Bad Guy Fauna Web Moderator **Horrible Customer Service**

[pakinjak]

I can see both sides of it, Mike.

Rich receives how many of these same questions every day? Eventually anybody would get tired of it, and the quickest and easiest thing is to link them to the sticky. If they can't read and understand it then it's their tough luck.

The dude with the question sees none of the other PM's and emails, he only has one question that could be simple answered. Why can't Rich just answer the question?

I'm sure we could all be a little more gracious to one another.

 

[WebSlave]

Nope....he's not a customer. Contributor? Not any time soon. Am I the only one here that thinks Rich's condescension has something to do with that?

So pointing someone to an existing thread about an issue that concerns them and FULLY answers their questions about it is condescending in your eyes?

Biased much, Mike?

Still have that chip on your shoulder about me since our head bumping a while back, eh?

 

[Cheryl Marchek AKA JM]

I have seen it hundreds of times. They are always in the process of contemplating on becoming a contributor. But it just so happens that something did not go their way during their decision making process so they decided to change their minds. He is not the first guy who ALMOST contributed. He won't be the last.

LOL!! I was just thinking the EXACT same thing! LOL!!! He just was looking for an excuse to make himself feel better about being cheap and whiney.

On topic~ Thank you moderators for linking me to the answer to my stupid questions over the years. This one I actually noticed on my own~ but I know I've been the annoying pm with a stupid question plenty of times. Thanks

 

[radera5]

So pointing someone to an existing thread about an issue that concerns them and FULLY answers their questions about it is condescending in your eyes?

Biased much, Mike?

Still have that chip on your shoulder about me since our head bumping a while back, eh?

HAHAHA, You are sooo right Rich!

 

[Focal]

I think Rich has a complete lack of respect for sleeping bears. That is all.

 

[Clay Davenport]

Contributor? Not any time soon. Am I the only one here that thinks Rich's condescension has something to do with that?

Pretty much, yeah.
He's been a member here for over two years, and aside from a few posts on the BOI his only activity was in the classifieds. If he were going to become a contributing member, he would have done so already.
Quite often when people get irritated they like to say I WAS going to give you money, but I'm not now. That's rarely the case. They just like to throw that in in an attempt to make you think your actions has cost you something.
He was never going to be a contributing member regardless. Not that that makes any difference at all in how the situation was handled, I have no doubt that Rich would have responded the same way to anyone, but nothing said caused him to decide not to be a contributing member, he wasn't considering it to begin with.

Sometimes I completely ignore PMs when they're of a nature that I simply cannot respond without being an ass. I don't want to come across that way to any member, paying or not, so I elect to not respond at all. You'd be amazed at some of the things the mods get asked.
I've received a fair number of PMs regarding this issue as well, and i have replied in a similar fashion. So far everyone who has inquired has apparently been able to comprehend the situation after reading the post, since I haven't heard from them further.
He was directed to a complete discussion about the issue he had questions about, it's no one's fault but his if he refuses to read even the first post and demands to be spoon fed the information.

 

[Killer Chams]

Dont know the Op or his age. But in his original post he comes across like a whiney little boy. Sounds like mommy & daddy babied him his whole life. Grow up dude! If Richs' reply was to harsh for you then you've got a real eye opener comig when you hit the real world.

 

[MikeCurtin]

So pointing someone to an existing thread about an issue that concerns them and FULLY answers their questions about it is condescending in your eyes?

Biased much, Mike?

Still have that chip on your shoulder about me since our head bumping a while back, eh?

No...pointing to an existing thread is not condescending. The way in which you do it is.

I don't think I'm biased...actually, I'm probably less biased than most posting on this thread.

No chip on my shoulder...we bumped heads and I walked away for a little while. I did so because of the way you responded to me and to others when called out on what is considered by many to be an irresponsible practice. You still treat people in the same manner....just because I notice it doesn't mean I have a chip on my shoulder.

