Rich Zuchowski aka Webslave Ethical or not ???

well i was plannig to reply to severa lthings on two threads , right now were having a serious strm and hell lighting and i need my PC so its being cut off until the storm passes . I will make several rpleis and points when i return , (Keep bashing if you feel the need t ) ill reply when i have time and not chance my PC being blown up
Alan

Alan, as you may remember, I was sorely disappointed in your choice to go to Jeff B with *secret* information that you thought would be harmful to Fauna. Since that time, you've consistently claimed that Rich had to pay Jeff. If you have any proof of that, please post it. If you don't, please retract your statements. For God's sake, end it.

That doesn't mean that I believe Rich was completely innocent in his actions. It was spiteful. Yet, I've never expected Rich or anyone else to be flawless in their decision making. That alone makes this thread valid, but I don't think this one incident provides proof of unethical behavior on Rich's part. I think it was wrong, but I also think Rich was provoked.

I also supported Rich when this went to a pay site. I see nothing unethical about someone turning a website into a business. If there is valuable information on that site that people will pay for, then go for it. Unless Rich is using fraudulent means to get people to sign up and pay, then he has every right to charge for this place.

With all that said, my own contributions to this site have decreased severely over the past months based on how the site is being run. It saddens me, because I feel like I contributed much here (and I'm not referring to monetary contributions). That doesn't mean I'm going to go down in flames here, or tell people not to buy from Rich, or start crap. It just means that things have happened here that made me decide to pull back. Oh well. I'm pretty sure Rich isn't losing any sleep over it.

Gary,
Speaking only for myself, I believe it is my decision as to what I think is unethical, and then the opinion I derive from that conclusion is mine as well. Rory, I don't care if Rich did it for spite. Or for fun. Or for the Hell of it. It was ethical in my view. Sorry guys. Between you both, you have less than 400 posts. Doesn't make you stupid. But maybe you need a little more experience in having folks not agreeing with your logic. Just between you and me though, your arguments are about the most discombobulated logic I have seen lately, but am glad that it at least continues to draw attention to Alan and his unintended consequences. If Alan had "nothing to gain with his posts", then he's a bigger idiot still.

Based upon the screenshots, I agree with the title of this post by Alan. This was an unethical move by Rich.

Buying that domain name and directing hits to Fauna was unethical.

It was done strictly to lure people to fauna based upon a missed keystoke when they were searching for kingsnake.

It was designed to purposely take hits and possibly business away from kingsnake.

That is not the American way. That is unethical.

Anyone who thinks that doing something like that is just business is wrong. Business is not a free for all. But unfortunately a lot of you think it is and are also turning the BOI into a free for all.

There is a reason Rich had to pay a settlement. You do not do that if you are not guilty of something. In this case Rich was guilty of setting up a website similiar in name to a competitor and directing hits (meant for another site) to his.

Alan, I have seen a few cages you made. And I must say they are real nice. That said, what is this about? This thread does not have the same quality of your cages. It is nothing but junk. Now if you have nothing better to add to this useless thread, then IMHO, you are looking real bad at this point. You started a thread that has no proof of anything, except your hurt feelings. Grow up, or post some proof. If no valid proof is posted here by you, then I am sure everyone will see this as a very childish move on your part. What class is this showing?

Originally Posted by deicide

I think the point that I am trying to get across here is I see
a double standard.

It's obvious by the screenshots that Rich was not doing it for "friendly competition" but out of spite.
When others on the BOI have shown the same character (or lack thereof) they get blasted.

What makes Rich beyond reproach on this matter??

Nothing does. However after the situation was resolved several years ago, has he been doing this again? No. So judge him badly on the KS ordeal but what has he done since then for a post to appear now?

If you have posted this in an appropriate time frame you would have more to stand on. Your view of a double standard is correct for those BACK THEN who laughed and grinned and ignored what Rich did becasue he was Rich. And I am sure that others BACK THEN did tell him that.

Playing tit for tat does nothing. Your valid points are outdated and you only draw attention unto you for starting this thread.

Any intended altruism to protect others is way outdated and definitley not warranted being twisted by negatism and "don't look at me look at Rich" efforts.

my post count means nothing and should mean nothing. Just becuase I do not feel I need to post on every thread here.

you have 1100 posts sinse feb 02 and I have I think 360 sinse may 03.......... I left awhile back. Becuase of a few things.

You do not find Rich unethical for the thing he did then ok that is up to you. Business ethics are someting the BOI stands for or did. Not sure anymore.


ms_terese

The only thing I had a problem with Rich charging is he charged for content he did not put up. He charged the very members that put it up to continue to use it.............. again that is unethical to me it would be like someone writing a book and then another taking it and selling it.

Originally Posted by romad119

Nothing does. However after the situation was resolved several years ago, has he been doing this again? No. So judge him badly on the KS ordeal but what has he done since then for a post to appear now?

If you have posted this in an appropriate time frame you would have more to stand on. Your view of a double standard is correct for those BACK THEN who laughed and grinned and ignored what Rich did becasue he was Rich. And I am sure that others BACK THEN did tell him that.

Playing tit for tat does nothing. Your valid points are outdated and you only draw attention unto you for starting this thread.

Any intended altruism to protect others is way outdated and definitley not warranted being twisted by negatism and "don't look at me look at Rich" efforts.

Seems like a person other then Alan is also going around quoting things from years ago bringing things back into light..................

But it is ok for them but not ok for Alan right?

Also I think it was cool of Rich to finally open up the BOI again to the members. But Now after the effect of charging for it I feel the ones that paid kinda got thrown to the side. If you will.

The people that came thinking the only way I can post there is ten bucks then I will pay nly to have t free again. But it should be a free thing IMO. As the members are the ones building it.

Now classifieds and banner ads should be charged for and I think he should charge for them. these people are making money off fauna and fauna should get a kick back from it. Even larger photo galleries should be charged for IMO.

Bad on either end.