Dr Owens
New member
Let's not forget Brian, the term "girlfriend" can be VERY relative...in some cases it might not even be an actual girl.bcfos said:
-
Responding to email notices you receive.
**************************************************
In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.
-
IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed
=====================
Posted 08/15/2025
=====================
Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.
Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."
Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....
=====================
Addendum: 01/10/2026
=====================
Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....
thereptileroom = cheat of the month
- Thread starter watchdog
- Start date
- Status
Skunky
New member
lmao!
Gary O
Registered member
Thanks for the posts guys! It means more then you know!
soberguy
New member
It's like people think they have free reign to say what they want at another board, just because it's not about that board. Funny the delusions one can find on the internet.
Dr Owens
New member
No problem Gary. You don't deserve that crap...and you most certainly have more important things to do with your time than to have to defend yourself against garbage like this. Just blow it off.Gary O said:
Dr Owens
New member
And THAT my friends could well be the biggest understatement ever posted on this forum!soberguy said:
Dr Owens said:Let's not forget Brian, the term "girlfriend" can be VERY relative...in some cases it might not even be an actual girl.
One of those things that make you go Hmmm....
If you ever get a chance Jay shoot me an email at [email protected]
Just want to catch up with you on some things.
Chameleon Company
New member
I think that Post #1 points to one more reason why a full name should be required for every post in the site, lest it be deleted. Not that it would guarantee that the true name was used, but "watchdog" probably has more in common with the aft end of the beast than the end that does the "watching". While this part of Fauna may not be the BOI, anonymous posts that are primarily inflammatory in nature can still cause some mischief. Put another way, its one more filter, and possible excuse, to take down a post or two that serve no positive purpose.
Chamco said:
Although I have toyed with the idea of making all registrations on this site required to have a full name attached to it, it would be completely unenforceable anyway, and probably a fruitless task. But I am seriously considering having it as a requirement to post classified ads here.
More to the point about this thread is that we should be careful to not kill the messenger if we believe he may be carrying info that is incorrect. The next messenger very well could be carrying accurate info, but be very reluctant to present the message if it carries the risk of having his/her head lopped off for the trouble.
soberguy
New member
While WebSlave has a point, there's only so much idiocy one can tolerate.
Chameleon Company
New member
Rich, I do agree with this statement of yours in Post #29:
If I can clarify my concerns a bit. It was not that the thread starter may have had incorrect information or not, it was what I feel was a deliberate mischaracterization of the other forum and its management, or if not deliberate, than an attack on that forum. Between seeing this as the thread starter by "Watchdog":
Lastly:
If I can clarify my concerns a bit. It was not that the thread starter may have had incorrect information or not, it was what I feel was a deliberate mischaracterization of the other forum and its management, or if not deliberate, than an attack on that forum. Between seeing this as the thread starter by "Watchdog":
with the "thumbs down" icon, and then the perceived need by Gary and others to rebut that statement, I thought I was viewing a BOI thread. While the stated purpose of the BOI is to address the transaction of "goods and merchandise", I would also think that "services" could fit under that umbrella. I also must point out that the subforum header for this feedback page states:
If watchdog had begun the thread just pointing out that he had questions about "hit spikes" etc, or any other more objective characterization, then this thread is short. But the way its posted, I think that one of the rules of the site applies:
While I highlighted the word "accidentally", I think that the thumbs-down icon, and the word "cheat", in the header show this as a deliberate "no-pay, no ID" circumvention of the BOI. That the replies so quickly came out in objection to the original claim would lend plenty of support to the claim of it being frivolous and contrived as well.
Lastly:
If the rules are clearly stated, and objectively applied and enforced, and the information "accurate" or at least not maliciously fabricated, then how does the application of the rules change anything from the system as we now know and accept it? I think that all members here are sensitive to frivolous and malicious attacks against someone's reputation using this site, and I think that in the minds of many, it would rank as the highest possible abuse of the forum. I think that is a large part of the motivation behind the creation of the specific rule that I cited above. Besides all of the above listed reasons, this individual did post their name as "Shane sixsixsix". This was not an innocent and well-intended messenger. I do not think that this is a borderline call, but that is just IMHO. Thanks.
Dr Owens
New member
Jim,
After reading your post I agreed with you. However, the hard part was deciding what kind of warning points the guy qualified for. Quite frankly, IMO 1 warning point for posting a BOI topic in another forum didn't seem sufficient. (I agree with you that this certainly wasn't an "accident"...especially since he posted a similar topic in the past (even though no one seemed to notice). In the end I decided on "Name calling and general derogatory statements" not because it was necessarily the most fitting penalty, but because it is applicable and the number of warning points seem more appropriate given the nature of the infraction (IMO at least).