 

[RubberDuckey273]

If I was a new member, and received that response, I probably wouldn't be too happy with it myself. Yes, he should have taken the time to look around first, but come on....the guy has less than 50 posts, and asked a question. How hard would it have been to reply by saying, "Only contributing members can post in the classified section.", and then link the thread.

Nope....he's not a customer. Contributor? Not any time soon. Am I the only one here that thinks Rich's condescension has something to do with that?

So that every time this guy, or someone else, has a question that has been clearly posted on the boards for everyone to see? Why reward someone for their inability to follow simple rules. The mods have a lot more to worry about than answering questions over and over that have already been answered in a thread.

And Rich didn't become short with him until after it was obvious that the OP wasn't going to take the time to read the link given to him. If he didn't understand it, he shouldn't have been rude and should have said "I'm sorry, but i'm having a hard time understanding that thread." From what I'm seeing, he was rude first, and expected the mod to kiss his butt because he graces this site with his presence.

Also, why in the world would you expect "better" service as a contributing member? Maybe more respect because you're showing the forums that you support what fauna does for us. But I'm pretty sure if a contributing member had sent the same question to the moderator, they would have received the exact same, perfectly acceptable response.

 

[RubberDuckey273]

Sorry, meant to say:
So that every time this guy, or someone else, has a question that has been clearly posted on the boards for everyone to see, the moderators can repeat the answer over and over? They would never have time for anything else. That's why they post those public announcements.

sorry for the double post

 

[WebSlave]

No...pointing to an existing thread is not condescending. The way in which you do it is.

The Feedback Forum is your friend....

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249378

Yeah... Sure looks condescending to me.....

I don't think I'm biased...actually, I'm probably less biased than most posting on this thread.

No chip on my shoulder...we bumped heads and I walked away for a little while. I did so because of the way you responded to me and to others when called out on what is considered by many to be an irresponsible practice. You still treat people in the same manner....just because I notice it doesn't mean I have a chip on my shoulder.

We both know what went down then, Mike, and the false and attempted damaging accusation you made towards me. Sorry that it offended you that I proved you wrong, but that's just the way it happens sometimes. And in that same incident someone cut and pasted a California statute and tried to claim it was a Florida statute to prove that I had broken a Florida law. I guess he probably feels I was condescending towards him as well when I proved his attempted deception. Sorry, but if it is condescending to prove someone incorrect, inaccurate, or deceptive in their accusations and claims, well yes, I guess I am guilty as charged, then.

If pointing someone to an existing thread is condescending to a minority of disgruntled people who just want to bitch about something about me (no matter what, as long as it is AGAINST me and/or this site), then I guess I will continue to be guilty of that charge as well.

 

[SpitZu]

disgruntled people who just want to bitch about something about me (no matter what, as long as it is AGAINST me and/or this site)

That pretty much sums up this thread. I can't understand why something so petty is still being analyzed. Next?

 

[Wolfy-hound]

If Webslave had responded with "Only contributing members can respond to classifieds" then the guy would have asked why, and if he can be an exception and when will it be changed back and so on and so forth.

The info is posted, and he was given a link to the posted information and discussion. It's not condescending to give someone the information they've asked for.

 

[akonitony]

If pointing someone to an existing thread is condescending to a minority of disgruntled people who just want to bitch about something about me (no matter what, as long as it is AGAINST me and/or this site), then I guess I will continue to be guilty of that charge as well.

I'm just glad the majority of folk on here are of the 'gruntled' variety.

 

[MikeCurtin]

Rich, if you re-read my post, it was a reference to your attitude towards the members of your site who were critical of you. It had nothing to do with the the issue that transpired.

And, yes....we both know what went down. Members of your forum expressed concern and disapproval of your releasing captive bred corn snake morphs into the wild, and your public display thereof. I mentioned that one looked like it had a slight head wobble. You linked a video of a wild snake that had the same head movement.

You just asked if I had a chip on my shoulder. I don't. I walked away because of your attitude....I still pop in now and again, and if I see something worthy of comment, I'm not going to refrain just because I don't want people thinking I have a "chip on my shoulder".

