If you want the short version, jump to the last paragraph.



The subject came up initially because Rich is retiring. In selling the last of the snakes, he'd written on SerpenCo that now he and Connie could start their retirement in earnest. Meanwhile, on the BOI, he'd posted that if people didn't pitch in money, he might shut down the BOI effective Jan 1, 2010. Since I have the ability to host it, etc., I offered to take it over for him, hosting it on our servers while relieving him of the burden and expense, allowing him that retirement.



His reply was concise: "I'm not going to just GIVE the BOI away to anyone." (Caps his.) He wanted money for it. That made me mindful of other situations, statments and experiences, and my perception of his intent became a bit less rose-colored. But I digress...



The bottom line is that Rich rules the BOI with an iron fist, as his own personal kingdom. If you disagree with him, he calls that a derogatory remark. Capriciously, he bans people who disagree with him, even if only in private. Another user here provided me with email to demonstrate that he was banned because he said something "derogatory" about Rich in a private mail that eventually got back to one of Rich's moderators. That you don't like his stunts, even in private expression, results in him banning you. He has ripped off MANY people, but you won't find THAT on the BOI, even though you'll see huge red words about some Luis guy that supposedly ripped Rich off years ago. He's a proven tyrant, and won't relinquish control of the BOI... making it akin to leaving the fox in charge of the chicken coop.



Rich's rule about signing every post with (what is presumed to be) your name is another example of his unreasonable Nazi tactics. If you don't do so, your post is pulled, and EVERYTHING you said in it along with it. (You're also issued an "Infraction," as if this were some sort of authoritative police state.) Effectively, he's claiming that your praise, comment or allegation is invalid without that. The rule MIGHT make sense except that since there is no verification of identity, the entire rule is meaningless; Anyone could set up an account claiming to be Joe Smith... and another claiming to be Mike Duffy (or any other made up name). Yet he insists and imposes that rule. Meanwhile, signing with a legit, verifiable company name is NOT acceptable to him (even though it's a registered trade name, corporation, and acknowledged state & federal entity of public record.) Why? Because he gets off on flexing his muscle.



So the need for a new forum is found, simply, in the need for a place where people can speak openly, honestly, and without fear of retribution. If RepCheck had existed before, many people would have known the kind of stunts Rich pulls. Perhaps more importantly, many more yet would have known the good OR bad about many others. By ruling so heavy-handedly, and by having his moderators hassling users over irrelevancies, he discourages people from becoming involved and using the BOI at all. The idea is a good one, but needs to be run by someone who will be largely hands-off, along libertarian philosophies which recognize that every person is free to speak his mind, and likewise personally responsible for what he or she writes. Does that answer the question?

[ Show Entire Thread ]