Spite sites

Recently a member was banned from this site because he initiated a PayPal dispute concerning his subscription membership payment. In my opinion, this was uncalled for, and an apparent spiteful gesture in relation to my temporarily closing the BOI and the ongoing possibility that it may get closed down permanently. In a similar appearing spiteful manner, this same member started up his own forum and within it appears to be taking slaps at me and this site.

I have been told that some members are soliciting other members here to go to that site. Quite frankly, I don't really care that someone starts up their own message board forum, but when it is done in a spiteful manner such as this, I am not inclined to allow them to USE this site to draw members over to theirs. It is extremely tough for any new site to get traffic these days unless they are willing to spend BIG bucks to advertise it. Even then, that is no guarantee. Nearly all will fail unless they have a very good reason for someone to go there. Spite seldom is enough to maintain staying power and those sites generally fade away within 6 months. But even so, I have no desire nor interest to help them launch their new site using THIS site as their launching pad.

So if anyone here is intending to use this site to try to funnel traffic from here to the latest "spite site", please note that this sort of activity is not welcome here and you do so at risk of losing your own membership on this site. I freely allow other competing sites to advertise here and even openly advertise within their signature areas. But I am not so inclined for sites set up by persons doing so solely out of spite because they were banned, have a chip on their shoulder about me or this site, or in so doing actively belittle me or this site on their own site. I will actively discourage such recruitment efforts here.

Rich, it is generous of you to even allow people to advertise other sites at all, especially other forums. Most sites ban any solicitation from other sites that are discussion related, though most allow store fronts and rescue sites.

Wow, I haven't known him long, but I didn't get the impression that Erik was that hot headed! He seemed like a pretty level headed guy!

Sorry to hear this is going on, Rich. I thought him to be above the spiteful, petty BS. Apparently I'm a horrible judge of character.

Makes me kind of dissapointed in people..... Im over there, but have not sent anyone from fauna to there, And i wouldnt do it because of what happened Between you and him.

Whoever is doing that really needs to knock it off, not very cool people.

Sad that someone who seemed alright turns out to be a petty vindictive ass. Very disappointing to hear. Too bad he couldn't have focused the energy to help Fauna. Again I say, people suck!

Add me to the list of people with their jaws hitting the floor. Who'd a thunk it?

I'm just going to add a perspective that differs- very slightly.

People rarely seem capable of having any neutral feelings about Fauna. It's a site they feel is important, it's a big deal, it's something they often invest in; time, effort, and sometimes money. When they realize they like the site, it's not a small portion of themselves that they end up devoting to it, it's a lot of strong convictions and emphatic support.

When something changes that is counter to what has been in the past or what they believe (with a great deal of fervor) should be the way then that can hit them pretty hard. The most common response is to argue their viewpoint... and keep arguing it even if it is rejected because they know that they're right and if they just manage to explain it, everyone else will agree with them too. 'course the twenty four hour two weeks of debate starts to wear on the mods and on Rich and on any members who agree with whatever change is being disagreed with. Eventually tempers and fuses grow short on both sides and people- good, intelligent, honest, upstanding people- alienate one another.

Sometimes those same people, still good and honest and upstanding but suddenly a lot less reasonable, then have a knee-jerk reaction and begin to paint one another as the villain, rather than just being someone who they disagreed with. It's certainly happened before... and it's not just the folks who ended up turning their back on Fauna, it's something that comes from all sides to varying degrees.

I've disagreed strongly enough with a policy change in the past to stop using the site. It might happen again in the future- can't really say until it comes up. I didn't throw a tantrum on my way out the door, I just stopped logging in and participating for the duration of the policy that I disagreed with.

It was the pay-to-post period of the BOI. It was put in place to allow the site some measure of self-sufficiency, to cover server costs and programming costs and to impose some degree of identity verification to combat false registrations. I acknowledged the problems but disagreed with the solution, feeling that open communication was the only way that the BOI would be effective and that a pay-to-post program inhibited people from relaying their experiences. I argued about it for about a month, my arguments weren't convincing enough to prevent it and so I left.

And found myself in the middle of some really heated tempers. The degrees varied, but suddenly over one small decision that Rich decided to try out for awhile, he was being called everything from "unfortunately making a bad decision" to "totalitarian evil who just wants to buy a new corvette!" and everything in between. And everyone who had argued against the pay-to-post system, whatever their arguments and reasons had been, was suddenly a "freeloader who never cared about the site"

The flick of a switch was all it took to create one hell of a lot of bad blood.

