Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[peter]

VIDA

I read your response to post 628. This was the post in which I explained why 'Charger' and 'Landand Sea' were banned and why you were banned as well. As you no longer have the opportunity to respond, I will discuss the points you made. In order to enable those interested to follow the proceedings, I'll do it in some detail. 

Before I do, I want to make it clear I consider you a good poster. I 'liked' your recent post about jaguar coalitions and read more interesting contributions. In the department of good information, you most certainly contributed.  

Participating on a forum, however, isn't about being able to contribute in that department only. In every organisation, quality in itself, although much appreciated by all, isn't decisive. It is about being able to interact in a way appreciated by all. I'm referring to respect in particular. Respect for the rules, good information, other members and, last but not least, respect for those applying the rules. 

Members who know about respect are seldom, if ever, seen in disputes. They offer their view, participate in a debate and know how to disagree in a respectful way. If a problem develops, they contact those hired to do so or leave.  

Experience suggests quite a few of those able to find good information lack in the department of interaction. Most problems we see are a result of the unability to deal with opposition. The most common result of this inability is animosity. Not what we want, because it results in a bad climate.  

It is a fact only few of those able to deliver in the department of information are still around. In contrast to what you suggested, we don't think it is a result of the way mods tend to address problems over here. They're often present, developed an 'eye' for members out for trouble, often discuss problems and usually quickly solve problems. 

But 'usually' isn't always. The main reason is this forum has developed into a large organisation with over 2200 members. Mods are not aware of all problems. Furthermore, some members decide against contacting those hired to apply the rules. Example. 

In your post, you referred to 'Balam'. I agree she, and 'Dark Jaguar', are the ones who developed the jaguar section. When you visit that section, you'll notice I often complimented and encouraged both. In spite of that, they left without a word one day. There was a reason, but they didn't tell me. 

'Balam', for some reason, never contacted me about the one stalking and discrediting her at every opportunity. The one involved, 'Luipaard', knew I considered him to be a good poster. He knew he had " ... this guy Peter ... " (quote from one of his posts on another forum) in his pocket and used the credit to perfect his skills in the departments of stalking and discrediting. Years after the event, 'Balam' finally informed me. The reason was 'Luipaard' was still at it (...). That should tell you something about his character. I immediately banned him, but the damage was done. 

A great pity 'Balam' and Dark Jaguar' left for this reason, but I didn't know. I do, however, know class acts often attract stalkers and discrediters. This is why they in particular need to contact the mods when they're confronted with a problem. I don't know why 'Luipaard' decided for years of stalking, but I do know he's heavily involved in generalisations. I also don't doubt jealousy was a factor. It's one of the most powerful drives in humans.  

Meaning your conclusion about the reason 'Balam' left is incorrect. Same for your conclusion about the mods of Wildfact. You didn't have the information needed to get to a conclusion, but decided to jump to a verdict in spite of that. Much appreciated.   

My remark about the drives in humans, by the way, isn't typical for members of forums only. I saw it in just about everywhere and I saw a lot, including a top notch band and a professional football team. Arrogance, jealousy and all the rest of it are omnipresent. You just can't avoid it, meaning you have to learn how to deal with it in an effective way. Not easy at the best of times. 

Returning to your response to post 628, from the top down. 

You said there was no reason to ban both 'Land and Sea' and you. I disagree. I'll start with your companion. When I contacted 'Charger' about his last two contributions, he told me to move or else. Your pal added he and 'Charger' were doing a discussion about a study conducted in South Africa. It was a nice chat until it was interrupted by someone asking questions about something they considered to be private. 

Meaning they used our forum to discuss a private matter. Bad decision. You do private conversations at home. If you are a member of a public forum, you use a PM. Using a public forum to chat means you don't care about rules. When you, on top of that, dismiss one of the owners questioning your decision, you qualify for a permanent ban. Your pal disagreed. He was appalled and decided to inform the one interrupting their chat about the rules of conduct (...). When he was banned as well, he contacted the other owner. In his PM, he complained about the way Wildfact is moderated. Just imagine: a member involved in ignoring the rules of conduct telling one of the owners to get lost and advicing him to do a reading course.  

Case closed? No. You decided to step in. It wasn't the first time you decided to question the decision of a mod or one of the owners. The first time, it resulted in a ban. A ban that was lifted later, when you said you wouldn't do it again. A few months later, when another problem erupted, you couldn't resist the urge to question the decision again. 

This forum, Vida, is a project of people interested in the natural world. Members don't pay a fee and those running the forum earn just about enough to pay the bills. Meaning it isn't about money. Our aim is to create a place for those without a voice. Another aim is to provide reliable information. Last but not least, we want our members to respect both the rules and those applying them. The last thing we want is to ban a member. When we get wind of a problem, we first offer a bit of advice. As good advice usually is thrown overboard right away these days, we often have no other option but a warning or a ban. 

Every time a member is banned, the world is too small. Every time, the mods or owners are to blame. Every time, they're almost forced to explain the decision taken. Solving problems takes a lot of time, Vida. In the end, you're completely done with members questioning one decision after another. You read what has to be read, you apply the rules, accept the occasional mistake and move on. 

In between the personal insults, you referred to a discussion you had with 'Apex' about the size of white sharks and orcas. The discussion that resulted in a ban, that is. I'm not a specialist in orcas and sharks, but I did talk to a few I consider to be in the know in this department. Most of those who saw, or actually measured, white sharks told me adults range between 12-22 feet, possibly a bit more. Large females easily top 4,000 pounds. Big, but not even close to adult orcas. All of those in the know agree orcas are larger and bigger at the level of averages and absolutes. 

