anybody else getting Mad Kitty on their profile page? i know i didn't get busted for the holiday events, lol, as i can still access individual pet profiles, so it's not me being locked out. coming up on both Canaan and FooBA4U on mobile and normal modes on FireFox - off to try Chrome. (and with the exception of a 501 error that went away on reload, Chrome is normal. curiouser and curiouser...)
it also won't access the pets in Play mode, only profile (defaults to AC shop/adopt page). Forums come up normally from the foot of the page, so it's not a general site problem, and there was no comment on it there i found. Hm.
...aaaaaaand now everything is normal here on Firefox as well. most odd. granted, i did file a report, but the day anything gets acted on THAT quickly pink owls will fly in the daytime, i suspect.
About Me
- GOLD RUSH
- Tabby Road, New Furrsey, Foo S. A.
- i am a seven-year-old virtual Cream Persian FooCat (born on Little Christmas, 1/5/10), the mascot and spokesfurson for FooBA4U, the FooPets members' cooperative service site.
Dear Foo,
ReplyDeleteScrew you and your awful foomart prices. You're already making money from the influx of new items that you have limited. Why are you now overpricing the one item I would have loved to own - new fairies. And if you expect me to spend more money to gain FDs, you can keep waiting. Your FD packages are outrageously priced, a lot of money for a itty bit of FDs. Thank you for proving that Rivet wasn't the only one out for money. Again, screw you.
Az.
just went over and looked (i rarely hit the Mart unless i need food), and i see what you mean...if you want one (which one?) i can crap some of the Nyan Santas i got - the angels are much nicer anyway - and send you one, with no RL investment, all were FDs that accrued when i wasn't paying attention. i had grabbed the Nyans as people wanted them last year and was going to use the for Advent-ure prizes.
DeleteNah don't bother. Apparently they are glitched anyhow and someone is saying that they also have a copyright. You would think they'd research that even after their disclaimer in the Art section where people certify that the items hold no copyright. When Claire ran things, she checked them out before allowing them in. Also, how do they jump from 30-100FD items to 500-750 and expect people to be prepared? After putting out a TON of limited (it seems like every Christmas item had a limit), they now expect people to be cool with completely inflated prices, for items that cannot be made large, and also were copied off Google. What? I don't...wow.
DeleteAnd on Cyska, I believe they test the items before they go into the shop, not after. Why don't they do that on Foo?
But thank you for the generous offer, it was very sweet of you :)
Foo is not known for thinking things through...no matter WHO'S driving, lol. would you like the Guardian Angel? it's rather nice. several of the new items are off the shelf (still visible, but unavailable currently), so they may be working on them somehow, who knows?
Deleteso far i have been very impressed with Cyska - a site willing to learn from its own and other sites' mistakes is destined to go far indeed. thank you for sending me there!
(the Nyan Santas were 900FD, so the price range is not an innovation, just another bright idea from Rivet that has been inexplicably adopted...)
DeleteWell honestly, look at the old fairies? The ones that were Blue, Green, Yellow, and Red? They were 800. And then the old Retro Jukebox was 1,000. But I was hoping that at least for the holidays, Foo would stop being so grinchy. And I wouldn't have bought most of that stuff when I did if it hadn't been limited. A couple of months from now, they'll be 5 more pages of unavailable crap in the Mart. How is that helpful for their longterm? I don't understand. Make the fairies, and the really neat stuff limited number with limited purchase amounts. Make everything else available all the time. It's not that difficult. Just another FPs blunder in the attempt to cash in on us.
DeleteAnd np, Cyska and Sawyer are great. I really think they are very kind and have the interest in what their members want and think than most other sites. They are trying to make the majority happy, and so far, I think they're doing a bang up job.
And no worries hon, I actually have the resell from my Oddie offer that I could use to get all the fairies. But I'm not going to screw myself over to buy 4 items for over 2k. I don't believe that's a fair price. If they had not made EVERY item limited in number, I would probably not care so much. It's just frustrating. I see how they're doing things wrong, alienating and outright pissing off more people, but apparently, whoever has their hand on the business end of it is a moron. Making money right now is great, but what happens when all of those items are unavailable? Rawr, I could rant about this all day.
thing is, they're NOT making any money here, really...they're just reducing (or trying to) the foodollar glut caused, not by glitches, but by ClubFoo - especially now that it's compulsory - that has destroyed the value of site currency and spawned our grossly inflationary economy.