When the policy was reversed, I came back. The point that I disagreed with had gone away and I was happy to return, eager to renew my use of the website. Some people didn't though. Some of those who didn't were excellent people, upstanding pillars of the herpetocultural community who had, as I had, disagreed but where the arguments had been taken to levels of personalization beyond what they had with me. Some of the original banner advertisers and sponsors went away and haven't come back yet. I can't say how angry any of the involved parties on either side of the fence still are at one another these days... but immediately after the change went into effect, there were definitely some raw nerves and frayed tempers.

I think Erik was angry that he was being issued an ultimatum. We all were being issued one, it was a necessary and honest attempt by Rich to pound the point home since it was so easily ignored when it was handled with kid gloves... but it was a change that Erik didn't like. So he reacted with the same strong feelings that he had as a site supporter, just twisted to reflect the position he held on the change. His knee-jerk response was... well, quick angry decisions are rarely good ones.

I don't think it, or his continued bitterness over his banning, makes him a bad person. Just a person who's got the inherent human capacity for bad decisions and being ruled by anger when something he genuinely cared about changes in a way he doesn't like.

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

I'm just going to add a perspective that differs- very slightly.

People rarely seem capable of having any neutral feelings about Fauna. It's a site they feel is important, it's a big deal, it's something they often invest in; time, effort, and sometimes money. When they realize they like the site, it's not a small portion of themselves that they end up devoting to it, it's a lot of strong convictions and emphatic support.

I suppose that is true. Which is why the closest friends become the most bitter enemies over a difference of opinion. They feel that they are owed more because of this implied bond. But on the other hand, is it my fault that they feel that this site MUST remain the way it is, regardless of changing conditions that affect what I have to do? As best I can recall, every change I have made here has been in response to complaints about one thing or another, OR requests to improve something. Invariable, any change pissed off someone....

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

When something changes that is counter to what has been in the past or what they believe (with a great deal of fervor) should be the way then that can hit them pretty hard. The most common response is to argue their viewpoint... and keep arguing it even if it is rejected because they know that they're right and if they just manage to explain it, everyone else will agree with them too. 'course the twenty four hour two weeks of debate starts to wear on the mods and on Rich and on any members who agree with whatever change is being disagreed with. Eventually tempers and fuses grow short on both sides and people- good, intelligent, honest, upstanding people- alienate one another.

Sometimes those same people, still good and honest and upstanding but suddenly a lot less reasonable, then have a knee-jerk reaction and begin to paint one another as the villain, rather than just being someone who they disagreed with. It's certainly happened before... and it's not just the folks who ended up turning their back on Fauna, it's something that comes from all sides to varying degrees.

Absolutely! Many people seemed to feel that I just did not understand their point of view. And correspondingly felt that repetition of their expressing it, often in different terms, or increasingly adamant and demanding in tone, would cause it to finally sink into my thick skull that they MUST be right about their opinion. Of course, my failure to agree was considered as being just obstinate and too dense to recognize the beauty of their absolutely faultless logic and grasp of the problem and the solution they presented.

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

I've disagreed strongly enough with a policy change in the past to stop using the site. It might happen again in the future- can't really say until it comes up. I didn't throw a tantrum on my way out the door, I just stopped logging in and participating for the duration of the policy that I disagreed with.

It was the pay-to-post period of the BOI. It was put in place to allow the site some measure of self-sufficiency, to cover server costs and programming costs and to impose some degree of identity verification to combat false registrations. I acknowledged the problems but disagreed with the solution, feeling that open communication was the only way that the BOI would be effective and that a pay-to-post program inhibited people from relaying their experiences. I argued about it for about a month, my arguments weren't convincing enough to prevent it and so I left.

And found myself in the middle of some really heated tempers. The degrees varied, but suddenly over one small decision that Rich decided to try out for awhile, he was being called everything from "unfortunately making a bad decision" to "totalitarian evil who just wants to buy a new corvette!" and everything in between. And everyone who had argued against the pay-to-post system, whatever their arguments and reasons had been, was suddenly a "freeloader who never cared about the site"

The flick of a switch was all it took to create one hell of a lot of bad blood.

