"Vendors with issues in the BOI"

Starting a thread here which began in the sticky (purple-pink) Rich put at the top of the BOI about a specific customer who took him for some money, Luis Torres. Starting it here, as suggested by Rich, just to collect some ideas. Rich has indicated he is open to possibilities, although maybe not anytime soon. I will cut and paste my suggestion and Rich's reply there, and I thank Rich here for his time and sincere reply. My idea is that someday the BOI might have a big link at the top of the BOI, in spotlights and everything else, saying "Here's the Bad Guys". It may not be able to say that, and therefore the title of my thread starter "Vendor's with issues in the BOI". It would be the "Quick Reference", rather than use of the "Search" function, which many do not use for whatever reason. For example, someone such as Ray's Reptilia could be listed as "having issues". His various incarnations could be listed as well, all in bold. Then links to his different threads. It could be alphabetized by best known name. There are pros and cons, with three big "pros" in my book:

1) Label it as tactfully as possible, but it would become the "Bad Guy" list of the reptile world. God bless him, but right now Dennis Hultman seems to be the one who injects the numerous "bad guy" links into a thread when someone starts what they think is the first "bad guy" post about such as Ray's Reptilia, etc. Others do it as well, but with all, in a few days, they are buried again.

2) It would generate more satisfaction for those who want to see bad guys outed. While not banning folks from advertising here (see current Scott Torres thread), it would help to address those frustrations among members. Right now bad guys enjoy seeing their latest bad-guy thread sink. For repeat offenders, that will no longer be of any comfort.

3) I believe that dedicated members here would willingly volunteer administrative efforts. As mentioned in my paste, the BOI would now be the vetting ground which would feed onto that list. Again, this "ultimate list" would be for the repeat "big-time" offenders.

All this is just thinking-out-loud, kicking around ideas, etc. Here are the pastes, which include more thoughts, and again I thank Rich for his response to me there.

Jim F. writes:
Rich,
No doubt Luis is a bad guy in your mind, and likely 99% of the readers here believe you and the evidence. What got my attention is that you decided to post this particular personal "bad guy" experience to the top of Fauna, as a sticky. I concur. Its your site, and this guy owes you.

Just want to plant an idea. You often see frustrations voiced about the ability of known "bad guys" to advertise in Fauna, as with your recent post in the Scott Sanchez thread. Even for such known bad guys, noob's have to come here, do a search (hoping they have the name correct), or maybe see a revoked GGC, which will only exist as a warning marker if one was first awarded. There is no quick reference anywhere. While it has its pro's and con's, maybe just look at the "pro's" of a "Fauna Bad Guy" list right at the top of the BOI ? What you have done here with Luis, only bigger. On it would be folks voted on by a voluntary panel of esteemed Fauna members (you pick .... maybe 10, where a vote of 7 would be required). Like KS, people would get there by having 2-3 unresolved issues of significance, where a scam or theft would be apparent to this jury. Folks could get removed by clearing those issues. The forum for debate would be the BOI of course. I think that many members (and potential members) would seeing a true "bad guy" list, as voted by proven good guys. Under each person so voted would be links to the BOI threads that qualified them as "bad". Or instead of "bad guys", call it "Vendors with issues in the BOI", with all other qualifiers still required. It would become very popular, as many here would want to see the accomplishment of ID'ing bad guys being "up in lights". I think you could find 10 good people here to be your jury who would willingly participate.

The downside ? Legal of course. You could maintain veto control, but it also wouldn't be difficult to run without legal dangers so long as you had a good vetting process. There are certain names that would be a lock to be on the list, and any legal claim by them could be laughed at, as it isn't going to happen any more than Luis is going to have his attorney mail you something. Just food-for-thought, but it would put more meat on the bones here, just as elevating this thread did for you, and become a very popular list.

Rich's reply:
Sorry Jim, but no, I am not going to do that. At least not in the foreseeable future. That suggestion, if implemented, would still put me or whoever was designated to manage it, in the position of a JUDGE, which I have stated time and time again I am not willing to do. In the case of THIS thread, I have direct experience with Luis Torres and feel confident that my evidence and knowledge of the case warrants my being a judge for THIS case and MY labelling him as a "bad guy". I cannot do the same for anything else anyone else states that I do not have this same direct experience and knowledge of.

Further, please do not clutter up THIS thread nor others with suggestions of how to run this site or any forum on it. Although I do appreciate feedback and construction suggestions, there is a Feedback Forum designed for such things, and I would prefer that this thread cluttering that has become a growing problem begin to diminish appreciably.

Since I am under no increased legal risk by editing or deleting posts within a thread I have started, such "cluttering" will be edited out or the posts completely deleted as necessary in order to keep THIS one on topic.