I will leave it up to Rich as to whether or not he wants to move/remove this topic, or modify my approach to the problem.
After reading your post I agreed with you. However, the hard part was deciding what kind of warning points the guy qualified for. Quite frankly, IMO 1 warning point for posting a BOI topic in another forum didn't seem sufficient. (I agree with you that this certainly wasn't an "accident"...especially since he posted a similar topic in the past (even though no one seemed to notice). In the end I decided on "Name calling and general derogatory statements" not because it was necessarily the most fitting penalty, but because it is applicable and the number of warning points seem more appropriate given the nature of the infraction (IMO at least).
I will leave it up to Rich as to whether or not he wants to move/remove this topic, or modify my approach to the problem.
Chameleon Company
New member
Thanks Dr. Owens. I don't think that too many would feel that Rich was unfair if he did take it down, although the negative impact of this particular thread was pretty minimal with the rapid rebuttal of the original complaint. I very much think it warranted the fine and suspension. While this individual may not feel the need to fork out $10 to come back, should they choose to resurface under a different name and perhaps attempt to be a bit more subtle in the future, there is the possibility now of checking IP addresses for a track record.
This is one of the more obscure areas of the forum, yet did generate some good views and comments. But whatever precedent is set here could then be used as a guide elsewhere. It helps to refine and tweak the enforcement policies ..... not quite the U.S. Supreme Court, as they have black robes, and the mods are probably attired in a more random fashion!
This is one of the more obscure areas of the forum, yet did generate some good views and comments. But whatever precedent is set here could then be used as a guide elsewhere. It helps to refine and tweak the enforcement policies ..... not quite the U.S. Supreme Court, as they have black robes, and the mods are probably attired in a more random fashion!
Dr Owens
New member
Attired? I only moderate in the nude.Chamco said:
(I know, I know...now you're going to have to gouge out your mind's eye with a fork.
)
lol...
Gary O
Registered member
Wow...........I am going to say this here..........My thoughts on a few things are changing and it is for the good. THANKS GUYS!!!
Laura Fopiano
B&L Exotix
Oh man.....
aghhhhhhhhh..... the fork is firmly planted!! Not a pretty picture Jay!! ROTFLMAO
And Gary......you have a cool little sight yourself............isn't it nice to share kudos rather than insults!!
Dr Owens said:Attired? I only moderate in the nude.
(I know, I know...now you're going to have to gouge out your mind's eye with a fork.
aghhhhhhhhh..... the fork is firmly planted!! Not a pretty picture Jay!! ROTFLMAO
And Gary......you have a cool little sight yourself............isn't it nice to share kudos rather than insults!!
Well, there are a lot of gray areas being addressed, and certainly there will be a lot of differing opinions about it. This IS the FaunaTopSites Feedback Forum, is it not? And the description of this forum reads "Any issues related to the FaunaTopSites listings are welcome to be posted here." Please note the word Any. The original poster of this thread apparently had an issue with what he was seeing taking place on FaunaTopSites.com, and surprisingly enough, found this forum in order to post within it. That being said, regardless of the actual content surrounding what he was reporting, this forum is actually the proper place for it. And there are some precedents that I can fall back on to support that determination.
I started this forum for exactly this sort of discussion. Matter of fact, if I recall correctly, some of the original threads I made for this forum were made by myself in order to bring some apparently cheating to light on FaunaTopSites. So I certainly cannot slam someone else for doing exactly what I had done in earlier instances.
However, I do have to agree with Jay that the language used by "watchdog" was over the edge and far too caustic for what I had intended this forum. But I do disagree that this was a BOI topic, as there is no indication whatsoever that this is an issue related to watchdog, or anyone else for that matter, doing "business" with TheReptileRoom.
As for the suggestion to actually remove this thread, sorry, but no. I think nearly everyone here knows my preference to leave the cards laying on the table, no matter what they say, and not remove anything without an exceptionally overriding reason to do so. It has been my experience that even bad information can often germinate some good if allowed to do so.
I started this forum for exactly this sort of discussion. Matter of fact, if I recall correctly, some of the original threads I made for this forum were made by myself in order to bring some apparently cheating to light on FaunaTopSites. So I certainly cannot slam someone else for doing exactly what I had done in earlier instances.
However, I do have to agree with Jay that the language used by "watchdog" was over the edge and far too caustic for what I had intended this forum. But I do disagree that this was a BOI topic, as there is no indication whatsoever that this is an issue related to watchdog, or anyone else for that matter, doing "business" with TheReptileRoom.
