Jump to content


NANFA Code of ethics


13 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2007 - 06:43 PM

Drew, is it possible to have a check box next to each item? That way people are less likely to scroll to the end and check "I agree" without having actually read and understanding the code.

#2 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2007 - 07:07 PM

Drew, is it possible to have a check box next to each item? That way people are less likely to scroll to the end and check "I agree" without having actually read and understanding the code.


That is a very good idea. I have no idea if it could be implemented but if it could that would be a very good thing to do..

Impressive Mr. catfish :)

#3 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2007 - 07:10 PM

Impressive Mr. catfish :)

Ha! Just basing this on my own behavior! Can't remember the last time I actually read an EULA.

#4 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2007 - 07:18 PM

Can't remember the last time I actually read an EULA.


Neither can I.... But it is still a good idea..

#5 Guest_edbihary_*

Guest_edbihary_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2007 - 09:09 PM

Drew, is it possible to have a check box next to each item? That way people are less likely to scroll to the end and check "I agree" without having actually read and understanding the code.

A person inclined to do that would also just scroll down and check all the boxes without reading anything, at the same time thinking that the person who put all those checkboxes there was silly. It would be a waste of time that will make NANFA look slightly silly.

#6 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2007 - 09:19 PM

Hey, I can afford to look silly! I do it all the time :-)

#7 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2007 - 09:21 PM

A person inclined to do that would also just scroll down and check all the boxes without reading anything, at the same time thinking that the person who put all those checkboxes there was silly.


And when they post something that violates something mentioned right after those little check boxs, they think are silly, they are going to find out that this forums staff are not at all joking about this also...

At this time it suddenly does not become so silly....

#8 Guest_teleost_*

Guest_teleost_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2007 - 09:28 PM

oh oh oh (raises hand) ....I know what we can do! Ask them to recite the NANFA code of ethics and post it on youtube before they can join!

Now that is silly :tongue:

#9 Guest_edbihary_*

Guest_edbihary_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2007 - 09:46 PM

And when they post something that violates something mentioned right after those little check boxs, they think are silly, they are going to find out that this forums staff are not at all joking about this also...

At this time it suddenly does not become so silly....

You're right, Richard. Violations should be dealt with, regardless of whether the user read the text before checking the box (or boxes). Just like software developers will go after pirates regardless of whether they read the EULA. Opening the shrink-wrap gives them that right, even if you don't read the text on the seal before you break it. In the same way, checking the box gives NANFA the right to enforce the code of ethics, regardless of whether you read the text before checking the box. Obviously, we want people to read the text, so that they know the code of ethics and therefore hopefully abide by it. One checkbox will do for that purpose. My point is, if a person does not wish to read the text before checking the box, having multiple checkboxes will not alter his behavior. So why do it?

#10 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2007 - 09:57 PM

My point is, if a person does not wish to read the text before checking the box, having multiple checkboxes will not alter his behavior. So why do it?


Multiple Redundancy sometimes gets the point across and also why not?

#11 Guest_drewish_*

Guest_drewish_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 November 2007 - 11:04 AM

I agree with Ed that multiple checkboxes are not needed. It isn't our fault if you fail to read what you agreed to.

#12 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 November 2007 - 07:33 PM

Drew has spoken. That pretty much settles it.

FWIW, this whole issue has gotten way out of hand. We have brand new members joining who probably had no idea they were breaking the law, and people are crawling their ass for keeping 4" bass or whatever. We never had this on the email list.

#13 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 November 2007 - 08:28 PM

FWIW, this whole issue has gotten way out of hand. We have brand new members joining who probably had no idea they were breaking the law, and people are crawling their ass for keeping 4" bass or whatever. We never had this on the email list.


E-mail lists are very different from forums..

FWIW though we are working on ways of dealing with some of these issues. I have to say in the some 6 fish related forums I've worked on since 1995, this has by far been the most difficult to deal with when it comes to getting a handle on legal and ethical issues. (Getting a handle on the illegal fish trade on some sites was MUCH easier)

If anything these issues and how they pop up shows more than anything to me just how far the hobby of keeping native fish has to go and just how far away we are as a group to be able to advocate for this as a hobby in an effective manner.

I really think a lot of people are missing that NANFA (And this forum) is not only a "Fish tank Hobby group" we are also an advocacy group for the conservation and understanding of North American fishes and aquatic ecosystems. A lot of people that are new to this are coming in from Hobby fish forums or the fish keeping hobby. They are not clearly getting the picture that we are a multifaceted organization that includes Amatures and professionals in a wide range of disciplines as well as Hobby fish keepers.

One of those disciplines is conservation Law and Wildlife another Law enforcement and regulation. Illegal and unethical collection activity cannot be supported and brushed aside. Does this mean that someone should get their panties in a bunch and cane someone???? No.. of coarse not..

Which is why we are working on a way to deal with this fairly and impartially and keep things on an even keel..
Please bare with us as we figure this out and implement it.

#14 Guest_Scenicrivers_*

Guest_Scenicrivers_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 November 2007 - 09:31 PM

I really think a lot of people are missing that NANFA (And this forum) is not only a "Fish tank Hobby group" we are also an advocacy group for the conservation and understanding of North American fishes and aquatic ecosystems. A lot of people that are new to this are coming in from Hobby fish forums or the fish keeping hobby. They are not clearly getting the picture that we are a multifaceted organization that includes Amatures and professionals in a wide range of disciplines as well as Hobby fish keepers.

One of those disciplines is conservation Law and Wildlife another Law enforcement and regulation. Illegal and unethical collection activity cannot be supported and brushed aside. Does this mean that someone should get their panties in a bunch and cane someone???? No.. of coarse not..

Which is why we are working on a way to deal with this fairly and impartially and keep things on an even keel..
Please bare with us as we figure this out and implement it.



Well said. One of the strengths of NANFA is the many faces that it brings together.

Those who have been around, often realize the importance of the conservation/ethics/education part of NANFA. This is really the most important side, keeping natives is a benefit from the results of conservation.

The conservation/ethics/education is the primary reason that I joined. I think that this will become more important to those new to natives as time goes on.

People who are passionate about something many times are not as tactfull as they need to be and this takes time. As any one can see through this thread that we want to be tactfull but firm. The discussion hear is good.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users