Paradigm shift

Yesterday, I read this post on the Chris Johnson thread in the BOI, and rather then comment there about it and take that monster thread off track, I have decided to bring it here instead.

Originally Posted by luvchondros

Zach, those babies look nice fat and healthy and beautiful. Thank you so much for keeping us updated with your clutch.

I realize that it's technically possible for your pair to still be hets, but given the circumstances of Chris's business transactions it's starting to look increasingly grim for you and others in the same shoes.

Chris was rude and condescending to me quite some time ago and I remember thinking very strongly to myself that he would never get a single penny of mine, no matter how much of a "good guy" he was. I never dreamed he would self implode as he has in the reptile community and I am so sorry that by his "alpha male" personality he was able to hold potential complainees at bay which allowed him to get away with his foul behaviour as long as he did.

It's hard to believe nobody has ever met him, never had a table at a local herp show, or showed pics of visible morphs copulating or sitting on a clutch of eggs. It really disgusts me because he really did have people bamboozled and now he's running like a dog with his tail tucked between his legs and acting like the total crook I now believe him to be.

I am so sorry to everyone that used this forum to check him out before purchasing, based upon what I would have found here I would have gladly purchased from him myself if he ever had something I was interested in too.
I love Fauna Classified and respect all the work that has gone into making this site a source to try to prevent these kind of crooks from hurting the community. I try so hard to be non confrontational and to address problems privately, have to tell you though..... for the black eye that Chris has given to the herp industry in general my childhood youth wants to jump out and just simply really kick some serious butt.

Chris, your actions are catching up with you.... I hope you wind up losing ten times what you have stolen...... you've already lost face and any sense of respectability, that is good enough for me.

You know, ever since I read this post, it has acted as a seed in my mind that is beginning to blossom into a personal paradigm shift for me. There are quite a few implications embedded in these words that I believe are very important to me as admin of this site. Personally perhaps even rather crushing, as a bunch of thoughts are beginning to come together in a not very pretty picture that I have to address. Hate to sound oblique about this, but this is a pretty big gulp to swallow for me. But I believe there are some very unpleasant ramifications (for me) that I will simply have to address that are going to be the culmination of a bunch of conflicting emotions at this point.

I can see where this is heading from the quote above and I can understand why. These will be hard decisions to make and only you can make them. Glad I'm not in your shoes.....

Wow...a very powerful statement Rich....guess I will sit back and wait for your decisions......

I read that post 4 times and think the only way to interpet it is that she is proud of fauna and she is sorry for the people that used fauna as the catalyst for going into deals with him. She seems to be sorry that members got scammed by someone that tricked us all.

Does someone read that post differently??

I think I may be missing something as well. The post does not suggest to me that fauna has any blame in the TSE situation.
Chris conducted himself as an upstanding businessman for 2-3 years. He appeared to be properly representing his animals, he shipped on time, everything you'd expect from a good business. As a result he had a lot of positive feedback on the BOI. I've even bought from him myself in the past, no hets though.
It took a while, but when his hets started failing to prove out questions were raised, and we come to where we are with him now.

The BOI is only as good as the current information allows it to be. When Chris had all appearances of being a good guy, the BOI reflected that. There was no way to predict how he would turn out.

Maybe I'm missing what Rich is vaguely suggesting, but I can't see anything that serious with that post.

Well bear with me on this logic twist. Here we have a person (luvchondros) claiming that if she (I think it was a "she" excuse me if I am wrong about that one) had not been the brunt of Chris's tirades on this site, she most likely would have become a customer of his, based on his reputation alone, and quite likely be among the ranks of people right now who appear to be up the creek without the proverbial paddle. Extend this logic a bit. If I had had the rules in place NOW 2 years or so ago instead of only more recently, Chris would never have been allowed to display that side of him that has apparently warned away a potential customer. So in effect, if the rules I have in place now would have been in effect THEN, they would actually have prevented luvchondros from seeing that side of Chris and have the ability to make a decision based on that aspect of his personality. In other words, that personality seems to have proven out to be a reasonable indicator for a decision making process concerning doing business that I am now inhibiting.

Does that make sense? If so, then carry this thought a little further. There could be other people right now on this site with that very same personality marker, which in fact COULD be a marker that people might find needful of seeing to make an informed decision about whether or not to do business with them. And me, dumb schmuck that I am, and blocking that from happening with my "rules". I am keeping them from seeing that side of a person by actively not allowing it.

Used to be my policy was to give a person enough rope to hang themselves with if they had the inkling to do so. Well, by all appearances, I have taken away that rope. Basically, although my intentions have been to make the BOI better, I have made it worse and less effective. I have taken away a perspective of a person that reflects the WHOLE person and not just the Mr Nice Guy persona that I have now forced them into being. I am forcing them to appear to be a nice guy when posting, and not allowing the true person to show through.

Does this make sense at all? Or am I way out in right field somewhere?

And yes, I am fully aware that some people will say "I told you so!"

I completely understand where your coming from Rich. Personally, I agree that it does make it easy for the "true colors" of someone to be hidden with the current rules in play. At the same time, it has made fauna a better place. Not as volatile as it used to be. I can imagine that it had many posters refraining from posting due to the violent nature of some of the past "hound dogs". A hard decision at best, take it with a grain of salt Rich and get many more opinions.

To Rich and all members here, often words on the internet are misinterpreted and I hope that nobody read my post as an attack here on Fauna of anyone or anything other than Chris and his lack of ethics. Nicolai and Clay got it pretty much exactly as I intended it to come across.

I think the community came together rather quickly when we realized what was happening and "unvoted" him right out of his good guy status within a matter of days of disclosure. I've read every post on that thread... forgotten some of it but followed it closely.

The paradigm shift part, oh my!!! I just spent a fair amount of time reading up on that concept on Wikipedia....... I'm not real excited about the concept of total change!!!

OK, that's a relief to read!! Personally, I like the changes in the last couple of years!! Perhaps somewhere in between may serve us all well!

Rich,

I have typed 20 replies to this and just erased them because as I was typing different aspects popped into my mind and I have changed my thoughts 20 times.

Bah.... which I just did for a 21st time.