 

[TriangleReptiles]

If I was a new member, and received that response, I probably wouldn't be too happy with it myself. Yes, he should have taken the time to look around first, but come on....the guy has less than 50 posts, and asked a question. How hard would it have been to reply by saying, "Only contributing members can post in the classified section.", and then link the thread.

Nope....he's not a customer. Contributor? Not any time soon. Am I the only one here that thinks Rich's condescension has something to do with that?

Not so....only contributing members can post replies in the classified sections

 

[RobNJ]

Not so....only contributing members can post replies in the classified sections

Now you're just talking semantics...what's the point?

 

[Deborah Stewart]

So you contact a mod you get the answer to your question but yet still complain

Here is the thing I am a mod on another forum and I know from experience that with some people it's "damned if you do and damned if you don't" because some people are just NEVER happy no matter what you do or what you say (I believe you belong in that category), the good news is that the internet is pretty big and there are many forums out there and maybe there is one that will meet you expectation (though I seriously doubt), better yet you could create your own forum. (In other words if you don't like it somewhere no one is forcing you to stay just don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out )

 

[Jay the Turtleman]

I like to play Devil's Advocate every now and then.

I have never butted heads with Webslave, so I have no reason to dislike him. But yes, replying with "The feedback forum is your friend" is snarky and condescending. I have been here for years, I think before there were "contributing members" and "non-contributing members".

I remember awhile back I received an email, presumably from Webslave, that he was considering making the site something you had to pay for, and if memory serves me correctly no part of it was to be free. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

But there was one part of that email that has always stood out to me, and I vaguely remember it to this day. I'm paraphrasing here, but it said something like, "Why should I continue to do this for free when I could be lying on a beach somewhere?"

It struck me as odd that he seemed angry about something, yet until then I had had no contact with him in the past. I wondered why he seemed to be carrying a grudge around, and based on the wording of his email, I replied by telling him to go ahead and delete my account. I didn't come back here for a long time afterwards, thinking my account would be deleted and I wouldn't be able to view the forums.

This is not to say that Webslave is a bad guy, maybe just a little sarcastic or moody. Obviously, I came back some time later and found that my account was still active. But is it possible that the OP had already been expecting a confrontation based on past interactions, or viewing interactions with others?

It's easy to misconstrue something when it's typed, rather than said to you. Sometimes being funny or playfully insulting doesn't come across the right way, and when you're conversing with all different kinds of people from all over the world, it doesn't always say what it means, or mean what it says. Either way, it sure is disappointing to see adults circling like vultures just to join in the bickering over some web site's slight adjustment to its features.

 

[WebSlave]

If I was a new member, and received that response, I probably wouldn't be too happy with it myself. Yes, he should have taken the time to look around first, but come on....the guy has less than 50 posts, and asked a question. How hard would it have been to reply by saying, "Only contributing members can post in the classified section.", and then link the thread.

Nope....he's not a customer. Contributor? Not any time soon. Am I the only one here that thinks Rich's condescension has something to do with that?

Not so....only contributing members can post replies in the classified sections

Now you're just talking semantics...what's the point?

It's not a case of "semantics" at all. Mike's statement was blatantly false, and in my opinion likely designed to impart non factual information to readers here to lead them to believe they could not post ANYTHING in the classifieds any longer. Non contributing members CAN post classified ads just as they have been able to do in the past. It is merely replies to those ads, in an effort to cut down the amount of crap taking place in those sections, that has been curtailed. Mike knows this is the case, but apparently chose his words in such a way to make it appear that ALL posting has been curtailed. I had originally planned to cut out ALL replies, but at the last minute decided to half step and still allow contributing members that ability, to see if that made a substantial improvement in the situation. If it does not, then that option will also be removed.

It is still my opinion that Mike has had a chip on his shoulder about me and this site for quite a while now, and he looks at this as his opportunity to try to inflict some damage with misinformation. I guess he believes he will earn a few extra stripes and medals for his efforts.... I'm surprised the other pseudo troops he is now buds with haven't chimed in as well.

Seriously Mike, do you THINK no one has read what you have posted elsewhere about me and this site?