I suggest an administrative committee of ten. If Rich would ever do this, and I am still around and active here, I would be inclined to purchase a higher-level membership, perhaps $100, to help cover programming costs, if I were invited as one of the ten. Rich need not invite me, but I offer it as a suggestion of how it could be made to work. Rich could pick those to whom he would extend the $50-100 invitation. I don't have the time to be the main organizer, and am not volunteering, but I bet we have a few well respected members here who would do it. This person would solicit votes via PM from the committee to place offenders on the list. The standards need to be high, such that people have to have made a sincere effort to be bad to make the list, such as in the KS "three complaint" rule, as an example. If they resolve them, they then can be removed from the list. Candidates who currently might qualify, besides Ray, would be such as TSE, Bobby Pruett, CRE, and others. Others here are far more familiar with the historical list than I.
I don't think this will happen anytime soon, if at all. Its just to kick around suggestions. Thanks for reading this far.

i had a problem myself with the allowance of Bad Guys to post ads here and it was OK so long as they ponied up with no warning attached to their posts at all (other than what Dennis and various other users post when they have the chance). I dont support the fact that they are allowed to post here, when they are knowingly scamming people.
New people happen upon their posts and just plainly DONT KNOW, i wouldnt call them right out ignorant because of this, but they just dont understand the way a site like this works. They just dont know to check the BOI first... and i feel bad for them.


Jim.... I like this idea, and maybe a link to the thread can be placed in EACH classifieds section with a Warning to check on the users advertising before purchase? This way since things have to stay true to the way rich wants things to run here, noone is pinpointed with the warning, but it is clearly visible to CHECK before you Buy! Maybe?

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

Starting a thread here which began in the sticky (purple-pink) Rich put at the top of the BOI about a specific customer who took him for some money, Luis Torres. Starting it here, as suggested by Rich, just to collect some ideas. Rich has indicated he is open to possibilities, although maybe not anytime soon. I will cut and paste my suggestion and Rich's reply there, and I thank Rich here for his time and sincere reply. My idea is that someday the BOI might have a big link at the top of the BOI, in spotlights and everything else, saying "Here's the Bad Guys". It may not be able to say that, and therefore the title of my thread starter "Vendor's with issues in the BOI". It would be the "Quick Reference", rather than use of the "Search" function, which many do not use for whatever reason. For example, someone such as Ray's Reptilia could be listed as "having issues". His various incarnations could be listed as well, all in bold. Then links to his different threads. It could be alphabetized by best known name. There are pros and cons, with three big "pros" in my book:

1) Label it as tactfully as possible, but it would become the "Bad Guy" list of the reptile world. God bless him, but right now Dennis Hultman seems to be the one who injects the numerous "bad guy" links into a thread when someone starts what they think is the first "bad guy" post about such as Ray's Reptilia, etc. Others do it as well, but with all, in a few days, they are buried again.

2) It would generate more satisfaction for those who want to see bad guys outed. While not banning folks from advertising here (see current Scott Torres thread), it would help to address those frustrations among members. Right now bad guys enjoy seeing their latest bad-guy thread sink. For repeat offenders, that will no longer be of any comfort.

3) I believe that dedicated members here would willingly volunteer administrative efforts. As mentioned in my paste, the BOI would now be the vetting ground which would feed onto that list. Again, this "ultimate list" would be for the repeat "big-time" offenders.

All this is just thinking-out-loud, kicking around ideas, etc. Here are the pastes, which include more thoughts, and again I thank Rich for his response to me there.

I suggest an administrative committee of ten. If Rich would ever do this, and I am still around and active here, I would be inclined to purchase a higher-level membership, perhaps $100, to help cover programming costs, if I were invited as one of the ten. Rich need not invite me, but I offer it as a suggestion of how it could be made to work. Rich could pick those to whom he would extend the $50-100 invitation. I don't have the time to be the main organizer, and am not volunteering, but I bet we have a few well respected members here who would do it. This person would solicit votes via PM from the committee to place offenders on the list. The standards need to be high, such that people have to have made a sincere effort to be bad to make the list, such as in the KS "three complaint" rule, as an example. If they resolve them, they then can be removed from the list. Candidates who currently might qualify, besides Ray, would be such as TSE, Bobby Pruett, CRE, and others. Others here are far more familiar with the historical list than I.
I don't think this will happen anytime soon, if at all. Its just to kick around suggestions. Thanks for reading this far.

Even though Rich has stated multiple times in the past why he would not do it, and I completely understand his reasons and can’t fault him, I still like the idea.

You presented it a little different. The members of the site will still be deciding who is the bad guy and who is not. Less liability, I would think for Rich and Fauna (guessing) if it is member driven and not labeled as a “administrative committee.”