Deleteat one point, i suggested to Ron that they scrap or at least sideline FDs in favor of a new, soundly-based site currency, with a tradein allowance for existing FDs, and a scaled valuation that set exchange rates between (new), FDs, and gems - preferably with a site bank to handle it. it's being considered, but until the site is stabilized - if ever - it's unlikely to happen.
Okiedokie lol. If they're not profiting from it, I see no point to screw everyone over for it. Seems sort of counterproductive to me. But I am not a business person.
DeleteHowever, when Rivet was still running things, I recall the same conversations being had about the ridiculous FM prices, and I can't say I recall anyone giving this particular argument as to why they were so high. As someone pointed out in USS, that one Fairy for 750 is roundabouts $75 USD. THAT is too much. They can kiss my rear end. And since they're not making anything anyhow, I guess it won't matter if I just stop buying stuff altogether.
I'm sorry if I sound snarky, but I just can't afford this crap. Not for a stupid picture that isn't even worth what I pay for when I try to resell it.
^ Sorry for that, I guess I was just in a witchy mood today :P
Deletethe reason i do so little shopping in the Mart unless i need event prizes, lol. and why FDs mean so very little to me any more.
Delete...Rivet would have eaten their own young before admitting that their own lack of foresight on the FD/LL reward for CF+ created the crash in FD value. i wouldn't have put it past them to ENGINEER the original glitch just to have scaoegoats to point at...as i recall, that was the one where they pursued players with assets (BK, others) whether they had any involvement with the glitch or not. matter of fact, i have SS email evidence of Kate's offer to pay hush money to a falsely-suspended member.
Gah, don't even get me started on the glitch. I still think that the players punished were the wrong people.
DeleteAnd isn't it weird to anyone else that the majority of the players who were banned were high level, respected people, that had played for years, previously without incident? Pssh. Seems to me, they were probably hand selected for their inventory, then used as a way to show everyone that Foo doesn't mess around with cheaters.
What ticks me off more than anything is the fact that I am STILL sitting on SS's of Traci lying, bullying, and downright being awful to these people, and I can't do a thing with them. Smh. I mean, it's just a wee bit odd that they put that rule in place when I was talking about ousting her on here.
And you know, from what I can see (and I love this bg so this is difficult), the Wizard of Oz still has a copyright on it, so no images from the movie are allowed to be used without permission. I figured that the old stuff would slide by as usual, but all this new stuff coming out, well, Idk. I really think they need someone covering just art to make sure that their site doesn't self combust under copyright laws.
Don't apologize for being witchy, Az! I don't think you're being so at all! It is totally ridiculous that they are pricing this nonsense so high and then creating this false sense of "Oh, I better hurry up and buy it because it might become unavailable" and then limiting numbers. I think it's taking advantage of members in a very gross and base way. And if the items aren't working in the scenes or are getting pulled for copyright?!? Good gravy! I like making nice scenes but there is a limit to the amount of insanity I can stomach.
Deletethey are following the Rivet lead of using a come-on suited for youngsters - who are JUST the ones who will jump at bright shiny objects that they can only get a few of with money that doesn't mean anything to them anyway (after all, they can use some more free LLs to make a bunch more, right? ...aaarrrrrr...) even the selection - Wizard of Oz, Shrek (last year) - is suggestive, and i really doubt that the site or member is paying for use even if they received consent.
Deleteolder movies are a grey area, though (i had to look into it over using an old King Kong poster image) - there is a loophole in even renewed copyrights that allows free public use under certain conditions...but not, i believe, when they are used as a medium of sale or exchange, it has to be some form of public service or information.