As for the suggestion to actually remove this thread, sorry, but no. I think nearly everyone here knows my preference to leave the cards laying on the table, no matter what they say, and not remove anything without an exceptionally overriding reason to do so. It has been my experience that even bad information can often germinate some good if allowed to do so.
Chameleon Company
New member
One explanation raises another question.
Rich, I know that you justified the presence of this thread here when you said the following:
I am still a little bit confused (and had posted the same verbage) at your conclusion, as while I fully understand the concept of "issues", I also thought that the characterization with the "thumbs-down" etc made it a BOI issue, which may have been a bad assumption on my part. You mention "many gray areas", and I agree, and also realize that they are inevitable. I do not take umbrage with your decision here, though, as the word "any" can end all debate on this thread about suitability.
I believe the root of my confusion is not this thread, but was brought to light by it. To refresh the reader, here's the rule that I referenced in an earlier post:
My question is: What is a BOI type of thread? Not as the debate applies to this thread, as you explained that. I have reread the rules for posting on the BOI twice today. While there is much dialogue there about the uses and values to be had in the BOI as a source, rules of conduct, penalties, etc., I truly saw no definition or rule for what is and is not BOI content, and which would then be used as a gauge for imposing the above penalty. Once a thread is identified as having broken this rule, the penalty includes "Such instances will have the threads deleted as soon as they are located ..." There are also several characterizations of the seriousness of BOI posts, signatures, etc, to include this one which I like:
I don't know if you see it as a problem. If you do, my recommendation would that any issue which raises a question of integrity about any entity or business, ie good guy, bad guy, need info, deal gone bad, bad ethics, etc, be required to be a BOI thread. This could be with regards to animals, dry-goods, services, husbandry ethics, etc. Some might question the need to require "good guy" posts to be on the BOI, for if a "good guy" post stays all good, then there is no foul. But as mentioned by another post in this thread, they often attract bad comments.
I believe that many would agree with me. I think its important because as is alluded to in the above quote, the BOI requires ID, and this would be the forum for accusations, and anonymity is not allowed there. Even more importantly, any poster there is vested for at least $10, and therefore also has more incentive to not make baseless accusations or characterizations, and also to play by the rules. Basically, I am para-phrasing your reasons listed in the rules for going to a fee and requiring full name ID. In the big scheme of things, all of this is fairly minor, and may not be worth addressing anytime soon, if at all. This thread did however, raise the context for it. If my concerns are answered in the site, and I just missed them, than please redirect me, and accept my apologies. I am not getting any sharper with age!
Rich, I know that you justified the presence of this thread here when you said the following:
I am still a little bit confused (and had posted the same verbage) at your conclusion, as while I fully understand the concept of "issues", I also thought that the characterization with the "thumbs-down" etc made it a BOI issue, which may have been a bad assumption on my part. You mention "many gray areas", and I agree, and also realize that they are inevitable. I do not take umbrage with your decision here, though, as the word "any" can end all debate on this thread about suitability.
I believe the root of my confusion is not this thread, but was brought to light by it. To refresh the reader, here's the rule that I referenced in an earlier post:
My question is: What is a BOI type of thread? Not as the debate applies to this thread, as you explained that. I have reread the rules for posting on the BOI twice today. While there is much dialogue there about the uses and values to be had in the BOI as a source, rules of conduct, penalties, etc., I truly saw no definition or rule for what is and is not BOI content, and which would then be used as a gauge for imposing the above penalty. Once a thread is identified as having broken this rule, the penalty includes "Such instances will have the threads deleted as soon as they are located ..." There are also several characterizations of the seriousness of BOI posts, signatures, etc, to include this one which I like:
I don't know if you see it as a problem. If you do, my recommendation would that any issue which raises a question of integrity about any entity or business, ie good guy, bad guy, need info, deal gone bad, bad ethics, etc, be required to be a BOI thread. This could be with regards to animals, dry-goods, services, husbandry ethics, etc. Some might question the need to require "good guy" posts to be on the BOI, for if a "good guy" post stays all good, then there is no foul. But as mentioned by another post in this thread, they often attract bad comments.
I believe that many would agree with me. I think its important because as is alluded to in the above quote, the BOI requires ID, and this would be the forum for accusations, and anonymity is not allowed there. Even more importantly, any poster there is vested for at least $10, and therefore also has more incentive to not make baseless accusations or characterizations, and also to play by the rules. Basically, I am para-phrasing your reasons listed in the rules for going to a fee and requiring full name ID. In the big scheme of things, all of this is fairly minor, and may not be worth addressing anytime soon, if at all. This thread did however, raise the context for it. If my concerns are answered in the site, and I just missed them, than please redirect me, and accept my apologies. I am not getting any sharper with age!
- Status