opinion, is that there were implications, and some statements even, that were not based on any factual or direct knowledge. This is a problem, and it seems easy enough to tease out to me. We shouldn't be disagreeing about this stuff.

As has been pointed out before, John Brandt is not MAC. MAC is not a company as Petco or JoeSchmo from Kokomoe is. I fail to understand why this distinction is so difficult to see.

I will round this out be pointing out that things were heating up before John posted his thread, some exchanges were not nice at all, as a matter of fact. There is more to the history of this now-locked thread than what's just in that thread, wouldn't the rest of you agree?

Whether or not you're a moderator, it's not too much to ask that some "netiquette" be used; try not to use all caps, multiple exclamation points (aah..how lovely the BBcode..), et al, all can help add to the intensity of a given exchange. I'm trying to cover the bases here, as I've seen Steve use all caps, but only when making very emphatic points on a speficic situation, I don't recollect him ever using them towards any specific person (this is just a "for instance"). I'm positive that the little things like that just add up to an overall feeling of hostility, we have to treat the medium for what it is, and consider its vagaries, and ours as well (I've found that my interpretion of a post is colored by my own mood at the time, and includes other factors).

NOW WHERE THE HELL IS MR. MILZ??? :lol:

 

[flameangel1]

comment on this-

It is not fair for people to continually lob accusations at an organization only for these people to complain that any questioning of their business is an unfair personal attack.

We are not talking about just ANY organization here.
The organization in discussion /referred to/argued about/et al-, is one that is trying to govern/control/etc. the way we all do business in this industry .
This makes a BIG difference !!

I run my business my way and do not try to control ANY other person and how they run their business, as are other individuals posting in this forum.
As such we are in an entirely different position.

 

[Anonymous]

We are not talking about just ANY organization here.
The organization in discussion /referred to/argued about/et al-, is one that is trying to govern/control/etc. the way we all do business in this industry .
This makes a BIG difference !!

flameangel,

Have you seen this in writing? I haven't seen anything that indicates that the organization intends to govern/control the industry. This seems like an overblown conclusion to allow justification of hypercritical comments against that organization in my opinion.

Do you folks find one little group trying to develop a certification process as that big of a threat to the way you all do business?

-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

Oh jeez..I really don't think that's the real crux of the issue folks have with MAC, is that what you really believe?

 

[Len]

I will try to gracefully bow out of this discussion since it is apparent anything I write becomes construed as 1) the opinion of Reefs.org, 2) a biased defense of Mr. Brandt, 3) an attack on JennM. For the official record, none of these things are true.

Please feel free to continue this discussion amongst yourselves. I would still like to hear your input.

 

[flameangel1]

Do you folks find one little group trying to develop a certification process as that big of a threat to the way you all do business?

What concerns some of us is the MANNER this organization is going about trying to "organize" this industry.. I am all for this industry getting "cleaned up"as are most of us here.
As to your comment above, the "threat" part comes when we are "put down" for NOT joining that said organization !!!
We still stock and carry the same animals, but because we do not care to be certified (with all that involves )- the general feeling is that we are bad dealers.
This is not true-we simply do not care to hitch our wagon to that certain organization, if we can not believe in it completely..
.

 

[Nancy Swart]

Nobody should ever be a part of an organization they don't beleve in. It serves no good purpose.

Flameangel, I'm curious as to who's putting you down for not joining? Is somebody using pressure tactics we're not aware of? If so, not a good move.

Nancy