When the policy was reversed, I came back. The point that I disagreed with had gone away and I was happy to return, eager to renew my use of the website. Some people didn't though. Some of those who didn't were excellent people, upstanding pillars of the herpetocultural community who had, as I had, disagreed but where the arguments had been taken to levels of personalization beyond what they had with me. Some of the original banner advertisers and sponsors went away and haven't come back yet. I can't say how angry any of the involved parties on either side of the fence still are at one another these days... but immediately after the change went into effect, there were definitely some raw nerves and frayed tempers.

There WAS no other solution, which was discussed MANY times. Some people seemed to feel it was perfectly acceptable for me to require all new registrants interested in posting on the BOI to provide a telephone number and for me to call each and every one of them to verify their identity. Do people REALLY believe that my time is valueless? That I would be perfectly willing to do something like that to save people from having to embrace my solution that would kill a few birds with one stone?

Well, the rejection of that plan has put us where we are right now. One of those birds that the stone was supposed to kill, mind you, was the lack of financial security for the BOI. The second bird was a complaint I heard ALL of the time. The biggest and most common complaint I have ever gotten about the BOI is that ANYONE can post ANYTHING they really want on the BOI. Yes, folks, people CAN register with false names and there isn't a damned thing I can do about it. It is only the really naive or stupid ones that we catch. And even then, we really don't go out of our way to catch them. Most often, someone else will uncover them and let us know about it. Quite frankly, I mostly ignore all requests to check IP addresses because someone suspects that another may be a false identity. Sorry, but if most of the people here aren't concerned enough to do something proactive about it, and make the sacrifice necessary for that to happen, then I certainly have better things to do with my time then checking IP addresses.

And yes, right at this moment there is a pretty good chance that the BOI is going to go away because the financial support to keep it just is not there, and does not appear to be forthcoming. That is one bird that has made a U-turn with a full lower intestine and flying right overhead. Damn shame about that stone, I guess... And for that I've been called "money grubbing asshole" and every other name in the book because I knew this day was coming and tried to head it off. Oh well, I've stated my case and thrown the cards on the table. If some people don't like THAT turn of events, and leave because of it, well, that's just the way it has to be.

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

I think Erik was angry that he was being issued an ultimatum. We all were being issued one, it was a necessary and honest attempt by Rich to pound the point home since it was so easily ignored when it was handled with kid gloves... but it was a change that Erik didn't like. So he reacted with the same strong feelings that he had as a site supporter, just twisted to reflect the position he held on the change. His knee-jerk response was... well, quick angry decisions are rarely good ones.

I don't think it, or his continued bitterness over his banning, makes him a bad person. Just a person who's got the inherent human capacity for bad decisions and being ruled by anger when something he genuinely cared about changes in a way he doesn't like.

Getting angry and leaving is one thing. Filing a charge with PayPal basically accusing me by inference of stealing his money is another. And then setting up his own site taking potshots at me as well. That's all cool with you? He did not even ONCE contact me to ask me about refunding that money to him. Instead, he filed a claim that basically makes it look like I engaged in fraud using my PayPal account.

And yes, in my opinion, that makes Erik Haguewood (aka Uroboros) a BAD person to associate with. Which is why I no longer want him associated with this site. Maybe it was just anger on his part that clouded his otherwise good judgement, but regardless, it was still an effort to try to hurt me and this site, and is absolutely no different from the many things any other genuinely bad person will do to try to inflict petty and vindictive harm on another person.

Well, just because you're angry is not excuse for doing a bad thing.

I too was astounded at Erik's actions, and thought him a better person. Leaving the site was one thing, requesting a refund of donated monies, well okay.. but to file with paypal, instead of asking, and then to set up a site and bashing the BOI on it? No. That's kind of low. That's no longer "I was mad", that's something that takes effort. It makes me a little bit sad.

Getting angry and leaving is one thing. Filing a charge with PayPal basically accusing me by inference of stealing his money is another. And then setting up his own site taking potshots at me as well. That's all cool with you? He did not even ONCE contact me to ask me about refunding that money to him. Instead, he filed a claim that basically makes it look like I engaged in fraud using my PayPal account.

Yeah, this is more than simply a knee jerk response. Erik, himself, would have condemned the idea of heading straight to paypal before attempting to deal directly with the payee if this was the BOI. His response was pretty extreme. Yes, it could have been a rash act, but it isn't an action that I would engage in, or that I would have thought that he would.

However, something else, like remorse turned inward could have prompted him to start the bash site.