>>So how do you solve that, without kicking out potential assets to the community?
Good question.
I believe you took the first step when you suspended Joe and when you suspended her the first time. However, like children, you sometimes have to reinforce the behavior modification with follow up discipline when the offender slips or decides to test your resolve. I believe that MMMARY has learned that you will do no more than a quiet PM once she has raised enough ruckus, even though she's violated TOU all she get's is a quiet PM. So she knows she can bend the rules (up to a point) and she pushes for all she's worth, it won't take long before Joe gets the same idea. The Key to real behavior modification is consistant enforcement. Once you've had to suspend someone they no longer should have the privilege of the quiet "be nice" PM. They are a repeat offender and should be treated as such. Continuing or resuming the activities that led to the first suspension should be dealt with harshly. A second offense should yield a longer suspension. If you so desire a third suspension should be longer still. I prefer a three strikes and your out rule, But you may be more lenient than I would. In any case, at some point you have to decide if the users potential is viable. If it isn't you cut them loose.
If all it took was potential Ryan Leaf would still be the starting QB for San Diego. And if performance was based on potential Kurt Warner would never have completed a pass in the NFL.
One last thing... I consider being accused of running a pyramid scheme being called a crook. Especially when there is no evidence to support the claim. I would also guess that several other users here would agree that her use of the term "paid promoter" is the equivalent of being called a crook. And she has used that term inreference to a number of IHUB regulars, some of whom aren't even promoter's much less paid promoters.
The Bird of Prey
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