Every site has its limits of what it is willing to do. I’m grateful for how much Rich has stuck himself out there as a target already. I wouldn’t want to ask him to stick his neck out on the line any further than it is.

If it can be done where it is clear that it’s member based, sort of like the new moderation, might be something that would work. I don’t know. ??

I think we all can relate to Rich's position. He has addressed valid concerns on both sides many times before. The committee would have well-defined, and high (or should we say "low") standards for someone to make the "Vendor's with Issues" list. Pretty much blatant thefts and scams, and more than one, just to make the list. Language could be used to not create a Fauna endorsement that "this guy is a thief", just "of concern" with links. Alicia is right that people glance at Fauna and don't do their homework. Or they see one bad thread, ballooned to 100+ posts, side arguments etc, don't read much of it, and never realize that this vendor has other outstanding issues in other threads, etc.

The idea of a possible link-back attached to their ads, as Alicia suggested, would also be a blow for the "good guys". It is possible that, like with KS, some offenders may finally remedy their misdeeds noted in the BOI, as the stigma of bad-guy threads in the BOI would pack more punch now.

This thread is just to gather opinions and ideas, that might some day take real form if Rich is so inclined. Some bad guys have earned their name up in lights. I'd feel good every time I visited Fauna and saw them so recognized !

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

The idea of a possible link-back attached to their ads, as Alicia suggested, would also be a blow for the "good guys".

well, since i believe ( not positive on this ) it has been said that a link will never be posted on their ads, at least a link at the top of each classifieds section *something VERY easy to see* could be posted, stating that users must research before they buy.

It would rock pretty hardcore if we could see links to the BOI thread you mention posted in their ads... but again, i believe thats not going to happen?

Anyway..
I think it would help make newer users at least aware of the kind of people they could be dealing with.

As it is now, you could browse through the classifieds without a second glance, find something you want and get in contact with the person through email, and never look back at this site again!

With a big RED header at the top of each section, it would at least grab a persons attention and help to make them more aware.

Anything endorsed by this site, including a member committee to vote "bad guys" would bring unwanted liability to Rich. The only thing I can see happening is putting a sticky at the top of the classifieds with a link to the BOI and instructions to research any seller prior to making a purchase.

Originally Posted by DThomas

Anything endorsed by this site, including a member committee to vote "bad guys" would bring unwanted liability to Rich. The only thing I can see happening is putting a sticky at the top of the classifieds with a link to the BOI and instructions to research any seller prior to making a purchase.

maybe im just not understanding this liability thing, but dosnt it make rich liable to not get rid of known scammers too? I mean, since it has been said openly that those ad's wont be deleted, how is that not making him liable in that sense now as well? He knows theyre here, and selling Sick, fake, or whatever animals but dosnt want to remove them/make them known... i would be pretty darn mad if i bought something and the site KNEW that they were doing this, but didnt warn me....

Maybe i just dont get it.


not trying to be mean, but i am honestly curious? ( sorry to make this thread go off topic for a sec...)

I would have to agree with Dennis, anything that seemingly has the "endorsement" of the site administrators would open the liability issue. Defining a vendor as a bad guy with a label that they wear forever is not an easy attachment for anyone.

I have mulled the issue of the search function a number of times. I would like to see at the top of the BOI a specific point that says "Search the BOI for" and a box for fill in. The link to the search would be tied only to the BOI and not other threads. Also a drop down key for the "less than search savvy". This drop down would give the basic instruction for the search. Example of what I am saying, go to search and type "Upstate Exotics" you find recent threads all having something with a mention of Upstate but you would have to dig for the threads pertaining to specifically Upstate. So its my feeling that the search of BOI needs to be simplified, people either don't use it right or don't use it at all. Stick it out there right at the top and make it super user friendly. Just an interesting note, when I go to Google and put in Upstate the first it listed to me was a good guy post. I think the concept of making the bad guys more easily identifiable within the BOI is great, yet I think it can be done within the search of the BOI without opening any liability for Rich.

Besides the added administrative and reprogramming cost requirements, I think we all assumed beforehand that the issue would be the added liability. However, to put some perspective on this, you now have threads labeling folks "bad guys". This list would not be labeled "bad guys", but something far less incriminating, but still serve the purpose of creating a quick reference to infamy. I see it as increasing traffic and impact to the site. I do understand the liability concerns, but also think it could be done with no more liability than now exists. It might tick-off a few entities a bit more than before, but they don't come here to defend their current bad guy threads. While those who made the list would have to be pretty heinous to be so named, if any had an objection, they could resurrect any of the noted threads, and argue the case. That thread would get some hits !

I liked DragonDad's suggestion as well. Something right there at the top of the BOI, simple but well highlighted, to enter someone's name. It gets finding out who the bad guys are for the newcomer more user friendly.