I was missing Foo badly and was thinking of coming back, when I read these posts. Decided, once again, NOTHING, has changed:(
ReplyDeleteI was just thinking the same thing, and as soon as I realize how little this company actually gives a crap about it's customers, I am plugging that extra money back in Sims 3 or WoW. At least these two company's aren't on a power trip of ignorance and control.
DeleteCan you tell me what wow is?
ReplyDeleteWorld of Warcraft. :)
DeleteIs it anything like Foo? I tried to look it up but the simplicity of Foo is what attracted me in the first place. Thanks, I know I sound like a newbie.
ReplyDeleteWorld of Warcraft is a huge - and sometimes expensive - online multiplayer roleplay battle game, not a whole lot like Foo, lol. you would like Cyska, i think - email me (addie top right) and i'll give you some more info.
DeleteIt very much is not a lot like Foo. :) Well, they did recently incorporate pet battles, but that's about as far as it goes for relation. And it's not much at that, lol. They do have gardening now! :P
Deletepet - or at least animal - battles, i grok, but...gardening? what do you grow, pineapple grenades, lol?
DeleteLol, the cooking in game got really complicated, and in the new world you can now grow the veggies needed for feasts used during raids/dungeons. I'm a fan, since I ♥ cooking in real life, I decided to take over the cooking for our guild, lol.
DeleteI personally cannot think at any other website to replace FooPets because nothing is ever going to replace that site for me. I love it for what it is and that site will always have a special place in my heart. Cyska or any other site will never be able to replace that no matter what it happens or what opinions others have about FooPets.
ReplyDeleteno one is trying to "replace" FooPets - however people feel about it, it is a one-of-a-kind place...Cyska is simply trying to do a few of the things that FooPets has decided not to anymore - and alos providing something for those who are unable to pay for a subscription.
DeleteActually, I wanted to post what I wrote above as a reply to Anonymous who asked if there are any other sites similar to FooPets but I may have pressed on the "Add Comment" instead of "reply".
Deletegrok that - took me AGES to remember, and i still miss once in a while. you should have seen me when Google first started it, and i had to hunt all through everything every time to keep track, lol.
Deletehaha I am glad there's someone who understands me!
DeleteSo I was just thinking last night, and I wonder if there is even a way to go back to how things were... If there is, I can't see it. Here's what I was going over, and I was wondering how it got to this point...
ReplyDeletePeople are afraid to do the things that they should be able to do. Like buy, sell, trade. People are afraid that an unnoticed glitch will be the end of their account. I know a lot of people who are past this, but most are still paranoid about it on some level...
People are NOT afraid to be ignorant, rude, to break the rules. I know some players that seem to get suspended about once a week or so. They don't care. They're rude to moderators and Admin, they curse, they just do a lot of things that we didn't use to see because they know that suspensions are usually for a few days and then they'll be back.
How messed up is it when the players on your site are afraid to do the things that make the site worthwhile, and not afraid to do the things that are not supposed to be going on?
by changing the site emphasis from pets to making (onsite) money, they made the first fatal mistake...then by trying to contain all transactions within the site by eliminating private sales they pretty much nailed the coffin shut.
Deleteas they are afraid to "speak firmly" about manners for fear of sending a youngster crying to their (paying) parents, they have effectively lost control of member behavior, and their paranoia about members with high assets - rightfully OR wrongfully acquired - is patently absurd.
THEY are the ones who chose to create an inflationary capitalist economy here : none of us asked for it. those members who saw accumulating assets as the point of being here (or at least one of them) were having a lovely time without any site interference, and those who did not had enjoyable alternatives. now look at it...
^ Amen to all of that. It's just gotten to the point of being depressing now. The only excitement for a lot of people on the site seems to be starting arguments.
DeleteAnd those people that *were* trading when the crap hit the fan were doing so "at their own risk". I doubt they realized it was at the risk of their account though.
truly. as it is the site who chose to muscle in rather than establish a simple double-consent trading system for the members (the code for which they were offered free of charge...repeatedly), and the main "risk" is from them rather than other players, that response on their part grows more and more ironic.
DeleteI didn't realize they were offered the code for that. That is even more messed up. They don't even have to work on it, why not accept it if they're so concerned about scamming?