In Australia, people who had personal experience told me large female white sharks at times well exceed the accepted records. Fishermen are not the only ones who got to that conclusion. In Eden, Australia, I talked to someone in the know in a local museum. The museum has the skeleton of an adult male orca known as 'Tom'. He was the leader of a pod that cooperated with local fishermen about a century ago. I bought the book written by a local journalist. Interesting all the way. I read other articles written by journalists. Time and again, I noticed those with experience agree white sharks can occasionally grow to a very large size. There's, in fact, quite a bit of, direct and indirect, information about exceptional individuals in temperate waters all over the globe. Meaning a discussion about the size of large sharks could be of interest. The outcome of the discussion, as always, depends on the individuals involved. The attempt to get to an interesting discussion at Wildfact failed. I'm not blaming anyone, but I did notice those guided by accepted data only often torpedo discussions with an explorative character. A pity, I think.  

As to the discussions about tigers and brown bears. The only region where they coexist and interact is the Russian Far East. I've read everything available and noticed opinions changed over time. I'm, to be complete, not referring to members of forums, but to those who have information we do not. It is a fact 'Apex', whether you like it or not, contributed significantly in the department of tigers and bears when he was a member of 'Carnivora'. I invited him to join Wildfact, because I wanted him to offer the opportunity to take the credit he deserved. 

In your last post, you said he wasn't banned during the discussion about sharks and orcas because of his position, whereas you was. Meaning 'Apex' was protected by the one who banned you. Not so. I know 'Apex' at times entered discussions with his 9-pound hammer, but he never posted misinformation. What I saw, suggests he was, at worst, 'testing' a few boundaries in the department of (accepted) information during the discussion about sharks and orcas. Not quite true for you. The decision to play the mods and others turned against you. Meaning the ban wasn't a result of the info you posted, but of the way you responded to problems.  

As to 'Apex' and his position at Wildfact. In my last post in the tiger extinction thread, I clearly said interacting at a forum is about respect in the end. I also said a member doesn't need to cross a line to create animosity. Meaning I'm aware of the sources of the animosity that erupted during the discussion. All sources. Also meaning we, as you suggested, don't do privileges over here. 

As a result of the problems described in my post in the tiger extinction thread, it was decided to quit the discussion about tigers and bears. For now. Not quite to the liking of 'Apex', but he, in contrast to you, didn't decide to question me. We discussed the matter in private. You decided for a different approach and came up empty. In fact, the decision to go public, and the tendency to jump to conclusions and verdicts quite quickly, turned against you once again. Responsible people accept the results of their decisions, Vida. They don't start nagging.         

Something else. In your post, you referred to 'cat-fans'. Carnivora, you said, has 'lion-degenerates', whereas Wildfact is a refuge for 'tiger-degenerates'. Talking about respect. 

I assume you noticed Wildfact has very few 'tiger-degenerates'? Most members are, in fact, interested in lions. The reason so many interested in lions decide to join Wildfact is the lion section is both large and interesting. It generates more traffic than all others combined. In spite of the number of posts and threads, we only very seldom face problems in the department of interaction. The main reason is members interested in this big cat know about (the benefits of) teamwork. They also are aware of the rules. As the mods deliver quality as well, the result is a thriving section loaded with interesting information.     
        
Is 'Carnivora', to use your words, a refuge for 'lion-degenerates'? Not really. 'Tiger-degenerates' then? Negative as well. It is the place to be for those interested in versus-debates. Big cats, bears, reptiles, sharks, you mention it and it's there. It also has good info about species not discussed over here (for lack of specialists). Apart from all that, it has quite a few members out for my scalp. Another advantage is you'll be able to use the trusted old T-34 of 'Warsaw' and a few 16-inch guns left by 'WaveRiders', including a lot of shells.   

Scalpwise, 'Domain of the bears' more or less compares. Apart from dismissing yours truly and other 'tigerfans', and one in particular, at every possible opportunity, they do bears and tigers. You'll find plenty of info about miniature bears with 3 legs having big male tigers for breakfast every other day. Info of that nature, in fact, is considered a delicacy over there. It goes without saying the information they present is reliable. An extra attraction is they know all about jumping to conclusions. My guess is you could learn a thing or two over there.    

As to the insults and all the rest of it. You feel badly treated and don't want to leave unnoticed. I understand, but it resulted in a bit of disappointment. Insulting someone you don't like just for the sake of it is easy. Confronting an opponent with inconsistencies, double and triple standards and a few other results of, say, preference or a dislike is way more challenging. It will take you a bit of time, but your effort will not go unnoticed. More often than not, it will be appreciated, even by those targeted. You can think what you like about this one, but it's quite clear time was invested. There is a reason. I'll leave that one to you. 

As to the problem discussed. My advice is to digest it and to move on. Make sure you'll excel in another contest in the near future and try to learn a few things from the incidents that happened over here. Respect the rules of engagement, accept it's more productive to learn how to disagree in a respectful way than to do battle and avoid trouble with officers no matter what. The key words are interacting and respect. Learning how to deal with opposition is a challenge for the best of us. It will take you a lot of time, but it will produce significant results in the end. Last but not least is to beware of opponents trying to lure you into a back alley loaded with shady characters always prepared to bet on the outcome of a fight.   

Over here, a permanent ban, in most cases, is at least 6 months. Good behaviour can result in, say, a bonus of a month. 

I want to be lenient, Vida, but the countless incorrect conclusions and the insults were not appreciated. Meaning I doubt if rejoining Wildfact would be a good idea. I'll leave it up to you. If you rejoin, my advice is to contact a mod first. When you rejoin, focus on good info and interesting debates. Stay away from firm opinions, back alleys, premature conclusions and insults. Good luck. Reply