DeleteAnd I have a question because this is still kind of annoying me from days ago:
http://www.foopets.com/topics/show/2421918?forum_id=29&post_count=5
Is this just a legal standpoint? Like legally if they don't give out copyright advice and someone ends up with copyright work that is submitted, does Foo get less of a hit if they tell you this?
Because I honestly cannot comprehend how someone can allow things that are so obviously from Google without understanding all the copyright laws.
well, they'd still have to figure out how to integrate it - and edit a number of existing programs for it to run. perhaps when they actually FIND the original pet and items sales codes, lol.
Deletei posted on your thread as it is a subject of (i hope) general interest...as far as the site goes, from what i've seen in the way they phrase their Terms they don't KNOW a whole lot of copyright law and may not be the best people to ask, so i can't condemn them for being shy about handing out advice. and yes, if they state something in print - and it turns out not to be so - when/if the excrement impacts the ventilation system, their little waiver of liability is null and void, so i fully understand their skittishness around making statements in an area they are not expert in.
for one thing, other than cartoon lifts and landscapes where copyright could potentially come into play, most of the images posted are of manufactured objects and would be more likely affected by PATENT law.
the US Copyright and Patent offices are easily googled, and as far as gvt agencies reasonably user-friendly. i have had occasion to refer to both and found them helpful. check with them directly, do NOT just google your copyright question as is - everybody and his dog has an opinion, most of them wrong, lol.
Thanks for explaining. I had thought it might have something to do with being reserved to get hit with something.
DeleteWhat I am wondering about though, is even with their disclaimer on the Art page, couldn't they still be held legally responsible for using copyrighted images? Or images of patented items?
And in case you don't go back to that thread, is Public Use the same as Royalty Free? Or stock images? It seems like it is so freaking hard to know who owns the rights to what. I never know if I am supposed to be using images or not. I've gone to now just asking everyone permission for everything. But it really gets tiring, especially as out of all the emails I've sent, only one company got back with me. Plus I know that people use wallpapers all the time to put in their bg's, and I don't know how to even begin to look for copyright to something like that.
"stock images" is a deceptive term, as they are not necessarily free-use ; it pays to check them on a one-for-one basis. most are not copyrighted, but they do not HAVE to be.
Delete"royalty-free" just means you don't have to pay each time the text (or image) is reproduced - you still might need to pay for the original usage rights.
"public use" only applies to public service usage in publications and so one and is null and void where an image is reproduced for any form of gain, even just personal recognition.
if you lift an image just for personal use (wallpaper, photobucket, what have you), the owner if any will seldom even know, and would seldom bother to pursue the matter if they do, outside of perhaps requesting you credit them for it.
the nitties get gritty when an image generated by someone who took the time to copyright it (especially formally, as opposed to just sending a copy to yourself via registered mail and not opening it - this is just as binding legally, most of us use it as it's far cheaper than using the formal copyright process) is used for a commercial purpose, such as the FooMart. most commercial photographers include a transferred copyright as part of their service, so the holder of the item's patent would also hold the lion's share of the image rights as well. if you are dealing with a hard-goods item, i would touch base with the manufacturer : most are thrilled to get free exposure for their product and will grant consent. you can also search any given image via the CR offices online, but if the owner has privately CR'd it (see above) it will not come up.
best bet is to take your own pix, and check with the company the item is sold by if applicable.
I am giving up on FM I think. I have been submitting my own photography to Cyska who takes the copyright stuff pretty seriously. And there are some items I own that are hard to really tell if they'd be copyrighted. I have some Alice in Wonderland stuff that I would love to put in a shop, but I have not tried because I have a feeling that while I own the items, using them for commercial purposes might not be the best idea...
DeleteAlso, I sent an email to you...
there are so MANY Alice versions that it would depend, i suppose...the original Tenniel illstrations are in public domain to the best of my knowledge, but i'm sure Disney is tightly clutching theirs, lol. if they are knicknacks, simply contacting the manufacturer is usally enough - generally they welcome the free advertising. (and probably don't care about being paid in FDs or CDs, lol)
Delete